The
modern
workplace
is
fast
evolving.
Law
firms
need
to
adapt
to
these
changes
and
empower
their
staff
to
carry
out
their
jobs
efficiently.
New
technologies
such
as
Generative
AI
can
help
to
make
some
of
their
jobs
easier.
Join
us
on
November
7th
at
1
p.m.
ET
for
this
webinar
presented
by
our
friends
at
iManage.
You
will
hear
from
Alex
Smith,
former
Innovation
Manager
at
Reed
Smith,
and
Jack
Shepherd,
former
insolvency
and
legal
tech
lawyer
at
Freshfields
Bruckhaus
Deringer,
as
they
share
best
practices
on
how
law
firms
can
leverage
AI
to
provide
their
staff
with
real-time
collaboration
and
faster
access
to
knowledge.
The
session
will
focus
on:
Common
use
cases
across
the
matter
lifecycle
Old
manual
way
versus
new
way
assisted
by
technology
From
task
management
to
deal
closings-
how
to
remove
the
mundane
Every
state
in
the
country
has
at
least
one
physical
law
school
—
except
for
one.
Alaska,
which
is
often
categorized
as
a
“legal
desert,”
does
not
have
a
brick-and-mortar
law
school,
but
thanks
to
an
innovative
educational
partnership,
that’s
about
to
change.
As
first
reported
by
Alaska’s
News
Source,
the
University
of
Alaska
Anchorage
and
Seattle
University
School
of
Law
are
working
together
to
create
the
Alaska
Hybrid
Hub,
which
will
allow
prospective
law
students
to
attend
law
school
in
their
home
state,
without
relocating.
Here’s
some
additional
information:
The
Hybrid
Hub
mirrors
the
Seattle
University
Flex
JD
program,
a
part-time
hybrid
model
allowing
students
to
attend
occasional
in-person
weekend
class
sessions
in
Seattle,
and
complete
the
rest
of
their
legal
education
on
the
UAA
campus.
Alumni
from
both
universities
offered
their
support
of
the
program,
some
planning
to
eventually
make
themselves
available
for
networking
events
and
eventually
take
on
directing
roles
at
UAA.
Staff
with
both
institutions
signed
a
memorandum
on
of
understanding
on
Thursday
which
aims
to
establish
the
hybrid
hub.
Best
of
luck
to
the
University
of
Alaska
Anchorage
and
Seattle
Law
as
they
embark
upon
this
unique
partnership
together.
Prospective
law
students
in
Alaska
will
be
thankful
that
they
finally
have
a
home
base
within
the
state
where
they
can
study
law.
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.
It’s
been
a
while
since
I
wrote
an
article
about
personal
finance,
even
though
I
started
my
column
here
at
Above
the
Law
over
seven
years
ago
almost
exclusively
discussing
student
loans
and
related
subjects.
However,
I
was
recently
discussing
some
personal
finance
decisions
with
friends,
and
it
made
me
think
of
one
of
the
biggest
financial
mistakes
I
made
as
a
young
attorney
—
one
that
I
hope
other
lawyers
will
not
make
themselves.
If
your
law
firm
offers
an
employer
match
to
a
401(k)
account,
it
almost
always
makes
sense
to
contribute
up
to
that
cap
to
your
401(k)
even
if
you
have
student
loans
or
other
related
financial
commitments
to
consider.
Of
course,
not
all
law
firms
offer
employer
matches
to
401(k)
accounts.
I
once
worked
at
a
small
shop
that
did
not
offer
any
kind
of
match
for
employees
who
worked
at
that
law
firm
for
a
short
period.
However,
at
the
beginning
of
my
career,
I
worked
at
a
Biglaw
shop
that
offered
all
kinds
of
employee
benefits,
including
a
401(k)
employer
match.
The
employer
match
was
not
crazy
high,
but
it
was
well
into
the
four
figures.
Pretty
much
everyone
around
the
office
contributed
enough
money
to
their
401(k)
accounts
so
that
they
could
maximize
the
amount
their
employer
would
match.
However,
I
decided
not
to
contribute
any
money
to
my
401(k)
at
that
time,
and
so
I
did
not
receive
any
benefit
of
the
employer
match.
At
the
time,
I
had
close
to
$200,000
of
student
loans,
and
I
was
singularly
focused
on
paying
off
this
debt
as
soon
as
possible.
About
$90,000
of
this
debt
had
an
interest
rate
close
to
8%,
so
I
reasoned
that
I
might
not
make
this
return
in
the
market
so
it
made
sense
to
defer
retirement
saving
until
after
my
student
loans
were
paid
off.
