Author: TSA Press

Sidley
Austin
is
the
latest
firm
to
cement
their
place
in
the
top
echelon
of
Biglaw
by
offering
associates
top-of-market
bonuses.
Must
be
that
nifty
$3,100,458,000
in
gross
revenue
the
firm
took
down
last
year.

The
firm
will
offer
the
following
bonus
schedule
for
associates,
provided
they
hit
they
2,000
hour
billable
target.

Class Year	2024 Year-end Bonus	Special Bonus
2016	$115,000	$25,000
2017	$115,000	$25,000
2018	$105,000	$25,000
2019	$90,000	$25,000
2020	$75,000	$20,000
2021	$57,500	$15,000
2022	$30,000	$10,000
2023	$20,000	$6,000

But
there’s
extra
special
news
for
“associates
who
have
higher
productivity
and/or
exceptional
performance”
—
up
to
a
50%
bump!

Associates
with
2,000
qualifying
hours
will
receive
the
base
bonus
reflected
in
the
chart
below.
As
in
prior
years,
we
also
recognize
associates
who
have
higher
productivity
and/or
exceptional
performance
with
additional
bonuses
that
exceed
the
base
bonus
amounts,
resulting
in
those
associates
receiving
more
than
the
base
bonus
for
their
class
year,
and
in
some
cases
more
than
50%
above
base
bonus.

And
if
you
failed
to
meet
that
2,000
hour
threshold,
you
may
not
be
screwed.
The
firm
notes
they
“may
be
recognized
with
partial
bonuses.”

As
is
their
tradition,
Sidley
also
noted
that
associates
were
—
as
they
do
every
year
—
moving
up
the
existing
compensation
scale.

Bonuses
will
be
paid
out
prior
to
December
31.
You
can
read
the
full
email

on
the
next
page.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
all
of
your
help!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

---

---

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
felt
Big
Law
had
become
too
big,
too
woke,
and
a
lot
of
the
values
that
were
important
to
me
during
my
career
in
Washington—the
values
that
were
in
law
firms,
the
collegiality,
the
focus
on
the
interests
of
the
client—I
thought
it
would
be
good
to
try
to
recapture
some
of
those
values.

—
Former
U.S.
Attorney
General

Bill
Barr,
offering
commentary
to
the

Daily
Business
Review
on
why
he
left
Biglaw
behind
to
start
his
own
firm
after
serving
as
AG
for
Presidents
George
H.W.
Bush
and
Donald
J.
Trump,
during
last
week’s
Government
Investigations
&
Civil
Litigation
Institute
conference
in
Florida.
“We
don’t
have
a
game
plan
like,
‘Oh,
we’re
going
to
create
a
big,
national
firm.’
Nor
do
we
have
a
game
plan
to
stay
a
minimalist
boutique,”
Barr
said
of
his
firm,
Torridon
Law
Group.
“We’re
going
to
follow
opportunities
when
they
present
themselves.
If
someone
I
believe
is
really
good
and
would
be
a
great
partner,
…
we’ll
try
to
grow
and
bring
them
into
the
firm.”

---

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.

Well,
the
Republic
was
fun
while
it
lasted.

This
afternoon
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
moved
to
voluntarily
dismiss
both
criminal
cases
against
Donald
Trump.
Thanks
to
our
feckless
Supreme
Court
and
a
50-year-old
precedent
meant
to
usher
Richard
Nixon
out
without
too
much
fuss,
Donald
Trump
has
managed
to
save
himself
from
the
consequences
of
an
attempted
coup
by
getting
himself
reelected.

As
in
the
Mueller
Investigation,
the
Justice
Department’s
invented
immunity
for
a
sitting
president
has
once
again
thwarted
the
prosecution
of
an
unrepentant
criminal.

“It
has
long
been
the
position
of
the
Department
of
Justice
that
the
United
States
Constitution
forbids
the
federal
indictment
and
subsequent
criminal
prosecution
of
a
sitting
President,”
Smith
writes
in
his

motion
to
dismiss

the
election
interference
case
in
DC,
adding
that
“That
prohibition
is
categorical
and
does
not
turn
on
the
gravity
of
the
crimes
charged,
the
strength
of
the
Government’s
proof,
or
the
merits
of
the
prosecution,
which
the
Government
stands
fully
behind.”

