You Have To Read The Texts Uncovered In The Judge/ Biglaw Partner Romantic Scandal – Above the Law

There
is
still

more
fallout

from
the

ethical
lapse

that
allowed
the
once-secret
relationship
between

former
judge

David
R.
Jones
and
attorney
Elizabeth
Freeman
to
go
unreported
for
years.
As
a
quick
recap,
the
(now
former)
federal
bankruptcy
judge
was
romantically
linked
with
the
(now
former)
bankruptcy
partner
of
a
major
law
firm

Jackson
Walker

and
continued
to
hear
cases
involving
that
partner/law
firm.

In
the
wake
of
the
scandal,
a
fee
dispute
involving
Jackson
Walker
emerged.
The
Justice
Department’s
bankruptcy
monitor,
the
U.S.
Trustee,
is
seeking
to
claw
back
$18
million
in
fees
paid
to
Jackson
Walker
in
33
cases
handled
by
Jones
while
he
and
Freeman
were
in
a
relationship.
Now

Bloomberg
Law
reports

on
text
messages
between
Freeman
and
her
colleagues
that
show
how
the
dynamic
between
the
bankruptcy
judge
and
bankruptcy
attorney
played
out.

Days
before
Jackson
Walker
filed
the
JCPenney
Chapter
11
case,
Freeman
texted
a
colleague,
“Talked
to
Jones.
He’s
got
us.”
And
that
seemingly
cued
legal
machinations
to
ensure
JCPenney’s
case
was
heard
by
Jones.

On
May
12,
2020,
three
days
before
department
store
retailer
JCPenney
filed
for
bankruptcy,
Freeman
texted
her
colleague
Veronica
Polnick
and
told
her
the
company
planned
to
file
its
Chapter
11
case
in
Corpus
Christi,
Texas,
according
to
texts
displayed
in
records
viewed
by
Bloomberg
Law.
Jackson
Walker
was
serving
as
local
counsel
to
JCPenney’s
lead
bankruptcy
lawyers
at
Kirkland
&
Ellis
LLP.

Corpus
Christi
is
one
of
seven
court
locations
within
the
Southern
District
of
Texas
bankruptcy
court
district.
Under
the
local
rules,
a
filing
in
that
location
would
guarantee
that
Jones
would
be
assigned
the
case
if
it
wasn’t
immediately
designated
as
“complex”—and
JCPenney’s
wasn’t.

Freeman
told
Polnick
on
May
12
that
there
were
“too
many
fights”
in
the
JCPenney
case
and
that
the
company
couldn’t
afford
a
“process
hawk,”
referring
to
Jones’
judicial
colleague
and
friend,
Judge
Marvin
Isgur.

Isgur
would
instead
get
the
bankruptcy
of
Ultra
Petroleum
Corp.,
Freeman
told
Polnick.
Ultra,
which
was
also
represented
by
Kirkland
and
Jackson
Walker,
filed
for
Chapter
11
on
May
14,
the
day
before
JCPenney.
Ultra’s
case
ended
up
being
assigned
to
Isgur,
just
as
Freeman
said.

“They
know
Jones
will
cut
through
the
bullshit,”
Freeman
told
Polnick
about
the
JCPenney
case.
“Not
so
much
a
case
of
dodging
Isgur.”

The
exchange
between
Freeman
and
Polnick
continued,
with
Freeman
saying,
“Jones
has
been
softening
up
for
this
for
a
month.”
And,
“We
are
keeping
this
down
loooooooowww.”

In
the
JCPenney
bankruptcy,
Jones
approved
~$1
million
in
legal
fees
for
Jackson
Walker.
Of
that,
~$286,000
came
from
Freeman’s
fees.
The
fees
in
the
JCPenney
bankruptcy
are
among
those
disputed
by
the
U.S.
Trustee.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
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].