Many
people
around
the
office
pointed
out
that
this
was
a
bad
strategy
and
that
I
was
leaving
money
on
the
table
by
not
contributing
to
a
401(k)
plan
with
an
employer
match.
However,
I
reasoned
that
the
other
workers
did
not
know
what
it
was
like
to
live
with
crushing
student
debt
and
that
my
strategy
was
worthwhile
in
the
long
run.
I
definitely
regret
this
decision.
Even
if
I
could
not
make
more
than
the
interest
rate
of
my
debt
in
the
stock
market
(which
is
a
huge
“if”
considering
the
stock
market
has
been
on
an
absolute
tear
over
the
past
decade
or
so)
the
additional
funds
available
through
an
employer
match
would
have
made
up
for
this.
Moreover,
the
early
years
of
a
retirement
strategy
are
far
more
important
than
later
years
due
to
compounding
interest.
I
did
not
start
saving
for
retirement
until
shortly
before
I
turned
30,
which
is
better
than
some
people,
but
not
better
than
people
who
start
right
when
they
begin
their
legal
careers.
Whenever
I
compare
myself
to
people
who
started
saving
for
retirement
as
early
as
possible,
I
am
amazed
at
how
beneficial
that
head
start
was
toward
building
their
nest
eggs.
Young
lawyers
have
many
financial
pressures,
including
student
debt,
the
desire
to
save
money
to
purchase
a
home,
and
other
responsibilities.
It
might
be
difficult
for
first-year
lawyers
and
other
young
professionals
to
think
about
retirement,
especially
since
retirement
seems
far
off,
and
it
might
seem
like
other
goals
should
take
priority.
However,
the
value
of
saving
for
retirement
cannot
be
overstated:
if
lawyers
work
for
an
employer
that
offers
an
employee
match,
contributing
money
to
a
401(k)
to
receive
the
match
should
be
a
no-brainer.
Failure
to
contribute
money
to
benefit
from
an
employer
match
leaves
money
on
the
table
and
can
create
a
worse
financial
situation
than
if
the
individual
opened
a
401(k)
account
earlier.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
[email protected].
*
Gorsuch’s
new
book
presents
factually
inaccurate
record
to
advance
political
agenda.
Not
really
a
shocker
—
in
Bremerton
v.
Kennedy
the
dissent
explicitly
calls
him
out
for
his
propensity
for
making
up
facts.
[Politico]
*
Biglaw
firms
are
increasingly
suing
clients
over
unpaid
bills.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
is
overseeing
the
DOJ-Boeing
settlement
that
raises
real
questions
over
the
government
offering
a
sweetheart
deal
to
protect
a
company
from
a
damaging
trial
over
the
deadly
results
of
its
greedy
cost-cutting
measures.
So
obviously
O’Connor’s
biggest
concern
is
if
the
DOJ’s
proposed
independent
monitor
was
chosen
by
DEI
policies.
[Reuters]
*
Judge
in
trouble
for
ordering
restitution
that
went
to
himself
in
case
involving
damage
to
his
truck.
Judges
can’t
preside
over
cases
where
they
have
a
personal
financial
interest!
Who
does
this
guy
think
he
is,
a
Supreme
Court
justice?
[ABA
Journal]
*
Uncle
Luke
testifies
that
2
Live
Crew
songs
weren’t
works
for
hire…
unlike
Miami
football
in
the
90s,
amirite?
[Law360]
*
Everything
we
learn
about
the
RFK
Jr-Olivia
Nuzzi-Ryan
Lizza
situation
is
against
our
will.
[Daily
Beast]
*
Fortress
becomes
big
player
in
litigation
finance.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
According
to
the
most
recent
ABA
Profile
of
the
Legal
Profession’s
Chapter
on
Women,
what
percentage
of
law
firms
said
their
highest-paid
attorney
is
female?
Hint:
The
data,
from
2020,
indicates
that
“virtually
no
women”
were
among
the
highest
paid.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
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.
When
UnitedLex
this
week
announced
the
sudden
departure
of
James
Schellhase
from
his
position
as
chief
executive
officer,
it
seemed
a
mystery,
since
he
had
just
celebrated
his
one-year
anniversary
in
that
role
and
had
even
just
been
on
my
LawNext
podcast
to
reflect
on
that
year
—
an
interview
suggested
by
the
company.
Even
Schellhase’s
LinkedIn
profile
suddenly
disappeared.