Smith
says
that
he
consulted
the
Office
of
Legal
Counsel
and
concluded
that,
“although
the
Constitution
requires
dismissal
in
this
context,
consistent
with
the
temporary
nature
of
the
immunity
afforded
a
sitting
President,
it
does
not
require
dismissal
with
prejudice.”
Presumably
this
is
to
leave
open
the
possibility
of
prosecuting
Trump
once
he
leaves
office,
if
ever.

In
the
Eleventh
Circuit,
Smith
also

moved
to
dismiss
the
appeal
of
Judge
Aileen
Cannon’s
dismissal
of
the
stolen
documents
case
—
but
only
with
respect
to
Trump
himself.

“The
appeal
concerning
the
other
two
defendants
will
continue
because,
unlike
defendant
Trump,
no
principle
of
temporary
immunity
applies
to
them,”
he
writes
of
Trump’s
hapless
henchmen
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira.

Dismissing
with
respect
to
the
lesser
goons
would
be
problematic,
allowing
Cannon’s
fakakta
ruling
that
special
counsels
are

illegal
to
stand.
This
may
present
a
conundrum
for
Pam
Bondi,
when
she
takes
the
reins
from
Attorney
General
Merrick
Garland:
How
can
she
appoint
Special
Counsel
Matt
Gaetz
to
investigate
Jack
Smith
if
special
counsels
are
against
the
law?
(That’s
a
joke.
Logical
and
legal
inconsistency
is
not
going
to
be
a
bar
in
a
second
Trump
administration.)

In
the
meantime,
dismissing
these
cases
paves
the
way
for
Smith
to
release
his
mandatory
final
report.
Under
28
CFR
§
600.8(c),
“At
the
conclusion
of
the
Special
Counsel’s
work,
he
or
she
shall
provide
the
Attorney
General
with
a
confidential
report
explaining
the
prosecution
or
declination
decisions
reached
by
the
Special
Counsel.”
AG
Garland
has
indicated
that
he
does
intend
to
release
this
report
publicly,
something
AG
Bondi
would
certainly
refuse
to
do.

That
won’t
stop
the
BlueAnon-ers
from
insisting
that
Smith
should
have
stuck
around
until
January
and
made
Trump
fire
him.
But
at
least
it’ll
make
for
good
reading
as
we
all
wait
to
be
shipped
off
to
Gitmo.

US
v.
Trump
[11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

US
v.
Trump [District
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

substack and podcast.

Introduction

From
November
5
to
10,
2024,
Parliament
of
Zimbabwe
held
a
2025
pre-budget
seminar
in
Bulawayo.  The
issues
for
discussion
during
the
week-long
retreat
included
reviewing
the
2024
budget
performance,
the
current
economic
situation
and
the
bids
for
the
2025
national
budget
based
on
the
projected
revenue
in
the
financial
year
2025. 
The
seminar
revealed
that
the
economy
was
declining
and
many
social
and
economic
sectors
were
underfunded
in
the
2024
budget,
indicating
that
it
was
going
to
be
an
uphill
task
to
meet
the
Vision
2030
targets
of
making
Zimbabwe
an
upper
middle
income
by
2030. 
It
became
clear
that
education,
health,
water
and
sanitation
and
energy
were
grossly
underfunded
and
hence
the
majority
of
the
population
were
struggling
and
living
in
poverty. 
While
the
economy
is
tipped
to
rebound
from
the
El
Nino
induced
drought,
the
fiscal
space
remains
constrained
and
the
disposable
incomes
of
the
working
class
remains
meagre
and
inadequate. 
The
economy
will
continue
to
informalise
and
bleed
jobs
as
the
currency
crisis
continues
and
the
foreign
exchange
shows
little
signs
of
stabilising
in
the
near
future.