Elon Musk Changes X Terms To Push All Disputes Toward Tesla-Investor Federal Judge – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Apu
Gomes/Getty
Images)

Elon
Musk
didn’t
get
where
he
is
without
taking
risks.
And
“where
he
is”
involves
having

epically
botched
a
merger
agreement

requiring
him
to
drop
roughly
$44B
of
his
own
(and

Diddy’s!
)
money
into
a
company
while

driving
up
the
legal
expenses
he
would
eventually
own

and
then
proceeding
to

obliterate
almost
80
percent
of
the
company’s
value
.
But
you
can’t
make
an
omelette
without
inviting
Nazis
to
help
you
break
some
eggs!

However,
one
risk
Musk
isn’t
taking
is
in
handling
the
legal
fallout
of
his
tenure
as
self-described
Chief
Twit.

For
those
playing
along
at
home,
due
to

the
Northern
District
of
Texas’s
one-stop-forum-shop
rules


which
they’ve
defended
even
as
the
rest
of
the
federal
judiciary

urged
them
not
to
drag
the
credibility
of
the
courts
into
the
mud


a
case
filed
in
the
Tarrant
courthouse
has
a
massively
good
chance
of
ending
up
in
front
of
O’Connor.
That
said,
the
language
did
NOT
choose
to
send
everything
to
Wichita
Falls,
the
courthouse
that
would

guarantee

O’Connor
heard
the
case.
I’m
assuming
X’s
lawyers
didn’t
want
to
have
to
drive
the
extra
hour
and
a
half
every
time.
In
Tarrant
County,
there’s
an
equal
chance
(45
percent)
that
the
matter
would
draw
Judge
Mark
Pittman

also
appointed
by
Trump

and
a
small
chance
of
getting
Senior
Judge
Terry
Means

a
George
H.W.
Bush
appointee.

Judge
Reed
O’Connor

owns
a
whole
lot
of
Tesla
stock
,
a
functional
meme
stock
tied
to
Musk’s
persona.
Lest
there
be
any
doubt
that
Tesla
functions
as
an
empty
signifier
for
investors
betting
on
Musk
as
an
individual,
he’s
managed
to
convince
the
shareholders
to
award
him
a
compensation
package
so
divorced
from
Tesla’s
worth
as
a
company
that
it
amounts
to
roughly
half
the
company’s
total
assets.

Delaware
courts
aren’t
so
sure
about
that
one
.

In
Musk’s
SLAPP
suit
against
Media
Matters,
the
advocacy
group
challenged
X’s
certification
of
financially
interested
parties
for
not
including
Tesla

the
public
company
whose
fortunes
rise
and
fall
with
Musk’s
private
travails.
An
agitated

O’Connor
dismissed
the
notion
out
of
hand

and
then
ordered
Media
Matters
to
cover
the
attorneys’
fees
involved
in
lieu
of
missing
an
opportunity
to
preside
over
a
case
between
Musk
and
progressive
fact
checkers.

To
be
clear,
O’Connor
has
recused
himself
from
another
X
case
after
the
public
learned
of
his
Tesla
investment…
he
just
doesn’t
seem
to
want
to
let
go
of

this

one.

O’Connor
has
had
a
busy
week
in
the
headlines,
because
he’s
also
held
up
the
DOJ’s
plea
agreement
with
Boeing
over
the
airline’s
deadly
accidents
because

despite
no
challenge
by
any
party


he
wants
to
confirm
that
the
independent
monitor
won’t
be
a
DEI
hire

whatever
the
hell
that
means.

The
Media
Matters
case
is
one
that
only
a
hack
could
love.
After
promising
advertisers
that
the
service
could
prevent
their
brand
from

ever

appearing
next
to
white
supremacist
content,
Media
Matters
proved
that
it
was
entirely
possible
that
respectable
brands
could
appear
next
to
white
supremacist
content.
Musk’s
company
claims
that
Media
Matters
had
to
create
some
really
racist
profiles
to
get
those
results,
which
is
true
but
sort
of
misses
the
point
that
(a)
there
are
real
people
with
really
racist
profiles,
(b)
X
promised
that
mainstream
advertisers
wouldn’t
be
visible
in
those
feeds,
and
(c)
MAINSTREAM
ADVERTISERS
WERE
TOTALLY
VISIBLE
IN
THOSE
FEEDS.