But
the
day
after
his
departure,
video
was
posted
to
the
social
media
platform
X
showing
a
man
who
appears
to
be
Schellhase
being
confronted
by
a
group
of
four
men
associated
with
Dads
Against
Predators,
which
Wikipedia
says
is
a
vigilante
group
whose
members
pose
as
minors
on
the
internet
to
lure
men
into
filmed,
live
confrontations.
Elsewhere,
a
cofounder
of
the
group
posted
screenshots
alleged
to
show
chats
between
Schellhase
and
someone
he
thought
was
a
15-year-old,
arranging
to
meet.
I
have
no
way
of
confirming
the
veracity
of
any
of
these
allegations.
A
source
inside
UnitedLex
with
knowledge
of
the
situation
said
that
Schellhase’s
departure
had
nothing
to
do
with
his
work
there
or
any
sort
of
corporate
or
employment-related
malfeasance.
The
source
said
that
Schellhase
had
been
a
good
CEO
during
his
tenure
and
that
employees
had
been
excited
about
the
company’s
future
with
him
at
the
helm.
Heading
into
the
summer,
I
had
the
opportunity
to
open
a
dialogue
over
email
with
one
of
the
founders
of
a
set
of
tools
that
have
been
an
important
part
of
my
practice
for
years.
Because
I
believe
so
strongly
in
the
quality
and
importance
of
the
work
that
he
does,
I
suggested
that
we
do
a
written
interview
for
this
column
—
which
I
am
happy
to
bring
to
this
readership
now.
Let’s
get
introduced
to
Michael
Lissner
and
visit
with
him
about
the
evolution
of
his
well-known
work
around
increasing
access
to
the
legal
system
for
all
Americans.
Michael
is
a
co-founder
and
the
executive
director
of
Free
Law
Project
(FLP),
a
nonprofit
that
brings
innovation
and
equity
to
the
legal
ecosystem.
FLP
uses
open
tools
and
data
to
impact
tens
of
millions
of
people
each
month.
Since
its
inception
in
2010,
FLP
has
grown
and
now
provides
a
range
of
innovative
services,
including
CourtListener,
the
RECAP
Suite,
and
Bots.law.
These
platforms,
alongside
their
numerous
open-source
tools
for
data
collection
and
analysis,
empower
millions
of
users
—
from
journalists
and
academics
to
everyday
Americans.
(Their
work
is
important
and
I
encourage
those
interested
to
reach
out
to
FLP
with
inquiries
about
how
to
support
their
efforts.)
His
work
with
FLP
has
led
to
well-deserved
public
recognition.
Michael
is
a
FastCase
50
Honoree
and
has
been
awarded
the
Public
Access
to
Information
Award
from
the
American
Association
of
Law
Librarians.
I
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
share
Michael’s
insights
once
again
with
this
audience.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
Michael’s
answer
to
my
first
question
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
his
answer
as
he
provided
it.
Gaston
Kroub:
The
Free
Law
Project
has
had
some
notable
successes
over
the
years.
What
has
contributed
to
those
results?
Michael
Lissner:
The
Free
Law
Project’s
success
stems
from
its
mission
to
make
legal
information
more
accessible
and
transparent
to
everyone.
A
big
part
of
this
is
through
CourtListener,
our
free
platform
that
provides
access
to
millions
of
legal
opinions,
oral
arguments,
and
court
documents.
We’ve
also
worked
extensively
to
open
up
PACER
data,
which
is
usually
locked
behind
a
paywall,
by
archiving
and
advocating
for
reforms
there.
Our
partnerships
with
universities,
law
schools,
and
nonprofits
have
also
played
a
key
role,
helping
us
expand
our
resources
and
gain
support.
Plus,
we’re
strong
proponents
of
open-source
technology
—
our
tools
like
the
RECAP
browser
extension
make
it
easy
for
people
to
download
and
share
PACER
documents.
All
of
this,
combined
with
the
backing
of
the
legal
and
academic
communities
and
our
policy
advocacy
efforts,
has
allowed
us
to
push
for
real
changes
in
how
legal
information
is
accessed,
making
the
law
more
open
and
transparent.
GK:
Anyone
who
has
practiced
IP
litigation
knows
how
important
a
deft
hand
with
PACER
is.
It
takes
a
while
to
learn
how
to
use,
and
for
those
of
us
with
a
practice
that
is
national
in
scope,
there
is
often
an
acute
reliance
on
a
web
browser’s
stored
password
feature
to
get
access
to
the
different
cases
in
the
first
place.