2024
Budget
Nearly
Exhausted
in
Ten
months

The
Ministry
of
Finance,
Economic
Development
and
Investment
Promotion
has
indicated
that
all
ministries,
departments
and
agencies
have
to
stop
foreign
travel,
cut
back
on
their
fuel
allocations
by
50%
and
not
make
any
new
procurement
of
goods
and
services
in
the
months
of
November
and
December
2024. 
It
said
the
budget
was
severely
affected
by
the
devaluation
of
the
local
currency
by
43%
in
September
against
the
United
States
dollar,
backdated
civil
service
salary
increments
and
the
dwindling
revenue
collections
by
the
Zimbabwe
Revenue
Authority
(ZIMRA).

Where
Did
the
Money
Go?

According
to
Treasury
reports,
by
September
30,
2024,
four
departments
had
utilised
more
than
100%
of
their
approved
budgets.

The
following
are
the
departments
that
had
spent
more
than
budgeted:

• Office
  of
  the
  President
  and
  Cabinet
  [OPC]
  (109%);
• Transport
  and
  Infrastructural
  Development
  (162%);
• Agriculture
  (105%)
  and
• The
  Judicial Service Commission
  (106%)

Note
To
put
spending
into
context:

o   the
OPC
budget
is
not
subject
to
being
accountable
to
Parliament. 
But
press
reports
give
some
indication
of
the
large
number
foreign
trips
done
by
the
President
and
Cabinet
ministers,
with
large
entourages,
and
these
are
paid
in
foreign
currency
as
are
purchases
of
luxury
vehicles
fro
this
budget;

o   transport
and
infrastructure
show
lack
of
monitoring
and
probably
do
not
show
outstanding
amounts
to
be
paid
to
contractors
[e.g.
on
preparations
for
the
SADC
Summit]

o   the
JSC
spends
money
on
“perks” 
– 
houses,
farms,
vehicles

o   agriculture
perennially
funds
farmers
who
year
after
year
default
in
repayments.

Which
Sectors
were
Underfunded?

During
the
same
period
the
following
institutions
had
the
least
disbursements:

• Zimbabwe
  Anti-Corruption
  Commission
  (7,7%); ZACC
  was
  underfunded
  despite
  the
  rising
  corruption
  cases
  in
  the
  public
  and
  private
  sectors,
  especially
  among
  the
  elites
• National Prosecuting
  Authority
  (38,6%);  This
  is
  very
  worrying
  considering
  the
  time
  it
  is
  taking
  to
  prosecute
  criminal
  cases
  in
  the
  courts
  and
  some
  criminals
  going
  scot-free
  because
  of
  inadequate
  investigations
  or
  failure
  to
  prosecute
  cases
  timeously.
• Public Service
  and
  Social
  Welfare
  (19,68%);
  This
  is
  the
  ministry
  that
  has
  the
  responsibility
  of
  providing
  social
  safety
  nets
  to
  the
  poor
  and
  vulnerable
  groups
  and
  provide
  fees
  for
  poor
  children
  under
  the
  Basic
  Education
  Assistance
  Module
  and
  cash
  transfers
  to
  poor
  households
  especially
  during
  tough
  economic
  times
  like
  the
  present
  El
  Nino
  induced
  drought.  The
  underfunding
  is
  horrific
  and
  shows
  a
  lack
  of
  care
  for
  ordinary
  citizens.
• Health and Child
  Welfare
  (44,33%);  The
  underfunding
  of
  primary
  health
  care
  has
  given
  rise
  to
  diseases
  like
  cholera
  in
  urban
  areas
  and
  failure
  to
  offer
  basic
  services
  to
  ill
  persons
  at
  primary
  health
  centres
  and
  the
  low
  nurses
  to
  patient
  ratio
  and
  doctor
  to
  patient
  ratio
  in
  public
  hospitals.
• Environment
  and
  Climate
  (49%). The
  level
  of
  funding
  for
  climate
  change
  adaptation
  and
  mitigation
  is
  not
  commensurate
  with
  the
  level
  of
  talk
  by
  officials
  at
  international
  forums
  and
  shows
  up
  their
  lack
  of
  commitment. 
  It
  is
  particularly
  reprehensible
  in
  that
  many
  rural
  poor
  families
  have
  no
  access
  to
  potable
  water
  and
  electricity.