One
of
the
big
requirements
of
all
the
causes
of
action
in
this
case
is
that
the
statement
be,
you
know,

false
.

When
making
unequivocal
promises
that
the
platform
will
prevent
advertisers
from
being
featured
next
to
this
content,
it’s
not
really
sufficient
to
say
it
“probably
won’t”
happen.
That
would
be
like
unequivocally
promising
a
self-driving
car
that’s
only
probably
won’t
veer
into
a
wall
or
burst
into
flames.

But
putting
aside
the
merits
of
O’Connor’s
decision
at
the
time,
the
revelation
that
X
has
rearranged
its
terms
of
service
to
stack
the
deck
toward
getting
him
as
their
judge
should
be
worth…
something.

Even
if
a
judge
didn’t
think
his
growing
portfolio
of
Tesla
stock
equated
to
a
personal
financial
stake
in
Elon’s
X/Twitter
vanity
project,
learning
that

X
itself

appears
to
believe
the
judge
is
sufficiently
in
the
tank
to
rewrite
the
terms
of
service
to
place
most
of
their
chips
on
ending
up
in
his
courtroom


even
though
X
is
not
even
headquartered
in
that
district


should
give
pause
that,
at
the
very
least,
there’s
an
appearance
of
impropriety.

It
doesn’t
matter
if
the
appearance
of
impropriety
is
the
fault
of
a
party
and
not
the
judge.
The
fact
that
we’re
even
talking
about
this
crazy
change
to
the
terms
of
service
has
created
an
indelible
appearance
of
impropriety.

Let’s
not
hold
our
breath
though.


Earlier
:

Media
Matters
Isn’t
Saying
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
Is
Conflicted.
They’re
Just
Saying
That
He
Stands
To
Financially
Benefit
From
Twitter
SLAPP
Suit.


Judge
Reed
O’Connor
Seems
To
Own
Too
Much
Tesla
To
Rule
Against
CVS,
Just
Enough
To
Rule
Against
Liberal
Fact-Checkers




HeadshotJoe
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
.

The Questions To Make Digital Vaults Your Competitive Advantage – Above the Law

Do
you
know
everything
about
all
your
firm’s
private
clients,
their
assets,
and
legal
matters?

That’s
a
tall
order
in
many
private
client
teams,
so
what
happens
if
the
colleague
who
works
on
a
particular
client
is
suddenly
unavailable,
for
instance
if
they’re
off
sick
or
unreachable
on
vacation?

If
a
client
wants
some
information,
access
to
a
particular
document,
or
advice
on
something
specific,
can
you
give
it
to
them
straight
away?

All
too
often
the
answer
is
“no.”
But
if
your
firm
gives
your
clients
their
own
digital
vault,
which
you
can
both
use
can
use
as
a
single
source
of
truth
for
all
their
affairs,
then
the
answer
will
be
“yes.”

In
an
increasingly
commoditized
market,
this
could
really
impress
your
clients,
helping
to
strengthen
relationships
and
set
you
apart
from
the
competition.

Clients
want
responsive,
easy-to-understand,
affordable
services
that
give
them
comfort
that
everything
is
in
hand.
Digital
vaults
can
help
you
tick
all
those
boxes.

At
the
same
time,
firms
are
looking
to
do
more
with
less
by
identifying
efficiency
gains
to
improve
profitability
and
maintain
or
grow
fee
income.
There
may
even
be
opportunities,
especially
for
larger
firms,
to
identify
synergies
between
their
private
client
work
and
their
corporate/commercial
teams,
so
that
they
can
unlock
cross-selling
opportunities.

In
addition,
they
want
to
differentiate
themselves
from
rivals
and
compete
for
wallet
share
of
lucrative
high
net
worth
clients.

By
storing
all
a
client’s
information
and
documentation
for
their
wills,
trusts,
property
and
other
assets,
and
tax
work
in
a
“digital
vault,”
law
firms
can
give
themselves
an
advantage.

