Faxes Should Be Eliminated From The Legal Profession – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
fax
numbers

are
still
an
important
tool
in
the
legal
industry
in
some
contexts. 
Indeed,
some
legal
professionals
cling
to
faxes
even
though
email
seems
like
a
more
preferable
method
of
communication,
likely
owing
to
habit
and
the
fact
that
fax
might
leave
less
of
a
digital
footprint
than
email. 
Although

fax
was
seen
as
a
technology
of
the
future
in
Back
to
the
Future
II,
fax
has
been
an
outdated
communication
method
for
years. 
Legal
professionals
should
take
a
hard
look
into
whether
they
really
need
to
cling
to
this
past
technology
or
embrace
more
modern
methods
of
communication.

Earlier
this
year,
I
appeared
in
a
court
with
which
I
had
no
experience. I
needed
to
request
some
records
so
I
called
the
clerk
of
this
court
to
inquire
as
to
how
the
records
could
be
transmitted
to
my
office. The
clerk
informed
me
that
the
court
only
mailed
records
or
faxed
records
to
parties
seeking
such
documents. I
inquired
about
whether
the
court
could
send
records
by
email
and
was
told
that
fax
was
the
only
option
unless
I
wanted
to
wait
for
the
clerk
to
mail
the
records
to
me.

This
turned
out
to
be
a
difficult
process.
Although
I
maintained
a
fax
number
for
years
for
the
once-in-a-year
time
I
needed
to
receive
documents
by
fax,
I
found
out
that
my
fax
number
had
—
unbeknownst
to
me
—
been
disabled
months
ago.
I
then
called
around
to
some
law
firms
and
other
outlets
that
might
have
a
fax
number
and
which
might
be
willing
to
receive
the
fax
and
send
me
the
documents
by
email. Even
after
I
had
a
reliable
fax
number
lined
up,
the
fax
from
the
clerk
never
arrived,
either
due
to
an
error
on
the
clerk’s
end
or
an
error
by
the
outlet
that
was
helping
me.

Faxes
pose
numerous
problems
that
email
just
doesn’t
have. Perhaps
most
critically,
faxes
are
far
less
reliable
than
email. There
are
frequent
issues
with
faxes
either
because
of
user
error,
busy
signals,
not
enough
ink
in
the
receiving
fax
machine,
or
because
fax
numbers
have
been
disabled. Some
fax
numbers
are
configured
in
such
a
way
that
they
just
email
a
copy
of
the
fax
to
an
email
address
on
file,
and
this
is
better
than
a
fax
machine
printing
something
out. However,
it
would
be
far
easier
for
parties
to
simply
email
items
to
a
recipient
rather
than
rely
on
an
outdated
intermediary.

In
addition,
faxes
are
impractical
in
a
variety
of
contexts. Often,
fax
machines
have
page
limits. Quality
issues
with
the
images
that
are
sent
and
received
can
also
be
a
problem,
since
faxes
work
best
with
simple
black-and-white
documents.
Moreover,
fax
numbers
may
require
additional
subscriptions
or
upkeep
separate
from
an
email
address,
and
faxes
might
be
missed
if
a
party
does
not
maintain
their
fax
number
in
the
appropriate
way.

Many
technologies
within
the
legal
profession
have
become
obsolete
in
the
13
years
(so
far)
I
have
practiced
law. 
I
remember
conducting
research
with
books,
which
is
very
rare
in
the
present,
and
I
remember
when
tape
recording
was
a
widespread
way
to
dictate
letters
and
other
documents
in
law
offices. When
I
was
a
summer
associate,
I
was
thrilled
to
get
a
BlackBerry,
and
I
felt
that
any
serious
legal
professional
should
have
one
to
be
connected
to
work
matters
at
all
times.

Fax
numbers
are
just
another
obsolete
technology
that
should
be
transitioned
out
of
the
legal
profession
in
favor
of
technology
that
is
undeniably
more
efficient. 
Although
there
may
be
growing
pains
for
some,
the
legal
industry
should
modernize
and
part
ways
with
outdated
communications
technology.



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 jordan@rothman.law.

Faxes Should Be Eliminated From The Legal Profession – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
fax
numbers

are
still
an
important
tool
in
the
legal
industry
in
some
contexts. 
Indeed,
some
legal
professionals
cling
to
faxes
even
though
email
seems
like
a
more
preferable
method
of
communication,
likely
owing
to
habit
and
the
fact
that
fax
might
leave
less
of
a
digital
footprint
than
email. 
Although

fax
was
seen
as
a
technology
of
the
future
in
Back
to
the
Future
II,
fax
has
been
an
outdated
communication
method
for
years. 
Legal
professionals
should
take
a
hard
look
into
whether
they
really
need
to
cling
to
this
past
technology
or
embrace
more
modern
methods
of
communication.