For
that
reason,
even
though
I
generally
use
DocketNavigator
for
patent-related
searches,
I
have
also
started
to
turn
to
CourtListener
for
the
nonpatent
cases
that
I
am
tracking.
The
interface
is
quick
and
the
alert-setting
feature
is
especially
helpful
for
keeping
track
of
active
dockets
over
time.
And
I,
of
course,
am
always
pleased
when
a
document
I
am
looking
for
has
already
been
loaded
up
into
RECAP,
because
saving
money
is
always
fun
—
even
if
it’s
just
$.20
to
read
a
letter
on
some
discovery
dispute
in
a
case
of
interest.
That
said,
I
do
still
value
PACER
and
believe
it
is
essential
to
a
litigator’s
practice
and
the
goal
of
making
our
litigation
system
open
to
all.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
important
to
remember
that
PACER
is
a
tool
that
can
be
unwieldy
and
expensive,
especially
for
nonlawyers
to
use.
I
know
this
first-hand
from
my
consulting
work
for
hedge
funds
and
Wall
Street-research
shops.
The
tech-savvy
analysts
that
I
interact
with
can
sometimes
have
issues
utilizing
PACER
to
the
fullest,
which
makes
FLP’s
tools
a
welcome
addition
to
the
mix.
And
if
sophisticated
trading
types
have
issues
with
PACER
and
accessing
docket
information,
we
can
only
imagine
the
barriers
for
regular
folks.
FLP’s
important
work
to
increase
access
to
the
legal
system
is
thus
most
welcome
and
vital.
They
have
already
accomplished
a
lot,
in
my
view,
but
the
future
is
bright
in
terms
of
additional
innovation
by
Michael
and
his
colleagues
going
forward
as
well.
We
will
soon
continue
with
Michael’s
answers
to
questions
2
and
3.
In
the
meantime,
please
take
the
opportunity
to
sign
up
for
CourtListener
and
RECAP.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected]or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.
As
a
part
of
the
Legal
Marketing
Association’s
partnership
with
Above
the
Law,
each
month
we’re
here
to
share
a
roundup
of
insights
and
intel
from
Strategies
&
Voices,
the
online
trade
journal
dedicated
to
the
craft
of
legal
marketing.
Articles
in
this
edition
help
legal
marketers
research
a
budget,
plan
for
more
effective
cross-selling,
find
a
balance
between
AI
and
human
writing,
and
navigate
career
crossroads.
Money
for
Nothing?
Research
for
Free
Competitive
intelligence
is
a
growing
part
of
legal
marketers’
responsibilities,
but
not
every
firm
has
robust
budgets
for
research
tools.
In
Research
for
Free:
A
Treasure
Trove
of
Open
Access
Research
Tools
for
Better
Client
Relationships,
readers
receive
a
list
of
options
for
finding
free
information
on
clients
and
prospects,
as
well
as
monitoring
client-
and
industry-specific
trends
and
pain
points.
Key
tip:
You
can
discern
a
company’s
priorities
in
the
legal,
regulatory
and
compliance
realms
by
reviewing
their
lobbying
spend
on
sites
like
Open
Secrets.
A
Guide
to
Growing
Client
Relationships
It’s
cliche
because
it’s
true:
Expanding
business
with
current
clients
is
easier
than
landing
a
brand-new
client.
But
this
must
be
done
thoughtfully
to
ensure
your
efforts
enhance
—
and
not
jeopardize
—
your
most
important
relationships.
Key
tip:
Look
beyond
the
financials
when
you
are
evaluating
which
clients
to
target.
As
the
article
advises,
ask:
“Do
attorneys
at
the
firm
enjoy
working
with
them?
Do
they
pay
their
bills
on
time?”
Do
not
waste
your
time
developing
strategies
for
unsavory
candidates.
AI
and
Writers:
Finding
the
Right
Mix
While
AI
continues
to
dominate
headlines
in
the
business
and
legal
press,
it’s
especially
important
for
marketers
—
as
purveyors
of
the
written
word
—
to
know
when
and
how
to
deploy
tools
like
ChatGPT.
Key
tip:
Use
AI
to
refine
your
text
for
consistency
in
style
and
tone
–
especially
helpful
for
documents
that
might
have
multiple
lawyer
editors.
Bonus:
Take
Charge
of
Your
Career
In
the
latest
LMA
podcast,
three
legal
marketing
professionals
talk
about
how
and
when
to
plan
for
a
career
move.
Career
Crossroads:
Strategies
for
Growth
and
Success
can
help
listeners
build
proactive
strategies
for
long-term
growth
(and
happiness
too).