Download
this
eBook
from
our
friends
at
Thomson
Reuters
below
to
see
how
your
firm
can
find
success
with
digital
vaults.


Download
Now

Newly Merged Biglaw Megafirm Moves To All-Equity Partnership Model, Adopts New Partner Pay System – Above the Law

During
a
time
when
Biglaw
firms
are
shying
away
from
all-equity
partnerships
and
creating
non-equity
partnership
tiers,
a
brand
new
megafirm
is
taking
a
stand
and
adopting
an
all-equity
partnership
model.

A&O
Shearman

formed
from
the
union
of
Allen
&
Overy
and
Shearman
&
Sterling,
with
nearly
4,000
lawyers,
including
800
partners

recently
announced
that
it
will
operate
under
an
all-equity
partnership
structure.
Both
legacy
firms
had
a
mixture
of
equity-
and
non-equity
partnerships,
so
this
new
framework
is
markedly
different
for
attorneys
at
the
firm.

In
addition
to
the
new
partnership
configuration,
the
firm
announced
a
new
pay
plan
for
partners.
The

American
Lawyer

has
additional
information:

Under
the
new
system,
the
firm’s
800
or
so
partners
will
be
assigned
to
one
of
three
rungs
on
a
modified
lockstep,
called
‘entry’,
‘core’
and
‘super’,
the
latter
of
which
is
reserved
for
the
firm’s
best
performers,
or
“highflyers”,
as
one
of
the
sources
put
it.

Commenting
on
the
changes,
an
A&O
Shearman
spokesperson
said:
“Our
approach
to
partner
remuneration
for
A&O
Shearman
is
designed
to
allow
the
firm
the
flexibility
to
compete
for
and
retain
the
very
top
talent
while
encouraging
and
rewarding
the
maxmium
level
of
collaboration
and
teamwork,
which
bests
serves
our
clients
and
partnership
culture.”

The
news
of
A&O
Shearman’s
new
partnership
layout
comes
hot
on
the
heels
of
the
firm
announcing
that
it
would

cut
10%
of
its
equity
partnership

by
April
2025.
Those
affected
by
the
decision
have
already
been
notified.

Best
of
luck
to
the
firm
as
it
embarks
upon
a
new

and
hopefully
prosperous

partnership
plan.


A&O
Shearman
Adopts
3-Level
Lockstep
Pay
Model
Amid
Shift
to
All-Equity
Partnership

[American
Lawyer]



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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
.

Trump’s Likely FCC Boss, Brendan Carr, Tries To Undermine Popular Infrastructure Bill Broadband Improvements – Above the Law

States
are
poised
to
receive $42.5
billion
in
broadband
grants
 thanks
to
the
2021
infrastructure
bill.
While
a
lot
of
this
money
will
be
going
to
the
usual
entrenched
monopoly
incumbents,
a
lot
of
it
is also going
to
a
growing
list
of
popular cooperatives,
municipalities,
and
city-owned
utilities
 to
expand
affordable
fiber.

This Broadband
Equity
Access
and
Deployment
 (BEAD)
program
is
going
to
help
bring
a
lot
of
competition
and
new
fiber
into
numerous
markets.
So,
as
per
obstructionist
party
tradition,
Republicans
are
trying
to
kill
or
undermine
it
at
every
possibility.

Republicans
voted
against
the
program,
but
then
immediately
turned
around
and took
credit
for
the
local
improvements
among
their
constituents
.
They
worked
tirelessly
to
try
and
keep
this
money
from driving
competition
into
Comcast
and
AT&T
markets
.
They’ve
also
launched
show
hearings
after
learning
that
the
BEAD
program
is
(gasp) trying
to
make
sure
this
new
broadband is
affordable
to
poor
people
.