What
Do
the
Funding
Priorities
Indicate?

It
is
apparent
from
the
aforesaid
budget
performance
statistics
which
areas
the
government
did
not
prioritise. 
Health,
anti-corruption,
public
service
and
social
welfare
and
environment
and
climate
were
not
that
big
in
the
scheme
of
the
Executive.
These
figures
relate
to
the
unfortunate
reality
of
our
deteriorating
public
health
system,
the
mushrooming
corruption
in
both
private
and
public
spheres,
the
lack
of
social
safety
nets
for
the
poor
and
vulnerable,
and
token
attention
to
emerging
climate
change
effects.

On
the
other
hand,
these
statistics
provide
ample
evidence
that
the
Zimbabwean
government
has
an
insatiable
taste
for
extravagant
expenditure.

2024
Revenue

The
tax
revenues
heads
in
2024
shows
how
much
the
government
has
been
relying
on
direct
taxes
to
citizens.

• VAT
  on
  domestic
  goods
  contributed
  19%
• PAYE
  contributed
  22%
• Mobile
  money
  transfers
  (IMMT)
  4%

The
above
figures
can
be
contrasted
with
what
business
is
supposed
to
be
contributing
to
the
fiscus.

• Corporate
  taxes
  9%  While
  the
  poor
  economic
  climate
  and
  failure
  of
  currency
  policies
  have
  resulted
  in
  many
  businesses
  struggling
  in
  Zimbabwe,
  avoidance
  by
  some
  business
  has been
  condoned
  and
  a
  number
  of
  foreign
  businesses
  have
  been
  exempted
  from
  paying
  taxes.
• Royalties
  3%; The
  low
  taxes
  from
  royalties
  brings
  the
  spotlight
  on
  what
  is
  going
  on
  in
  the
  mining
  sector.
  While
  Zimbabwe
  has
  been
  renowned
  for
  exporting
  commodities
  such
  as
  gold,
  chrome,
  lithium
  and
  platinum,
  it
  is
  becoming
  evident
  that
  there
  must
  be
  a
  great
  deal of
  smuggling
  of
  minerals
  out
  of
  the
  country, thus
  accounting
  for
  the low
  royalties coming in to
  the
  coffers.
• Customs
  duty
  7%; One
  cannot
  escape
  the
  fact
  that
  the
  low
  funding
  to
  the
  NPA
  and
  ZAAC
  also
  contributes
  to
  the
  huge
  leakages
  at
  the
  borders
  where
  many
  companies
  are
  either
  smuggling
  goods
  into
  the
  country
  or
  are
  under-invoicing.

What
Needs
to
be
Done?

It
is
clear
that
the
government
should
implement
the
following
steps
immediately
to
turn
the
tide
from
further
sinking
into
debt:

• Government
  has
  to
  cut
  back
  on
  wasteful
  expenditure
• Government has
  to
  restructure
  its
  wage
  bill
  especially
  at
  Executive
  level
  and
  at
  parastatals
• ZIMRA
  has
  to
  be
  more
  aggressive
  in
  tax
  collection
• Corruption
  should
  be
  fought
  with
  everything
  at
  the
  State’s
  disposal
• Sovereign
  debt
  restructuring
  –
  it
  now
  stands
  at
  a
  staggering
  US$21
  billion
  [and
  perhaps
  more]
• The
  Government
  has
  to
  start
  living
  within
  its
  means
  and
  stop
  overgenerous
  handouts
  to
  top
  officials
  at
  the
  expense
  of
  the
  taxpaying
  public.

Conclusion

To
borrow
from
South
Africa’s
former
president
Nelson
Mandela’s
famous
speech
on
poverty. 
He
said: 
“Like
slavery
and
apartheid,
poverty
is
not
natural. 
It
is
man-made
and
it
can
be
removed
by
actions
of
human
beings. 
National
budgets
must
reflect
our
commitment
to
ending
poverty
and
inequality.”