Earlier
this
year,
I
appeared
in
a
court
with
which
I
had
no
experience. I
needed
to
request
some
records
so
I
called
the
clerk
of
this
court
to
inquire
as
to
how
the
records
could
be
transmitted
to
my
office. The
clerk
informed
me
that
the
court
only
mailed
records
or
faxed
records
to
parties
seeking
such
documents. I
inquired
about
whether
the
court
could
send
records
by
email
and
was
told
that
fax
was
the
only
option
unless
I
wanted
to
wait
for
the
clerk
to
mail
the
records
to
me.

This
turned
out
to
be
a
difficult
process.
Although
I
maintained
a
fax
number
for
years
for
the
once-in-a-year
time
I
needed
to
receive
documents
by
fax,
I
found
out
that
my
fax
number
had
—
unbeknownst
to
me
—
been
disabled
months
ago.
I
then
called
around
to
some
law
firms
and
other
outlets
that
might
have
a
fax
number
and
which
might
be
willing
to
receive
the
fax
and
send
me
the
documents
by
email. Even
after
I
had
a
reliable
fax
number
lined
up,
the
fax
from
the
clerk
never
arrived,
either
due
to
an
error
on
the
clerk’s
end
or
an
error
by
the
outlet
that
was
helping
me.

Faxes
pose
numerous
problems
that
email
just
doesn’t
have. Perhaps
most
critically,
faxes
are
far
less
reliable
than
email. There
are
frequent
issues
with
faxes
either
because
of
user
error,
busy
signals,
not
enough
ink
in
the
receiving
fax
machine,
or
because
fax
numbers
have
been
disabled. Some
fax
numbers
are
configured
in
such
a
way
that
they
just
email
a
copy
of
the
fax
to
an
email
address
on
file,
and
this
is
better
than
a
fax
machine
printing
something
out. However,
it
would
be
far
easier
for
parties
to
simply
email
items
to
a
recipient
rather
than
rely
on
an
outdated
intermediary.

In
addition,
faxes
are
impractical
in
a
variety
of
contexts. Often,
fax
machines
have
page
limits. Quality
issues
with
the
images
that
are
sent
and
received
can
also
be
a
problem,
since
faxes
work
best
with
simple
black-and-white
documents.
Moreover,
fax
numbers
may
require
additional
subscriptions
or
upkeep
separate
from
an
email
address,
and
faxes
might
be
missed
if
a
party
does
not
maintain
their
fax
number
in
the
appropriate
way.

Many
technologies
within
the
legal
profession
have
become
obsolete
in
the
13
years
(so
far)
I
have
practiced
law. 
I
remember
conducting
research
with
books,
which
is
very
rare
in
the
present,
and
I
remember
when
tape
recording
was
a
widespread
way
to
dictate
letters
and
other
documents
in
law
offices. When
I
was
a
summer
associate,
I
was
thrilled
to
get
a
BlackBerry,
and
I
felt
that
any
serious
legal
professional
should
have
one
to
be
connected
to
work
matters
at
all
times.

Fax
numbers
are
just
another
obsolete
technology
that
should
be
transitioned
out
of
the
legal
profession
in
favor
of
technology
that
is
undeniably
more
efficient. 
Although
there
may
be
growing
pains
for
some,
the
legal
industry
should
modernize
and
part
ways
with
outdated
communications
technology.



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 jordan@rothman.law.

Faxes Should Be Eliminated From The Legal Profession – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
fax
numbers

are
still
an
important
tool
in
the
legal
industry
in
some
contexts. 
Indeed,
some
legal
professionals
cling
to
faxes
even
though
email
seems
like
a
more
preferable
method
of
communication,
likely
owing
to
habit
and
the
fact
that
fax
might
leave
less
of
a
digital
footprint
than
email. 
Although

fax
was
seen
as
a
technology
of
the
future
in
Back
to
the
Future
II,
fax
has
been
an
outdated
communication
method
for
years. 
Legal
professionals
should
take
a
hard
look
into
whether
they
really
need
to
cling
to
this
past
technology
or
embrace
more
modern
methods
of
communication.

Earlier
this
year,
I
appeared
in
a
court
with
which
I
had
no
experience. I
needed
to
request
some
records
so
I
called
the
clerk
of
this
court
to
inquire
as
to
how
the
records
could
be
transmitted
to
my
office. The
clerk
informed
me
that
the
court
only
mailed
records
or
faxed
records
to
parties
seeking
such
documents. I
inquired
about
whether
the
court
could
send
records
by
email
and
was
told
that
fax
was
the
only
option
unless
I
wanted
to
wait
for
the
clerk
to
mail
the
records
to
me.