Then
there’s
Trump
FCC
pick
Brendan
Carr.
Carr,
you’ll
recall,
spends
all
of
his
time whining
about
TikTok
 (a
sector
he
doesn’t
regulate),
but
none
of
it
on
helping
telecom
consumers
(a
sector
he
actually
regulates).
And
when
he
can
focus
on
telecom,
it’s
generally
either
to
lobotomize
corporate
oversight,
or
do
some
favor
for
unpopular
companies
like
Comcast
and
AT&T.

Like
this
new
missive
in the
Wall
Street
Journal
 (paywall)
that
tries
to
claim
the
BEAD
program
is
a
“flop”
because
it
has
taken
some
time
to
implement
it:


“Kamala
Harris lamented
recently
that
“in
America,
it
takes
too
long
and
it
costs
too
much
to
build.”
She’s
right.
But
she
failed
to
mention
that
those
costly
delays
are
a
feature,
not
a
bug,
of
her
progressive
policies.”

What
Carr doesn’t say
is
that
a
primary
reason
it
has
taken
three
years
to
get
this
component
of
the
infrastructure
bill
off
the
ground was
a
direct
result
of
Carr’s
own
incompetence
.
The
Trump
and
Ajit
Pai
FCC
(of
which
Carr
was
a
key
member) completely
mismanaged
the
FCC’s
$20.4
billion
Rural
Digital
Opportunity
Fund
(RDOF)
,
resulting
in
billions
of
dollars
in
fraud
and
various
delays.

The
Pai
FCC’s
mismanagement
of
RDOF
was so severe,
when
it
came
time
for
the
Biden
administration
to
put
an
agency
in
charge
of
the
BEAD
program, it
selected
the
NTIA
instead
of
the
FCC
.
That’s
directly
on
Carr;
but
he
just
(whoops)
doesn’t
mention
that
bit.

Progress
has
been
slow
because
the
NTIA
has
been
trying
to
do
all
of
the
stuff
the
FCC
failed
to
do,
like properly
map
broadband
access
 to
ensure
the
money
is
spent
properly.
And
do
a
better
job
screening
applicants
to
make
sure
they
can
actually
deliver
the
broadband
networks
they
promise.

The
Carr
and
Pai
FCC
didn’t
bother
with
this
last
bit,
resulting
in
a
long
line
of
RDOF
applicants
(including
Musk’s
Starlink)
getting
billions
of
dollars
they
didn’t
deserve,
for
projects
they
couldn’t
build.
That
resulted
in
a
ton
of
defaulting
bidders,
and
it
has
taken
years
for
the
Biden
FCC
to clean
up
the
Trump
FCC’s
mess
.
Worse,
some
of
the
communities
stuck
in
default
over
RDOF
bids
now can’t
qualify
for
BEAD
funds
,
boxing
them
out
of
a
generational
broadband
funding
opportunity
due
to
Trump
FCC
incompetence.

Starlink
in
particular
was
poised
to
receive
nearly
a
billion
dollars
from
Trump
to
deliver
expensive,
satellite
access
to a
handful
of
airport
parking
lots
and
traffic
medians
.
The
Biden
FCC
(correctly)
retracted
that
award,
stating
it
wasn’t
clear
that
the increasingly
congested
Starlink
network
 could
actually
deliver
consistently
promised
speeds.
They
also
said
Starlink
access
was
expensive,
instead
redirecting
these
funds
toward
more
“future
proof”
and
affordable
local
fiber
and
wireless
access.
I’ve criticized
the
Biden
FCC
plenty
;
but
on
this
particular
point
they
were
absolutely
correct.

Still,
Musk
and
Republicans
have
been
throwing
a
noisy
hissy
fit
ever
since.
Carr
continues
it
in
the
pages
of
the
Journal,
falsely
claiming
the
FCC
engaged
in
“regulatory
warfare”
because
it
didn’t
give
a
billionaire
a
billion
dollars
for
slow,
expensive
broadband
access:


“As
I
noted
in
my
dissent
at
the
time,
the
FCC’s
revocation
couldn’t
be
explained
by
any
objective
application
of
the
facts,
the
law
or
sound
policy.
In
my
view,
it
amounted
to
nothing
more
than
regulatory
lawfare
against
one
of
the
left’s
top
targets:
Musk.
Rural
communities
stuck
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
digital
divide
are
paying
the
price.”