Do
you
have
a
compelling
case
study
about
your
firm,
or
marketing
insights
to
share?
Share
your
ideas
with
Strategies
&
Voices
today.
Katherine
(Katie)
Hollar
Barnard
is
the
managing
partner
of
Firesign
|
Enlightened
Legal
Marketing,
a
communications
agency
for
law
firms
and
legal
service
providers.
She
also
serves
as
co-chair
of
the
LMA’s
Strategies
&
Voices
editorial
committee.
Anecdotes
and
research
support
the
notion
that
oral
arguments
do
not
often
influence
case
outcomes.
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
said
as
much
in
an
interview
with
Bryan
Garner
for
the Scribes
Journal
in
2010:
“The
oral
argument
is
the
tip
of
the
iceberg
—
the
most
visible
part
of
the
process
—
but
the
briefs
are
more
important.”
In
fact,
a
series
of studies including my
own
work points
to
the
justices
generally
asking
more
questions
to
the
parties
they
eventually
vote
against
on
the
merits
which
corroborates
the
point
that
the
justices
often
know
the
way
they
will
vote
based
on
concerns
they
have
with
the
opposing
side’s
position
by
the
point
of
oral
argument.
Once
again,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
elaborated
on
this
point.
This
time
in
response
to
Garner’s
question:
“When
you
approach
an
oral
argument
as
a
judge,
to
what
extent
do
you
have
a
tentative
vote
in
mind?
Is
there
a
kind
of
rebuttable
presumption”?
Roberts
replied:
“It
really
varies
on
the
case.
Some
cases
seem
clear.
You
look
at
the
briefs,
and
you’re
just
not
persuaded
by
one
side,
and
you
are
by
another,
so
you
do
go
in
with
kind
of
.
.
.
I’m
kind
of
leaning
this
way.
Usually,
you’ve
got
concerns.
I’m
leaning
this
way,
but
I
need
a
better
answer
to
this
problem…So
even
when
you’re
tentatively
leaning,
you
have
issues
that
you
want
to
raise
that
give
the
other
side
a
chance
to
sway
you.”
In
the
same
set
of
interviews,
Justice
Scalia
pointed
to
why
attorneys
should
still
value
oral
arguments:
“…one
of
the
benefits
of
oral
argument
—
you
can
put
things
in
perspective
the
way
a
brief
can’t.
Say,
‘Your
Honor,
we
have
five
points
in
the
brief,
but
you
know,
what
we
think
is
the
most
important,
what
this
case
really
comes
down
to
.
.
.’
and
then
boom!
Hit
your
big
point.
And
I’ll
think,
‘Oh,
yeah,
I
read
your
brief
last
week,
and
all
I
remember
from
it
is
that
lengthy
point
three,
but
that’s
not
the
one
that
you
want
to
talk
about.’”
While
oral
arguments
may
not
often
sway
justices’
final
votes,
they
hold
significant
value
in
other
respects.
These
sessions
allow
justices
to
clarify
the
legal
issues,
test
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
both
sides,
and
signal
which
arguments
they
find
compelling
or
problematic.
This
process
frames
the
conversation
in
ways
that
can
affect
how
parties
refine
their
positions
and
how
cases
are
understood
by
the
public.
Litigating
attorneys,
through
these
exchanges,
often
gain
a
clearer
sense
of
where
each
justice’s
concerns
lie,
shaping
their
strategies
both
in
the
current
case
and
in
future
litigation.
Even
if
votes
are
often
predetermined,
a
justice’s
influence
during
argument
can
steer
the
conversation,
frame
legal
questions,
and
potentially
impact
the
policy
outcomes
or
legal
frameworks
that
emerge
from
a
case.
Maybe
it
is
time
to
rethink
the
value
of
oral
arguments
as
something
more
than
impacting
the
justices’
votes.
In
past,
I
and
others
have
focused on
the
idea
that
one
of
the
main
goals
of
oral
arguments
is
dominating
the
speaking
time
available
as
a
means
to
share
ideas
and
prevent
other
justices
from
talking.
Ultimately
though,
the
justices
that
speak
the
most
on
the
current
Court
tend
to
be
in
the
Court’s
majority
least
frequently.
Given
the
disconnect
between
majority
votes
and
speaking
time,
what
other
ways
can
we
measure
the
justices’
influences
in
oral
arguments?