This
turned
out
to
be
a
difficult
process.
Although
I
maintained
a
fax
number
for
years
for
the
once-in-a-year
time
I
needed
to
receive
documents
by
fax,
I
found
out
that
my
fax
number
had
—
unbeknownst
to
me
—
been
disabled
months
ago.
I
then
called
around
to
some
law
firms
and
other
outlets
that
might
have
a
fax
number
and
which
might
be
willing
to
receive
the
fax
and
send
me
the
documents
by
email. Even
after
I
had
a
reliable
fax
number
lined
up,
the
fax
from
the
clerk
never
arrived,
either
due
to
an
error
on
the
clerk’s
end
or
an
error
by
the
outlet
that
was
helping
me.

Faxes
pose
numerous
problems
that
email
just
doesn’t
have. Perhaps
most
critically,
faxes
are
far
less
reliable
than
email. There
are
frequent
issues
with
faxes
either
because
of
user
error,
busy
signals,
not
enough
ink
in
the
receiving
fax
machine,
or
because
fax
numbers
have
been
disabled. Some
fax
numbers
are
configured
in
such
a
way
that
they
just
email
a
copy
of
the
fax
to
an
email
address
on
file,
and
this
is
better
than
a
fax
machine
printing
something
out. However,
it
would
be
far
easier
for
parties
to
simply
email
items
to
a
recipient
rather
than
rely
on
an
outdated
intermediary.

In
addition,
faxes
are
impractical
in
a
variety
of
contexts. Often,
fax
machines
have
page
limits. Quality
issues
with
the
images
that
are
sent
and
received
can
also
be
a
problem,
since
faxes
work
best
with
simple
black-and-white
documents.
Moreover,
fax
numbers
may
require
additional
subscriptions
or
upkeep
separate
from
an
email
address,
and
faxes
might
be
missed
if
a
party
does
not
maintain
their
fax
number
in
the
appropriate
way.

Many
technologies
within
the
legal
profession
have
become
obsolete
in
the
13
years
(so
far)
I
have
practiced
law. 
I
remember
conducting
research
with
books,
which
is
very
rare
in
the
present,
and
I
remember
when
tape
recording
was
a
widespread
way
to
dictate
letters
and
other
documents
in
law
offices. When
I
was
a
summer
associate,
I
was
thrilled
to
get
a
BlackBerry,
and
I
felt
that
any
serious
legal
professional
should
have
one
to
be
connected
to
work
matters
at
all
times.

Fax
numbers
are
just
another
obsolete
technology
that
should
be
transitioned
out
of
the
legal
profession
in
favor
of
technology
that
is
undeniably
more
efficient. 
Although
there
may
be
growing
pains
for
some,
the
legal
industry
should
modernize
and
part
ways
with
outdated
communications
technology.



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 jordan@rothman.law.

Faxes Should Be Eliminated From The Legal Profession – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
fax
numbers

are
still
an
important
tool
in
the
legal
industry
in
some
contexts. 
Indeed,
some
legal
professionals
cling
to
faxes
even
though
email
seems
like
a
more
preferable
method
of
communication,
likely
owing
to
habit
and
the
fact
that
fax
might
leave
less
of
a
digital
footprint
than
email. 
Although

fax
was
seen
as
a
technology
of
the
future
in
Back
to
the
Future
II,
fax
has
been
an
outdated
communication
method
for
years. 
Legal
professionals
should
take
a
hard
look
into
whether
they
really
need
to
cling
to
this
past
technology
or
embrace
more
modern
methods
of
communication.

Earlier
this
year,
I
appeared
in
a
court
with
which
I
had
no
experience. I
needed
to
request
some
records
so
I
called
the
clerk
of
this
court
to
inquire
as
to
how
the
records
could
be
transmitted
to
my
office. The
clerk
informed
me
that
the
court
only
mailed
records
or
faxed
records
to
parties
seeking
such
documents. I
inquired
about
whether
the
court
could
send
records
by
email
and
was
told
that
fax
was
the
only
option
unless
I
wanted
to
wait
for
the
clerk
to
mail
the
records
to
me.

This
turned
out
to
be
a
difficult
process.
Although
I
maintained
a
fax
number
for
years
for
the
once-in-a-year
time
I
needed
to
receive
documents
by
fax,
I
found
out
that
my
fax
number
had
—
unbeknownst
to
me
—
been
disabled
months
ago.
I
then
called
around
to
some
law
firms
and
other
outlets
that
might
have
a
fax
number
and
which
might
be
willing
to
receive
the
fax
and
send
me
the
documents
by
email. Even
after
I
had
a
reliable
fax
number
lined
up,
the
fax
from
the
clerk
never
arrived,
either
due
to
an
error
on
the
clerk’s
end
or
an
error
by
the
outlet
that
was
helping
me.