The
2025
budget
allocations
and
disbursements
should
reflect
Mandela’s
thoughts
and
the
Treasury
should
be
seen
to
be
fighting
poverty
through
national
budgets
reflecting
the
government’s
commitment
to
ending
poverty
and
inequality.
This
is
the
duty
of
and
expectations that
the
public
have
of
the
Treasury
when
it
tables
the
2025
national
budget.

Veritas
makes
every
effort
to
ensure
reliable
information,
but
cannot
take
legal
responsibility
for
information
supplied.

Post
published
in:

Business

When
NPR
Morning
Edition
announced
yesterday
that
they
would
have
a
“long
talk
with
Leonard
Leo”
this
morning,
my
first
thought
was
that
it
would
be
incredibly
superficial
and
bad.
As
it
happens,
it
was
incredibly
superficial
and
bad.

The
architect
of
the
Federalist
Society’s
infiltration
of
the
judiciary
and

bag
man
for
Ginni
Thomas
is
riding
high
with
a
Supreme
Court
willing
to
rewrite
history
willy-nilly
to
reverse
engineer
contemporary
right-wing
political
preferences.
Leo
calls
this
“interpreting
the
Constitution
as
it’s
written
and
it
was
understood
by
the
founding
fathers,”
which
isn’t
even
the
dominant
definition
of
Originalism
(which
is
“as
it
would’ve
been
understood
by
the
public
at
time”),
but
Originalism
is
just
PR
fluff
devoid
of
real
meaning
anyway.

The
“long
talk,”
defined
as
seven
and
a
half
minutes,
began
with
host
Steve
Inskeep
asking
about
the
federal
judiciary.
With
an
incoming
administration

openly
bragging
about
using
the
Justice
Department
to
retaliate
against
the
president’s
critics,
Inskeep
explicitly
asked
Leo
if
he’s
“concerned
about
the
rule
of
law
in
this
moment?”
Leo’s
response
amounts
to
mealy-mouthed
doublespeak,
but
the
NPR
ad
placement
algorithm
earns
an
A+
on
this
one.

Sadly,
the
juxtaposition
of
Leo’s
“the
rule
of
law
is
FINE,
stop
asking”
response
with
“Donald
Trump
plans
to
give
free
passes
to
the
guys
trying
to
hang
Mike
Pence”
would
be
the
edgiest
the
interview
gets.

“Protects
against
any
rash
or
hasty
action
by
presidents…”?
My
brother
in
Christ,
Trump
took
the
legal
position
that
a
president
could
order
Seal
Team
6
to
assassinate
a
political
rival
and
the
Supreme
Court


affirmed
that
position.
What
guardrails
does
Leo
envision
in
light
of
that
opinion?
Too
bad
we’re
not
graced
with
any
specifics
from
Leo.
Because
it’s
certainly
not
impeachment
in
a
world
where
they
couldn’t
even
scrounge
up
the
necessary
supermajority
among
Senators
who

had
literally
just
fled
for
their
lives.

RUN,
JOSH,
RUN!

While
touching
on
the
courts,
the
predominant
topic
for
the
interview
was
Leo’s
new
initiative
to
carry
his
judicial
takeover
over
to
the
rest
of
American
society.
Or
to
use
the
precise
language
from
the
interview
“to
bring
conservative
influence
to
businesses
Wall
Street,
Silicon
Valley,
Hollywood,
in
the
same
way
that
you
brought
more
conservative
influences
to
the
judiciary.”

Promoting
subpar
talent
to
high
positions
based
on
ideology?
Who’s
against
affirmative
action
again?

Leo
agreed
with
the
Inskeep’s
assessment
and
said
they’re
looking
to
promote
more
professionals
to
produce
“family-centered
entertainment,
where
there’s
a
high
demand”
as
he
unironically
described
every
project
that
you
quickly
blow
past
on
your
way
to
literally
anything
else
on
streaming.