That
the
GOP
cares
about
the
“digital
divide”
is
a
fiction.
That
the
party
cares
about
funding
broadband
access
to
rural
communities
is
a
fiction.
That
the
party
cares
about
government
being
efficient
with
taxpayer
money
is
a
fiction.

Republicans
have
fought
against
improving
the
quality
and
affordability
of
broadband
access
for
the
better
part
of
thirty
years,
both
by
undermining
regional
competition,
and
by
dismantling
what’s
left
of
corporate
oversight
and
consumer
protection.
It
routinely
goes
out
of
its
way
to
protect
entrenched
monopolies
like
AT&T
and
Comcast
from
competition
and
accountability at
every
turn
.

Carr’s
goal
is
to
paint
the
BEAD
infrastructure
bill
program
as
a
boondoggle,
knowing
full
well
money
from
the
popular
program
will
begin
to
flow
to
local
constituents after the
election
season.
As
with
all
government
programs
BEAD
certainly will
have
problems
,
but
in
this
instance
the
NTIA
is actually
trying
to
do
things
right
.
That
takes
time.

BEAD will have
a
transformative
impact
on
many
rural,
disconnected
markets.
I
know
this
because
part
of
my
work
involves talking
to
a
different
red
or
blue
municipality
every
single
week
,
which
all
tell
me
they’re
poised
for
some
amazing
improvements.
And
Carr
certainly
doesn’t
want
locals
understanding
that
Republicans
have
tried
to
dismantle
a
popular
program that’s
actually
benefiting
them
.

Should
Trump
win
the
White
House,
you
can
be
fairly
certain
Carr
will
be
the
next
agency
boss.
He’s
outlined
what
he’ll
do
in
his
Project
2025
chapter
on
how
the
FCC
should
be
run,
which
largely
involves
repurposing
the
agency
to harass,
tax,
and
nanny
tech
companies
 that
don’t
kiss
the
authoritarian
ring,
and
harass
media
companies
that
speak
critically
of
King
Trump.

You
can
be
absolutely
sure
Carr
will
redirect
as
much
BEAD
money
as
possible
to
Elon
Musk
and
monopolies
like
AT&T,
and
dismantle
the
most
useful
parts
of
BEAD
(like
the
efforts
to
fund
popular
community-owned
broadband
networks).
Carr
is
a
Trump
sycophant
of
the
highest
order,
and
if
he’s
put
in
charge
of
the
nation’s
biggest
telecom
and
media
regulator,
the
dysfunction
won’t
be
subtle.


Trump’s
Likely
FCC
Boss,
Brendan
Carr,
Tries
To
Undermine
Popular
Infrastructure
Bill
Broadband
Improvements


More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:


New
FTC
Rules
Make
It
Easier
To
Cancel
Services,
Punish
Companies
For
Being
Annoying
Little
Shits
About
It


Federal
Monitor
Expands
Consent
Decree
To
Cover
PD’s
Stop-And-Frisk
Shift
To
Traffic
Stops


Steam
Finally
Makes
It
Clear:
You’re
Buying
A
License,
Not
A
Game

Morning Docket: 10.18.24 – Above the Law

*
The
rate
increases
will
continue
until
morale
improves.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Indian
foreign
intelligence
official
charged
with
attempting
to
assassinate
New
York
attorney.
See…
this
is
why
you
have
to
be
careful
about
rate
increases.
[Law360]

*
Just
when
you
thought
the
“bankruptcy
judge
living
with
an
attorney
practicing
before
him”
story
couldn’t
get
worse…
this
happens.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
It
turns
out
that,
no,
Ron
DeSantis
cannot
threaten
to
prosecute
TV
stations
for
airing
ads
encouraging
people
to
vote
against
his
preferred
ballot
measure.
[CNN]