Faxes
pose
numerous
problems
that
email
just
doesn’t
have. Perhaps
most
critically,
faxes
are
far
less
reliable
than
email. There
are
frequent
issues
with
faxes
either
because
of
user
error,
busy
signals,
not
enough
ink
in
the
receiving
fax
machine,
or
because
fax
numbers
have
been
disabled. Some
fax
numbers
are
configured
in
such
a
way
that
they
just
email
a
copy
of
the
fax
to
an
email
address
on
file,
and
this
is
better
than
a
fax
machine
printing
something
out. However,
it
would
be
far
easier
for
parties
to
simply
email
items
to
a
recipient
rather
than
rely
on
an
outdated
intermediary.

In
addition,
faxes
are
impractical
in
a
variety
of
contexts. Often,
fax
machines
have
page
limits. Quality
issues
with
the
images
that
are
sent
and
received
can
also
be
a
problem,
since
faxes
work
best
with
simple
black-and-white
documents.
Moreover,
fax
numbers
may
require
additional
subscriptions
or
upkeep
separate
from
an
email
address,
and
faxes
might
be
missed
if
a
party
does
not
maintain
their
fax
number
in
the
appropriate
way.

Many
technologies
within
the
legal
profession
have
become
obsolete
in
the
13
years
(so
far)
I
have
practiced
law. 
I
remember
conducting
research
with
books,
which
is
very
rare
in
the
present,
and
I
remember
when
tape
recording
was
a
widespread
way
to
dictate
letters
and
other
documents
in
law
offices. When
I
was
a
summer
associate,
I
was
thrilled
to
get
a
BlackBerry,
and
I
felt
that
any
serious
legal
professional
should
have
one
to
be
connected
to
work
matters
at
all
times.

Fax
numbers
are
just
another
obsolete
technology
that
should
be
transitioned
out
of
the
legal
profession
in
favor
of
technology
that
is
undeniably
more
efficient. 
Although
there
may
be
growing
pains
for
some,
the
legal
industry
should
modernize
and
part
ways
with
outdated
communications
technology.



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 jordan@rothman.law.

Faxes Should Be Eliminated From The Legal Profession – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
fax
numbers

are
still
an
important
tool
in
the
legal
industry
in
some
contexts. 
Indeed,
some
legal
professionals
cling
to
faxes
even
though
email
seems
like
a
more
preferable
method
of
communication,
likely
owing
to
habit
and
the
fact
that
fax
might
leave
less
of
a
digital
footprint
than
email. 
Although

fax
was
seen
as
a
technology
of
the
future
in
Back
to
the
Future
II,
fax
has
been
an
outdated
communication
method
for
years. 
Legal
professionals
should
take
a
hard
look
into
whether
they
really
need
to
cling
to
this
past
technology
or
embrace
more
modern
methods
of
communication.

Earlier
this
year,
I
appeared
in
a
court
with
which
I
had
no
experience. I
needed
to
request
some
records
so
I
called
the
clerk
of
this
court
to
inquire
as
to
how
the
records
could
be
transmitted
to
my
office. The
clerk
informed
me
that
the
court
only
mailed
records
or
faxed
records
to
parties
seeking
such
documents. I
inquired
about
whether
the
court
could
send
records
by
email
and
was
told
that
fax
was
the
only
option
unless
I
wanted
to
wait
for
the
clerk
to
mail
the
records
to
me.

This
turned
out
to
be
a
difficult
process.
Although
I
maintained
a
fax
number
for
years
for
the
once-in-a-year
time
I
needed
to
receive
documents
by
fax,
I
found
out
that
my
fax
number
had
—
unbeknownst
to
me
—
been
disabled
months
ago.
I
then
called
around
to
some
law
firms
and
other
outlets
that
might
have
a
fax
number
and
which
might
be
willing
to
receive
the
fax
and
send
me
the
documents
by
email. Even
after
I
had
a
reliable
fax
number
lined
up,
the
fax
from
the
clerk
never
arrived,
either
due
to
an
error
on
the
clerk’s
end
or
an
error
by
the
outlet
that
was
helping
me.

Faxes
pose
numerous
problems
that
email
just
doesn’t
have. Perhaps
most
critically,
faxes
are
far
less
reliable
than
email. There
are
frequent
issues
with
faxes
either
because
of
user
error,
busy
signals,
not
enough
ink
in
the
receiving
fax
machine,
or
because
fax
numbers
have
been
disabled. Some
fax
numbers
are
configured
in
such
a
way
that
they
just
email
a
copy
of
the
fax
to
an
email
address
on
file,
and
this
is
better
than
a
fax
machine
printing
something
out. However,
it
would
be
far
easier
for
parties
to
simply
email
items
to
a
recipient
rather
than
rely
on
an
outdated
intermediary.