And
there
are
a
lot
of
young
professionals
in
entertainment
and
in
journalism
and
in
business
and
finance
who
are
looking
for
opportunities
to
inject
their
traditional
values
and
the
Western
cultural
tradition
into
other
aspects
of
American
social
and
cultural
life.

The
only
appropriate
journalistic
follow-up
whenever
one
of
these
people
uses
“Western
cultural
tradition”
is
to
ask
them
to
define
what
that
means
in
a
way
that
isn’t
just
flagrantly
bigoted.
It’s
a
Pepsi
challenge
that
doesn’t
get
invoked
nearly
enough.
When
someone
finally
asked
Penn
Law’s
Amy
Wax
to
flesh
out
what

she
meant
by
white
cultural
tradition
she
said
she
wasn’t
shying
away
from
the
word
“superior”
and
then
started
explaining
that
she
thought

Black
law
students
weren’t
intellectual
capable
and
that

the
country
needed
fewer
Asian
people.

It’s
wild
what
comes
out
when
you
pull
that
thread
with
these
folks.

At
this
point,
the
interview
asked
him
to
react
to
a
quote
he
made
in
a
video
obtained
by
ProPublica
that
his
goal
is
to
“crush
liberal
dominance.”

Leo:
Yes!
And
the
reason
Steve
–
and
I
would
really
call
your
attention
to
the
words
I
used:
I
want
to
crush
liberal
dominance.
In
other
words,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
there’s
a
level
playing
field
for
the
American
people
to
make
choices
about
the
lives
that
they
want
to
have
in
their
country.
I’m
perfectly
happy
having
a
world
where
people
can
make
choices
between
various
kinds
of
things.
But
what
I
don’t
want
is
a
system
where
our
entertainment
system
or
our
world
of
news
media
or
our
business
and
finance
worlds
are
heavily
dominated
by
left
ideology
that
either
chokes
out
other
ways
of
thinking
about
things,
or
that
just
creates
a
system
where
sort
of
inappropriate
political
and
policy
decisions
are
being
made
in
places
where
politics
and
policy
don’t
really
have
a
proper
place.

Florida

passed
a
law
against
saying
“gay”
and
then
engaged
in

government
retaliation
against
companies
with
executives
who
chose
to
exercise
free
speech
rights
to
criticize
it!
Texas
is

actively
banning
books!
Louisiana
is
trying
to

make
public
schools
display
the
Ten
Commandments!

When
Leo
says,
“I’m
perfectly
happy
having
a
world
where
people
can
make
choices
between
various
kinds
of
things,”
the
proper
follow-up
is

“so
are
you
prepared
here
today
to
denounce
Florida
governor
Ron
DeSantis
and
Texas
governor
Greg
Abbott?”
The
answer
would
almost
certainly
be
a
cowardly
dodge,
but
if
not
it’s
an
interesting
quote
to
have
on
the
record.

Alas,
that
was
not
the
follow-up.

Also,
did
Leo
just
suggest
that
the
problem
is
a
world
“where
news
media
or
our
business
and
finance
worlds”
contribute
to
“a
system
where
sort
of
inappropriate
political
and
policy
decisions
are
being
made
in
places
where
politics
and
policy
don’t
really
have
a
proper
place”?
A
Fox
News
personality
is
nominated
to
head
the
Pentagon
and
Elon
Musk
is
the
shadow
president.
Isn’t
this
indicative
that
the
cultural
break
he’s
describing
is
at
least
as
bad
if
not

much,
much
more
pronounced
on
the
right?

Anything
on
this?
No?

Look,
in
NPR’s
defense,
I
think
they
may
be
so
deep
in
the
weeds
that
they
think
someone
saying
“yes,
I
intend
to
circumvent
the
free
marketplace
of
ideas
to
give
affirmative
action
to
conservatives
who
otherwise
couldn’t
get
hired”
sounds
batshit
crazy
enough.
Unfortunately,
the
era
of
audiences
appreciating
subtlety
has
passed.