The
answers
are
supplied
by
looking
at
oral
arguments
since
Justice
Jackson
joined
the
Court
at
the
beginning
of
the
2022
Supreme
Court
Term
and
moving
through
the
first
week
of
oral
arguments
during
this
2024
Term.
The
Tools
Imagine
a
group
of
people
at
a
dinner
party.
Some
people
speak
frequently,
while
others
contribute
less
but
often
respond
to
certain
individuals.
As
the
night
progresses,
you
might
notice
patterns—certain
voices
dominate,
others
are
echoed
or
referenced,
and
some
people
are
frequently
the
focus
of
the
group’s
attention.
Even
if
you
weren’t
listening
to
the
content
of
what
was
being
said,
you
could
still
gather
insights
about
the
dynamics
at
play:
who
leads
the
conversation,
who
influences
others,
and
who
helps
connect
different
parts
of
the
group.
These
interactions
can
tell
us
a
lot
about
the
relationships
within
the
group,
even
if
the
content
of
the
discussion
is
unknown.
This
is
much
like
what
network
analysis
does
in
a
more
formal
context.
In
the
case
of
Supreme
Court
oral
arguments,
network
analysis
helps
us
map
out
and
understand
the
complex
interactions
between
justices
and
attorneys.
By
tracking
who
speaks
when,
who
references
whom,
and
how
much
space
in
the
conversation
each
participant
occupies,
we
can
construct
a
network
of
these
interactions.
To
build
this
network,
data
is
collected
from
transcripts
(thanks
to
R
code
supplied
by
Jake
Truscott’s SCOTUSText)—each
utterance
is
logged,
along
with
who
spoke
it
and
who
they
were
responding
to
or
referencing.
This
data
was
then
analyzed
to
uncover
patterns
of
influence,
centrality,
and
participation,
much
like
observing
the
dinner
party
conversation
from
a
broader,
structural
perspective.
The
value
of
network
analysis
lies
in
its
ability
to
highlight
the
underlying
structure
of
interactions
that
may
not
be
immediately
apparent
from
simply
reading
the
text
of
a
transcript.
By
focusing
on
who
is
influencing
or
directing
the
conversation,
and
how
often
participants
engage
with
one
another,
network
analysis
provides
a
lens
for
understanding
the
dynamics
of
oral
arguments
beyond
individual
statements.
It
also
offers
insights
into
the
court’s
decision-making
process,
even
if
that
influence
isn’t
reflected
in
the
final
vote.
The
network
graphs
are
constructed
by
treating
each
justice
as
a
“node”
(a
point
in
the
graph)
and
each
interaction
between
them
as
an
“edge”
(a
line
connecting
nodes).
For
example,
if
one
justice
speaks
after
another
or
references
them,
a
line
is
drawn
between
their
nodes.
The
strength
of
these
connections
is
weighted
in
these
analyses
by
factors
like
how
many
times
they
speak
in
sequence
or
how
many
words
they
contribute.
The
resulting
graph
shows
not
just
individual
behavior
but
the
relational
structure
of
the
court,
revealing
who
is
central
to
the
conversation
and
how
ideas
flow
between
the
justices.
The
graph
below
shows
an
utterance
(turn
taking)
network
chart
of
the
justices
from
arguments
with
justices
and
attorneys
mapped
based
on
their
interactions.
Measures
The
analysis
below
looks
at
three
different
measures
based
on
utterances,
word
counts,
and
references
to
other
justices
during
oral
arguments.
To
assess
a
justice’s
importance
during
oral
arguments
lies
in
the
ability
to
capture
multiple
dimensions
of
influence
that
raw
word
counts
alone
cannot.
Utterance
centrality,
which
considers
the
relationship
between
the
current
and
previous
speaker
based
on
who
speaks
when,
reveals
how
integrated
a
justice’s
speech
is
within
the
conversational
flow,
highlighting
their
role
in
maintaining
or
shifting
the
dialogue.
This
metric
emphasizes
the
justice’s
connection
to
the
broader
exchange
of
ideas
rather
than
just
the
volume
of
their
speech.
Word
count
centrality,
while
also
looking
at
speaker
pairs,
adds
a
quantitative
dimension
by
weighting
each
speaker’s
contribution
based
on
the
number
of
words
spoken.
This
highlights
the
depth
or
elaboration
of
a
justice’s
participation.
It
shows
not
only
who
speaks
but
how
much
they
contribute
substantively
in
terms
of
word
volume,
providing
insight
into
how
much
space
they
take
up
in
the
conversation.
A
justice
might
dominate
discussions
even
if
they
don’t
speak
frequently,
simply
through
more
extensive
interventions
when
they
do.