In
addition,
faxes
are
impractical
in
a
variety
of
contexts. Often,
fax
machines
have
page
limits. Quality
issues
with
the
images
that
are
sent
and
received
can
also
be
a
problem,
since
faxes
work
best
with
simple
black-and-white
documents.
Moreover,
fax
numbers
may
require
additional
subscriptions
or
upkeep
separate
from
an
email
address,
and
faxes
might
be
missed
if
a
party
does
not
maintain
their
fax
number
in
the
appropriate
way.

Many
technologies
within
the
legal
profession
have
become
obsolete
in
the
13
years
(so
far)
I
have
practiced
law. 
I
remember
conducting
research
with
books,
which
is
very
rare
in
the
present,
and
I
remember
when
tape
recording
was
a
widespread
way
to
dictate
letters
and
other
documents
in
law
offices. When
I
was
a
summer
associate,
I
was
thrilled
to
get
a
BlackBerry,
and
I
felt
that
any
serious
legal
professional
should
have
one
to
be
connected
to
work
matters
at
all
times.

Fax
numbers
are
just
another
obsolete
technology
that
should
be
transitioned
out
of
the
legal
profession
in
favor
of
technology
that
is
undeniably
more
efficient. 
Although
there
may
be
growing
pains
for
some,
the
legal
industry
should
modernize
and
part
ways
with
outdated
communications
technology.



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 jordan@rothman.law.

Faxes Should Be Eliminated From The Legal Profession – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

A
few
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
fax
numbers

are
still
an
important
tool
in
the
legal
industry
in
some
contexts. 
Indeed,
some
legal
professionals
cling
to
faxes
even
though
email
seems
like
a
more
preferable
method
of
communication,
likely
owing
to
habit
and
the
fact
that
fax
might
leave
less
of
a
digital
footprint
than
email. 
Although

fax
was
seen
as
a
technology
of
the
future
in
Back
to
the
Future
II,
fax
has
been
an
outdated
communication
method
for
years. 
Legal
professionals
should
take
a
hard
look
into
whether
they
really
need
to
cling
to
this
past
technology
or
embrace
more
modern
methods
of
communication.

Earlier
this
year,
I
appeared
in
a
court
with
which
I
had
no
experience. I
needed
to
request
some
records
so
I
called
the
clerk
of
this
court
to
inquire
as
to
how
the
records
could
be
transmitted
to
my
office. The
clerk
informed
me
that
the
court
only
mailed
records
or
faxed
records
to
parties
seeking
such
documents. I
inquired
about
whether
the
court
could
send
records
by
email
and
was
told
that
fax
was
the
only
option
unless
I
wanted
to
wait
for
the
clerk
to
mail
the
records
to
me.

This
turned
out
to
be
a
difficult
process.
Although
I
maintained
a
fax
number
for
years
for
the
once-in-a-year
time
I
needed
to
receive
documents
by
fax,
I
found
out
that
my
fax
number
had
—
unbeknownst
to
me
—
been
disabled
months
ago.
I
then
called
around
to
some
law
firms
and
other
outlets
that
might
have
a
fax
number
and
which
might
be
willing
to
receive
the
fax
and
send
me
the
documents
by
email. Even
after
I
had
a
reliable
fax
number
lined
up,
the
fax
from
the
clerk
never
arrived,
either
due
to
an
error
on
the
clerk’s
end
or
an
error
by
the
outlet
that
was
helping
me.

Faxes
pose
numerous
problems
that
email
just
doesn’t
have. Perhaps
most
critically,
faxes
are
far
less
reliable
than
email. There
are
frequent
issues
with
faxes
either
because
of
user
error,
busy
signals,
not
enough
ink
in
the
receiving
fax
machine,
or
because
fax
numbers
have
been
disabled. Some
fax
numbers
are
configured
in
such
a
way
that
they
just
email
a
copy
of
the
fax
to
an
email
address
on
file,
and
this
is
better
than
a
fax
machine
printing
something
out. However,
it
would
be
far
easier
for
parties
to
simply
email
items
to
a
recipient
rather
than
rely
on
an
outdated
intermediary.

In
addition,
faxes
are
impractical
in
a
variety
of
contexts. Often,
fax
machines
have
page
limits. Quality
issues
with
the
images
that
are
sent
and
received
can
also
be
a
problem,
since
faxes
work
best
with
simple
black-and-white
documents.
Moreover,
fax
numbers
may
require
additional
subscriptions
or
upkeep
separate
from
an
email
address,
and
faxes
might
be
missed
if
a
party
does
not
maintain
their
fax
number
in
the
appropriate
way.