While
Leo
imagines
that
they
might
be
in
for
a
long-haul
with
some
of
these
changes,
he
took
delight
in
some
recent
developments:

And
I
am
also
very
impressed
with
how
quickly
you’re
seeing
efforts,
for
example,
in
the
journalism
and
entertainment
spaces,
the
standing
up
of
new
production
studios
and
news
platforms.
Very
impressed
with
the
speed
with
which
the
debate
about
ESG
has
kind
of
flipped
and
changed.

Well,
Leonard,
doesn’t
it
seem
a
bit
hypocritical
to
say
that
you
need
to
invest
tons
of
dark
money
to
astroturf
conservative
influence
into
cultural
institutions
while
simultaneously
slagging
ESG
initiatives?
I
mean,
isn’t
the
basis
of
your
beef
with
ESG
that
companies
have
artificially
advanced
liberal
causes
that
would
crumble
on
their
own
merits
otherwise?

And
despite
the
general
level
of
criticism
above,
Inskeep
really
does

try
to
get
an
answer
out
of
Leo
on
this
point.

Inskeep:
ESG
–
environmental,
social
and
governance
–
the
idea
of
having
socially
responsible
investing.
That’s
a
thing
you
want
to
change,
you’re
saying.

Leo:
Yeah.
That’s
the
other
area
where
we’ve
seen
some
really
quick
changes.
Right.
You
know,
we’ll
walk
back
from
companies
and
finance
firms
for
doing
and
again,
it’s
a
speed
of
change
that
we
really
didn’t
see
in
the
law.
Again,
I
can’t
explain
why
that
is,
but
it
does
seem
to
be
that
there’s
a
slightly
different
dynamic
in
play
when
you
see
these
other
networks
building
up
in
these
other
sectors
of
American
life.

That’s
not
responsive
to
the
question.
He
asked
if
you
supported
getting
rid
of
ESG
and
you
said
it
was
happening
fast.

And
then
the
interview
ended.

NPR
justice
correspondent
Carrie
Johnson
joined
after
the
interview
to
list
all
the
disturbing
opportunities
Trump
has
to
abuse
a
pliant
federal
judiciary
going
forward.
But
when
Leo
was
on
the
line,
he
avoided
all
these
difficult
questions.

After
Judge
Edith
Jones
used
the
Federalist
Society
convention

to
launch
unhinged
attacks
on
Steve
Vladeck,
a
lot
of
media
coverage
tried
to
deliver
a
matter-of-fact
account
that
would
woefully
mislead
anyone
trying
to
figure
out
what
actually
happened
from
the
article.
As
Hunter
S.
Thompson
put
it
decades
ago:

Some
people
will
say
that
words
like
scum
and
rotten
are
wrong
for
Objective
Journalism—which
is
true,
but
they
miss
the
point.
It
was
the
built-in
blind
spots
of
the
Objective
rules
and
dogma
that
allowed
Nixon
to
slither
into
the
White
House
in
the
first
place.
He
looked
so
good
on
paper
that
you
could
almost
vote
for
him
sight
unseen.
He
seemed
so
all-American,
so
much
like
Horatio
Alger,
that
he
was
able
to
slip
through
the
cracks
of
Objective
Journalism.
You
had
to
get
Subjective
to
see
Nixon
clearly.

Chaos
is
a
ladder
in
the
game
of
thrones
and
objective
journalism
is
a
ladder
in
a
democracy.
You
can’t
cover
guys
like
Leo
—
or
Trump
or
Judge
Jones
—
with
all
the
niceties
of
“objective”
journalism.
They
depend
on
the
journalistic
impulse
to
stay
“balanced”
to
paper
over
their
outrageousness.
Trust
that
they
know
that
they’re
winning
this
exchange
in
the
mainstream
media.
And
it’s
going
to
get
a
lot
worse
and
the
media
just
isn’t
ready.

The
man
who
helped
roll
back
abortion
rights
now
wants
to
‘crush
liberal
dominance’
[NPR]

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Biglaw
bonus
season
is
in
full
swing,
and
feels
like
everyone
is
getting
in
on
the
action.
The
latest
firm
to
announce
associate
bonuses
in
Covington
&
Burling.