References
Reference
centrality
shifts
the
focus
from
speech
quantity
to
the
relational
influence
a
justice
has
by
being
referenced
by
others.
It
reflects
the
extent
to
which
their
ideas
or
arguments
are
considered
important
or
persuasive
by
their
peers.
A
high
reference
centrality
suggests
that
other
justices
find
their
points
critical
enough
to
revisit,
indicating
their
indirect
influence
through
the
prominence
of
their
contributions
in
others’
reasoning.
Here
is
the
network
map
of
the
justices’
references
to
each
other
where
node
and
edge
sizes
relate
to
a
justices’
importance
in
this
network
and
the
importance
of
their
interaction
with
the
other
justices.
The
centrality
measure
used
in
this
article
is
eigenvector
centrality
which
is
a
measure
of
how
important
each
justice
is
in
a
network
based
on
who
they
are
connected
to
in
a
manner
similar
to
the
dinner
party
example
above.
To
calculate
the
eigenvector
centrality
for
the
justices
based
on
their
interactions,
I
organized
the
data
to
focus
on
the
exchanges
between
justices
looking
at
which
justices
referenced
other
justices
in
their
oral
argument
speech.
The
eigenvector
centrality
scores
for
the
justices
revealed
a
distinct
hierarchy
of
influence.
Justice
Alito
emerged
as
the
most
central
figure
with
a
score
of
1,
indicating
his
prominent
position
within
the
referencing
network.
Following
him,
Justice
Gorsuch
(0.857)
and
Justice
Sotomayor
(0.873)
demonstrated
significant
influence,
reflecting
their
active
engagement
in
referencing
discussions.
Justice
Kagan
(0.809),
along
with
Justices
Barrett
and
Jackson,
both
at
0.826,
also
exhibited
noteworthy
levels
of
connectivity
and
reference
interactions.
In
contrast,
Chief
Justice
Roberts,
with
a
centrality
score
of
0.256,
stood
out
as
the
least
influential
in
terms
of
referencing,
suggesting
that
he
is
less
frequently
cited
by
his
peers.
This
discrepancy
illustrates
the
value
of
eigenvector
centrality,
as
it
reveals
insights
that
individual
reference
counts
alone
may
obscure.
For
instance,
while
Justice
Barrett
had
the
highest
individual
reference
count
with
42
references
to
Justice
Alito,
this
does
not
fully
capture
the
interconnectedness
that
eigenvector
centrality
provides.
Her
centrality
score
of
0.826reflects
a
more
intricate
role
in
the
referencing
dynamics
compared
to
the
sheer
volume
of
references.
Overall,
the
use
of
eigenvector
centrality
in
this
analysis
offers
a
more
comprehensive
understanding
of
the
influence
and
interactions
among
justices.
It
highlights
not
only
who
is
referenced
the
most
but
also
identifies
the
justices
whose
references
are
most
consequential
within
the
judicial
discourse.
The
limitation
of
relying
solely
on
individual
reference
counts,
however,
becomes
evident
when
considering
the
nuances
of
judicial
influence.
For
instance,
a
justice
may
have
a
high
reference
count
but
may
not
be
cited
by
justices
who
hold
significant
sway
in
the
judicial
discourse.
Conversely,
a
justice
with
fewer
references
may
be
more
frequently
cited
by
the
most
influential
members
of
the
court,
thereby
elevating
their
centrality
and
importance
in
the
network.
Utterances
For
the
other
two
network
measures
I
tracked
how
many
times
each
justice
spoke
and
with
whom
they
interacted,
specifically
looking
at
the
speaker
in
each
row
and
the
speaker
in
the
row
directly
above
it.
I
eliminated
the
attorneys’
remarks
from
these
graphs
so
that
the
sequence
of
speaking
only
focused
on
the
justices’
speech.
I
also
removed
any
utterances
of
Chief
Justice
Roberts
of
fewer
than
five
words
thereby
eliminating
instances
where
he
calls
on
other
justices
to
give
them
an
additional
turn
during
arguments.
After
counting
the
interactions,
I
created
a
table
that
represented
how
many
times
each
justice
interacted
with
another
justice.
The
next
measure
looks
at
utterance
or
turn-taking
patterns.
The
results
reveal
the
eigenvector
centrality
scores
for
each
justice,
highlighting
their
relative
importance
based
on
the
interaction
patterns.
Justice
Gorsuch
has
the
highest
score
of 1,
indicating
that
he
is
at
the
center
of
the
interaction
network
among
the
justices.