Many
technologies
within
the
legal
profession
have
become
obsolete
in
the
13
years
(so
far)
I
have
practiced
law. 
I
remember
conducting
research
with
books,
which
is
very
rare
in
the
present,
and
I
remember
when
tape
recording
was
a
widespread
way
to
dictate
letters
and
other
documents
in
law
offices. When
I
was
a
summer
associate,
I
was
thrilled
to
get
a
BlackBerry,
and
I
felt
that
any
serious
legal
professional
should
have
one
to
be
connected
to
work
matters
at
all
times.

Fax
numbers
are
just
another
obsolete
technology
that
should
be
transitioned
out
of
the
legal
profession
in
favor
of
technology
that
is
undeniably
more
efficient. 
Although
there
may
be
growing
pains
for
some,
the
legal
industry
should
modernize
and
part
ways
with
outdated
communications
technology.



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 jordan@rothman.law.

Trump Represents A Boom In Business For One Prominent Lawyer – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

Abbe
Lowell
(Photo
by
Mario
Tama/Getty
Images)


I’ve
done
this
kind
of
work
challenging
administration
overreach
all
of
my
career.
There’s
just
more
of
it
to
challenge
now
than
in
other
administrations.




—
Abbe
Lowell

spoke
with
Bloomberg
Law
about
leaving
Biglaw
and
setting
up

his
new
firm,
Lowell
&
Associates.
It’s
a
litigation-based
boutique
focused
on
representing
clients
that
are
challenging
the
Trump
administration.
Lowell
said,
“It
was
a
time
for
a
firm
that
could
be
both
flexible,
nimble,
lean
when
necessary
and
able
to
respond
to
a
client’s
needs
in
a
much
more
immediate
and
much
more
flexible
way
already
than
larger
firms
can
do.”
Amongst
the
associates
at
Lowell
&
Associates
are
are Rachel
Cohen(Opens
in
a
new
window) and Brenna
Trout
Frey(Opens
in
a
new
window),
both
of
which
famously quit
on
Skadden(Opens
in
a
new
window) when Skadden
quit
on
the
rule
of
law(Opens
in
a
new
window).

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press




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.


“James
Ho
Understands
What
Trump
Wants
In
a
Supreme
Court
Justice;
Getting
on
this
White
House’s
Supreme
Court
shortlist
is
a
matter
of
showing
that
you
will
be
loyal
to
the
president
above
all
else”: Jay
Willis
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.


“Ed
Martin’s
failed
bid
for
U.S.
attorney
revealed
the
limits
of
Trump’s
power;
The
unsuccessful
nomination
revealed
a
shifting
relationship
between
the
president
and
GOP
senators
—
and
Trump’s
willingness
to
walk
away
from
a
protracted
fight”: Martine
Powers
and
Spencer
S.
Hsu
of
The
Washington
Post
have this
report.


“Supreme
Court
Lets
Trump,
for
Now,
Remove
Agency
Leaders;
An
appeals
court
previously
ruled
that
a
key
1935
precedent,
long
in
the
cross
hairs
of
the
conservative
legal
movement,
meant
the
officials
could
keep
their
jobs”: Adam
Liptak
and
Abbie
VanSickle
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.


“Deadlocked
Supreme
Court
Rejects
Bid
for
Religious
Charter
School
in
Oklahoma;
In
a
4-to-4
decision,
the
court
upheld
a
ruling
by
the
Oklahoma
Supreme
Court
that
blocked
the
school”: Abbie
VanSickle
and
Sarah
Mervosh
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.


“Trump
2.0
and
the
Supreme
Court
Reform
Debate;
Does
the
left’s
turn
to
the
courts
in
response
to
the
Second
Trump
Administration’s
excesses
show
advocates
of
structural
reform
of
the
Supreme
Court
were
wrong?” Dan
Epps
has this
post at
the
“Divided
Argument”
Substack
site.


“SCOTUS
Is
About
to
Suffer
Buyers
Remorse,
Again:
They
decided
to
tackle
the
very
messy
question
of
nationwide
injunctions
instead
of
answering
the
easy,
obviously
unconstitutional
issue.” You
can
access
the
new
episode
of
Slate’s
“Amicus”
podcast via
this
link

Merrick Garland Returns To Biglaw To Continue Not Prosecuting Donald Trump From The Private Sector – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press
(Photo
by
Brendan
Smialowski/AFP/Getty
Images)

In
a
move
that
surprised
absolutely
no
one
and
thrilled
only
the
most
ardent
fans
of
procedural
rigor,
Merrick
Garland
has
returned
to
Arnold
&
Porter
as
a
partner
in
their
Appellate
&
Supreme
Court
practice
group.
The
former
Attorney
General
who
—
depending
on
who
you
ask
—
exemplified
judicious
restraint
or
the
Democratic
Party’s
lingering
commitment
to
bringing
pointy
sticks
to
gun
fights
is
back
in
the
private
sector.