*
Man
charged
in
the
Trump
golf
course
assassination
plot
asks
Aileen
Cannon
to
recuse
herself
on
the
grounds
that
Trump’s
incessant
praise
of
her
creates
the
appearance
of
impropriety.
Her
rulings
in
the
documents
case
remove
all
doubt
about
the
impropriety
but
he’s
showing
respectful
restraint.
[Politico]

*
Execution
based
on
debunked
science
halted
by
Texas
Supreme
Court
when
a
bipartisan
group
of
state
legislators
sought
to
block
the
killing
after
the
US
Supreme
Court
shrugged
on
Thursday.
[CBS]

*
Former
partner
suspended
for
telling
junior
to
lie
to
client.
[Roll
on
Friday
]

Who Knew The Simpsons Were So Educational? – See Also – Above the Law




<br /> Who<br /> Knew<br /> The<br /> Simpsons<br /> Were<br /> So<br /> Educational?<br /> –<br /> See<br /> Also<br /> –<br /> Above<br /> the<br /> Law


























This Law School Is Getting A Lot Of Supreme Experience – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


Which
top
14
law
school’s
clinics
have
three
cases
in
front
of
the
Supreme
Court
this
Term?


Hint:
Three
different
statutes
are
at
issue
in
the
cases:
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964,
the
Employee
Retirement
Income
Security
Act,
and
the
Prison
Litigation
Reform
Act.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

DLA Piper Alleges Mom-To-Be Fired Because Of Her ‘Catastrophic Blunders’ – Above the Law

It’s
not
me.
It’s
you.

Pregnancy
can
come
with
some
pretty
big
surprises

one
of
them
being
getting
fired
before
you
could
take
maternity
leave.
Anisha
Mehta, 
is

suing
Biglaw
firm
DLA
Piper

for
firing
her
6
days
after
she
made
her
request.

Bloomberg
Law

has
coverage:

DLA
Piper
LLP
says
a
former
senior
associate
was
fired
for
“a
series
of
increasingly
catastrophic
blunders”
and
her
lawsuit
should
be
dismissed
because
she
can’t
prove
her
pregnancy
bias,
leave
interference,
and
retaliation
claims.

The
intellectual
property
attorney
also
shouldn’t
get
a
trial
because
she
“regularly
turned
in
sloppy
work
product”
even
though
she
was
a
seventh-year
associate,
the
international
law
firm
said
Tuesday
in
seeking
summary
judgment
in
the
case.
The
two
Intellectual
Property
and
Trademark
Group
partners
with
whom
she
most
regularly
worked
quickly
grew
disappointed
with
her
abilities
and
concluded
that
she
wasn’t
capable
of
meeting
the
firm’s
expectations
for
an
associate
of
her
seniority
level,
DLA
Piper
said.

Quite
the
bombshell
to
drop
before
a
pregnancy
leave!
It
is
worth
recalling
that
DLA
Piper
has
a
history
of
making
baffling
employee
calls
when
it
comes
to
raising
children


they

did

slash
their
parental
leave
benefits
by
6
weeks
for
no
clear
reason
earlier
this
year
.

After
Mehta
disclosed
her
pregnancy,
she
noted
that
the
partner
that
ultimately
fired
her
said
that
she
should
take
full
advantage
of
her
leave
before
transitioning
back
to
work.
That
seems
like
advice
to
ease
someone
in
their
recovery
and
return,
not
a
polite
way
to
direct
them
toward
LinkedIn.
A
couple
of
the
errors
the
firm
noted
were
typos
Mehta
made
in
internal
documents
like
using
the
wrong
company
name
or
country,
but
those
hardly
seem
to
be

that

catastrophic
considering
that
the
mistakes
were
caught
before
they
left
the
firm.