Justice
Jackson
follows
with
a
centrality
score
of
0.462,
suggesting
that
while
she
is
not
as
central
as
Justice
Gorsuch,
she
still
plays
an
important
role
in
the
network.
Chief
Justice
Roberts
and
Justice
Sotomayor
have
scores
of
0.291
and
0.294,
respectively,
placing
them
in
a
moderately
central
position
within
the
network.
Justice
Thomas
has
the
lowest
score
at
0.041,
implicating
his
minimal
influence
in
this
network.
Word
Counts
Lastly,
word
count
centrality
results
are
generated
based
on
the
number
of
words
spoken
by
each
justice
during
their
interactions.
This
measure
reflects
not
only
the
individual
contributions
of
the
justices
but
also
how
these
contributions
relate
to
one
another
in
the
context
of
the
discussion.
In
the
analysis,
each
justice’s
utterances
are
once
again
paired
with
those
of
the
previous
speaker.
The
word
count
of
the
current
speaker’s
utterance
is
summed
for
all
interactions
with
their
preceding
speaker,
which
allows
the
establishment
of
directed
connections
between
speakers
based
on
their
contributions.
The
word
count
centrality
results
for
the
justices
reflect
their
levels
of
influence
during
discussions,
based
on
the
number
of
words
they
contributed
in
comparison
to
one
another.
Utilizing
the
eigenvector
centrality
algorithm
on
this
graph,
the
analysis
identified
Justice
Jackson
as
having
the
highest
word
count
centrality
value
of
1,
indicating
a
dominant
role
in
the
discourse.
Other
justices,
such
as
Chief
Justice
Roberts
and
Justice
Kagan,
also
displayed
significant
centrality
values
of
0.961
and
0.950,
respectively.
Conclusion
While
according
to
Chief
Justice
Roberts,
oral
arguments
may
not
be
as
important
as
briefs,
the
interaction
of
the
three
centrality
measures
used
in
this
analysis—word
count
centrality,
utterance
centrality,
and
reference
centrality—provides
a
nuanced
understanding
of
the
justices’
relative
influence
during
oral
arguments.
Justice
Jackson
exhibits
the
highest
word
count
centrality,
indicating
a
prominent
presence
in
the
discussions.
Justice
Alito
shows
high
reference
centrality,
signifying
that,
despite
a
lower
volume
of
spoken
contributions,
he
is
frequently
cited
by
others,
suggesting
a
role
in
shaping
the
discourse
without
necessarily
leading
it.
In
contrast,
Justice
Thomas
has
lower
scores
across
all
measures,
indicating
a
relatively
reduced
presence
in
the
interactions.
These
findings
illustrate
a
complex
landscape
of
influence
among
the
justices,
where
verbal
contributions,
their
relevance
to
ongoing
discussions,
and
the
frequency
with
which
justices
are
referenced
interact
to
define
their
relative
standing
in
oral
arguments.
This
analysis
underscores
that
influence
within
judicial
discourse
is
more
multifaceted
than
meets
the
eye.
Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
Hermes
can
run
its
business
any
way
it
wants.
If
it
chooses
to
make
five
Birkin
bags
a
year
and
charge
a
million
to
them,
it
can
do
that.
The
fact
that
a
lot
of
your
clients
may
not
be
able
to
get
a
Birkin
bag
is
not
a
Hermes
antitrust
problem.
If
Hermes
is
going
to
make
you
pay
a
fortune
for
their
bag,
they
are
leaving
the
ground
open
for
every
competitor
to
say,
‘Come
on
in
and
get
our
beautiful
bag
and
you
don’t
have
to
buy
$3,000
or
$30,000
worth
of
belts.’
—
Judge
James
Donato
of
the
Northern
District
of
California,
in
comments
given
last
month
concerning
consumers’
antitrust
claims
lodged
against
luxury
fashion
house
Hermes.
Donato,
a
veteran
of
three
Biglaw
firms
where
he
practiced
antitrust
law,
is
skeptical
about
those
claims.
In
their
lawsuit,
plaintiffs
allege
that
Hermes
will
only
give
those
with
“sufficient
purchase
history”
the
chance
to
buy
a
Birkin
bag,
claiming
that
this
purchase
tying
scenario
is
a
violation
of
antitrust
law.
The
consumer
plaintiffs
recently
revised
their
complaint
for
the
third
time
by
adding
false
advertising
and
fraud
claims
in
an
attempt
to
keep
the
suit
alive.
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.
Jordan