Presumably
Arnold
&
Porter
will
get
a
nasty

executive
order
by
the
end
of
next
week.

Garland’s
career
arc
is
the
stuff
of
centrist
dreams:
Harvard
summa
cum
laude,
clerkships
with
Judge
Friendly
and
Justice
Brennan,
a
stint
at
Arnold
&
Porter,
and
then
a
long
tenure
on
the
D.C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.
President
Obama
nominated
Garland
to
the
Supreme
Court
to
replace
Antonin
Scalia
as
a
concession
to
Senate
Republicans
who
spent
the
preceding
several
years
dragging
Democratic
nominees
for

not
being
Merrick
Garland.
When
presented
with
the
opportunity
to
confirm
their
paradigmatic
example
of
a
judge,
Republicans
opted
to
shirk
their
constitutional
duty
to
even
hold
a
vote
—
turning
“advice
and
consent”
into
“ignore.”

As
Attorney
General
under
President
Biden,
Garland
was
tasked
with
restoring
the
Department
of
Justice’s
reputation
for
impartiality
and
independence.
In
a
historic
instance
of
overcorrection,
he
approached
this
mission
with
the
fervor
of
a
man
meticulously
organizing
his
sock
drawer
while
the
house
burned
down.


Garland
gets
more
flack
than
he
should
for
failing
to
address
criminality
in
the
prior
administration.
Prosecuting
Donald
Trump
for
January
6
might
have
satisfied
a
lot
of
people,
but
would’ve
stretched
the
bounds
of
criminal
incitement.
I’m
not
sure
people
want
to
see
what
happens
when
politicians
get
prosecuted
every
time
someone
commits
a
crime
in
their
name.
When
Garland
stepped
into
the
role,
there
wasn’t
much
to
suggest
Trump
did
anything
more
than
whip
up
his
followers
and
then
sit
on
his
ass
hoping
they
pulled
off
the
insurrection.
Despicable,
but
not
criminal.

That
said,
under
Garland’s
watch
antitrust
efforts moved
slower than
many
hoped
and
he
didn’t
reverse the
Trump
DOJ’s
effort
to
derail
the
E.
Jean
Carroll
case.
Garland’s
DOJ
also
went
to
the
Supreme
Court
and
asked
to functionally
eliminate Miranda rights.
So…
not
great.

But
when
something
arose
that
actually
DID
speak
to
Trump’s
criminality
—
hiding
classified
documents
in
a
pool
locker
and
having
his
lawyers
lie
and
say
those
documents
didn’t
exist
—
Garland
appropriately
appointed
special
counsel.
Should
the
DOJ
done
more
to
fast
track
that
case?
Yes.
Should
it
have
moved
forward
to
mandamus
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
while
she
auditioned
for
a
future
Republican
promotion
by
playing
constitutional
law
Mad
Libs?
Definitely…
especially
since
the
Eleventh
Circuit
had

already
expressed
its
opinion
that
Cannon
was
a
clown.

While
prosecutorial
zeal
often
overshadows
prudent
judgment,
the
pendulum
can
swing
too
far.
If
Garland
was
right
not
to
act
earlier,
he
whiffed
in
not
flooring
it
once
he
did.

“It
is
an
honor
to
return
to
Arnold
&
Porter,
where
I
first
learned
how
to
be
a
lawyer
and
about
the
important
role
lawyers
can
play
in
ensuring
the
rule
of
law,”
Garland
said
of
his
return
while

other
law
firms
take
a
hammer
to
the
rule
of
law.

For
Arnold
&
Porter,
Garland’s
return
is
a
coup
not
unlike
January
6
itself.
His
deep
experience
in
appellate
litigation
and
his
intimate
knowledge
of
the
inner
workings
of
the
DOJ
will
be
invaluable
assets
for
clients
navigating
complex
legal
challenges.

Or
would
be
if
the

Department
of
Justice
still
has
anyone
competent
on
staff.


Earlier:

Stop
Blaming
Merrick
Garland
For
Donald
Trump
Still
Being
A
Free
Man



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.

DHS Benchslapped With Immediate TRO In Harvard Student Visas Case – Above the Law

Posted on by TSA Press

Some
presidents
walk
softly
and
carry
a
big
stick.
Some
presidents
bigfoot
around,
shouting
“WE’RE
ABOUT
TO
DO
SOME
CRAZY
ILLEGAL
SHIT!”
and
telegraphing
every
punch.
Those
presidents
get
injunctions
in
record
time.