DLA
Piper
Says
Associate
Fired
Over
Performance,
Not
Pregnancy

[Bloomberg
Law]



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

DISCO Takes Cecilia AI Platform to EU and UK – Above the Law

In
a
move
extending
generative
AI’s
global
reach
in
the
legal
industry,
DISCO
announced
the
launch
of
its
Cecilia
AI
Platform
across
the
European
Union
and
the
UK.
Note
how
we
said,
“European
Union
and
the
UK”
as
opposed
to
just
“European
Union”
there?
The
UK
blew
up
its
whole
economy
just
so
we
have
to
append
its
name
separately!
Brilliant
trade-off.

Alas,
Cecilia
AI
promises
to
streamline
the
data-heavy
lift
of
modern
document
review
and
ediscovery,
aiming
to
turn
days
and
weeks
of
discovery
work
into
hours.

Getting
AI
into
the
hands
of
the
European
market
requires
navigating
Europe’s
complex
regulatory
environment.
The
EU’s
Artificial
Intelligence
Act
erected
a
framework
to
address
the
risks
and
ethical
concerns
posed
by
AI,
introducing
stringent
requirements
on
transparency,
accountability,
and
the
ability
to
explain
AI
decisions.
Satisfying
Europe’s
call
for
visibility
in
AI
decision
making
involves
a
little
extra
work
than
in
the
U.S.,
but
in
addition
to
the
products
launched
this
week,
DISCO
expects
to
have
more
generative
AI
tools
in
that
market
in
2025.

With
this
launch,
DISCO
introduces
Cecilia
Q&A
to
the
European
market.
This
AI
fact
expert
is
fully
integrated
within
a
user’s
DISCO
Ediscovery
database.
Lawyers
can
interrogate
their
document
sets
directly,
receiving
quick,
citation-backed
answers
that
highlight
key
documents
swimming
within
the
terabytes
of
data.
It’s
a
tool
designed
to
put
eyes
on
the
most
important
documents
quickly
and
efficiently.
Or,
if
the
attorney
wants,
there’s
a
single-document
version
of
Q&A
that
limits
the
interrogation
to
one
item.
All
of
which
is
done
without
sourcing
source
information
from
online,
with
answers
limited
to
the
information
within
a
customer’s
specific
database.

Basically
keeping
AI
from
hallucinating
by
cutting
off
access
to
the
internet
shrooms.

And
the
document
summary
function
creates
the
reader’s
digest
version
of
lengthy,
complex
or
important
documents
to
speed
up
the
all-too-familiar
process
of
slogging
through
a
long
document
only
to
realize
it’s
totally
irrelevant.

Which
gets
back
to
the
theme
I
took
away
from
my
ILTACON
meeting
with
DISCO


generative
AI’s
most
powerful
application
might
just
be
its
appeal
as
an
interface
.
Legal
tech
has
had
the
power
to
deliver
a
lot
of
these
insights
for
a
while.
Providing
material
relevant
to
a
query
or
generating
a
‘Key
Word
In
Context’
style
summary
existed
before.
But
now,
AI’s
ability
to
offer
a
natural,
conversational
interface

delivering
coherent,
easily
reviewed
results

makes
a
difference.

But
something
about
generative
AI
products
have
proven
more
accessible
to
the
lawyerly
mind.
Personally,
I
think
it’s
the

iterative
nature
of
the
interface
.
Prior
technology
could
only
answer
the
most
recent
query
and
left
it
to
the
user
to
figure
out
if
their
prompt
delivered
the
right
result.
Hunting
and
pecking
but
with
inquiries.
Generative
AI
learns
from
its
interactions
with
the
user
mimicking
the
back-and-forth
between
a
partner
and
associate
and
improving
the
results
incrementally.
This
dynamic
interface
feels
more
intuitive
to
lawyers,
who
are
used
to
a
process
of
refining
insights
through
dialogue.

And
occasionally
yelling.

Whatever
it
is,
studies
reveal
that
these
AI
tools
have
brought
many
senior
attorneys
to
technology
for
the
first
time
when
they
would
historically
farm
that
work
out
to
juniors
or
outside
providers.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
if
the
European
and
UK
contingent
follow
their
American
counterparts
in
embracing
this
tech.

Because
technology
is
only
useful
if
it
gets
used.




HeadshotJoe
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
.