Yesterday,
Homeland
Security
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
announced
that
Harvard
University
would
be
barred
from
admitting
students
under
the
Student
and
Exchange
Visitor
Program
(SEVP).
This
would
have
the
effect
of
revoking
the
visas
for
more
than
a
quarter
of
the
student
body,
including
those
already
enrolled
for
summer
school
and
the
2025-2026
academic
year.

The
move
was
not
unanticipated.
Trump
has
been
shouting
about
revoking
Harvard’s
tax
exempt
status
for
months,
and
rasslin’
impresario
Linda
McMahon,
who
is
somehow
Secretary
of
Education,
has
been
making
weird
noises
about
the
university
not
“vetting
professors
that
they’re
hiring
to
make
sure
that
they’re
not
teaching
ideologies.”

Whatever
the
hell
that
means.

Noem
and
her
goons
have
been
stomping
around
demanding
not
just
visa
records,
which
they’re
entitled
to
under
the
SEVP’s
records
keeping
requirement,
but
also
“information
regarding
misconduct
and
other
offenses
that
would
render
foreign
students
inadmissible
or
removable.”
First
she
said
that
failure
to
comply
would
constitute
a
“voluntary
withdrawal”
from
the
program.
Then,
when
Harvard

did
comply,
she
demanded
even
more
information
about
disciplinary
records
of
foreign
students.

Harvard’s
lawyers
are
no
dummies
—
the
university’s
counsel
includes
attorney’s
from
Lehotsky
Keller
Cohn,
Jenner
&
Block,
Quinn
Emanuel,
and
King
&
Spalding.
They
took
care
to
build
a
voluminous
record
of
compliance,
knowing
well
what
was
coming.

And
yesterday,
it
came,
in
a

letter
from
Noem
announcing
the
university’s
decertification:

As
a
result
of
your
refusal
to
comply
with
multiple
requests
to
provide
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
pertinent
information
while
perpetuating
an
unsafe
campus
environment
that
is
hostile
to
Jewish
students,
promotes
pro-Hamas
sympathies,
and
employs
racist
“diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion”
policies,
you
have
lost
this
privilege.

Noem
then
headed
to
Fox
News
to
ensure
that
everyone
would
know
this
was
pure
retaliation
for
disfavored
speech,
not
because
the
school
violated
SEVP
standards.

Within
hours,
Harvard
filed
a

72-page
complaint
with
28
exhibits
alleging
First
Amendment
retaliation
and
viewpoint
discrimination,
along
with
due
process
and
statutory
violations.
They
designated
the
case
as
related
to
the

pending
suit
over
the
administration
arbitrarily
yanking
funds
from
the
school
to
punish
it
for
amorphous
thought
crimes,
and,
having
successfully
gotten
themselves
a
berth
on
Judge
Allison
Burroughs’s
docket,
filed
an

emergency
motion
for
a
temporary
restraining
order.

“Revoking
Harvard’s
certification
is
unlawful
many
times
over,”
they
wrote,
noting
that
there
is
a
process
for
revoking
SEVP
certification,
and
it
involves
more
than
just
yelling
about
antisemitism
and
“illegal”
DEI.

“The
thousands
of
international
students
who
were
scheduled
to
arrive
on
campus
for
the
upcoming
summer
and
fall
terms
will
no
longer
be
able
to
enter
the
country,”
they
argued,
adding,
“The
effects
on
Harvard’s
students—all
of
its
students—will
be
devastating.
Without
its
international
students,
Harvard
is
not
Harvard.”

And
Judge
Burroughs
agreed.
Before
lunch,
she
issued
a

TRO
barring
the
government
from
“Implementing,
instituting,
maintaining,
or
giving
effect
to
the
revocation
of
Plaintiff’s
SEVP
certification”
or
“Giving
any
force
or
effect
to
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security’s
May
22,
2025
Revocation
Notice.”

Kristi
Noem
barely
got
a
full
news
cycle
out
of
the
thing.
And
thanks
to
her
constant
shouting
that
she’s
cutting
grants
and
revoking
the
“privilege”
of
SEVP
to
punish
the
school
for
exceeding
the
WOKE
limit,
she’s
not
going
to
win
another
cycle
any
time
soon.

A
hearing
is
scheduled
for
Wednesday
at
10:30am.
Let’s
see
which
DOJ
lawyer
gets
to
show
up
and
argue
that
it’s

totally
fine
to
cancel
summer
school
because
Harvard
is
teaching
anti-American
ideologies.


President
and
Fellows
of
Harvard
College
v.
United
States
Department
of
Homeland
Security
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]




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