The
D.C.-based
firm
with
10
offices
worldwide
made
$1,549,090,000
in
gross
revenue
last
year
—
financials
that
garnered
them
the
#28
spot
on
the
Am
Law
100.
As
expected,
the
firm
ponied
up
bonuses
that
match
the
prevailing
Milbank
scale.

The
bonuses
at
Covington
are
as
follows:

But
as
a
salty
associate
at
the
firm
noted:

Covington
“matched”
the
Milbank
special
bonus
but
the
special
bonus
is
contingent
on
meeting
the
regular
bonus
hours
benchmark
(so
they
didn’t
actually
match
what
the
market
is
doing)

Which,
fair
enough.
The
Milbank
gold
standard
has
no
hours
requirement
attached.
We
will
also
note,
however,
that
associates
that
have
high
billables
will
get
an
extra
bump:
a
10%
increase
at
the
2,200-
and
2,400-hour
thresholds.
You
can
read
the
full
memo
below.

Bonuses
at
the
firm
will
be
paid
in
January.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
all
of
your
help!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

---

---

Join
us
for
a
webinar
on
December
11
at
1
p.m.
EST 
where
we
explore
how
GenAI
can
help
transactional
attorneys
tackle
common
challenges
in
their
day-to-day
work.
From
navigating
complex
due
diligence
to
optimizing
drafting
and
negotiation,
this
session
will
showcase
real-world
AI
solutions
that
make
your
work
faster,
more
accurate,
and
more
efficient.

You’ll
hear
from
an
expert
panel,
including
industry
veterans
and
a
former
M&A
attorney,
who
will
discuss
how,
with
the
help
of
GenAI,
transactional
lawyers
can:

• 
  Boost
  Productivity
  in
  Due
  Diligence
  and
  Drafting:
  Discover
  how
  AI-powered
  technology
  enables
  streamlined
  contract
  review
  and
  optimized
  drafting,
  empowering
  legal
  teams
  to
  eliminate
  repetitive
  tasks
  and
  focus
  on
  higher-value
  work.
• 
  Leverage
  Data
  for
  Smarter
  Negotiations
  and
  Research:
  Learn
  how
  to
  access
  past
  deal
  data
  and
  tap
  into
  your
  firm’s
  collective
  knowledge
  to
  make
  informed,
  data-driven
  decisions—enhancing
  your
  negotiation
  strategies
  and
  precedent
  research.
• 
  Elevate
  Client
  Service
  and
  Collaboration:
  See
  how
  integrating
  AI
  into
  your
  workflow
  can
  deepen
  client
  relationships
  by
  delivering
  faster,
  more
  comprehensive
  legal
  insights
  and
  expanding
  the
  scope
  of
  your
  services.

The
legal
academy’s
comic
relief,
Jonathan
Turley,
just
informed
his
audience
that
the
Department
of
Justice
has
indicted
the
people
responsible
for
calling
in
a
fake
serious
police
emergency
at
his
location
—
a
practice
known
as
“swatting”
—
which
can
have
deadly
results
as
law
enforcement
can
descend
on
these
calls
with
a
“shoot
first”
urgency.
Thankfully,
the
attack
on
Turley
did
not
result
in
any
injuries.

At
the
time,
Turley
blamed
the
“age
of
rage”
so
he
could
use
the
crime
to
generate
some
synergy
to
juice
sales
of
his
book
by
the
same
name.
Everyday
he’s
hustling!

So

how
did
that
theory
turn
out?

The
indictment
below
charges
two
foreign
nationals:
Thomasz
Szabo,
26,
of
Romania,
and
Nemanja
Radovanovic,
21,
of
Serbia.
…
The
indictment
alleges
that
their
crimes
encompassed
40
private
victims
and
61
official
victims,
including
members
of
Congress,
cabinet-level
executive
branch
officials,
and
senior
federal
law
enforcement
officials.
It
also
included
four
businesses,
four
religious
institutions,
and
one
victim
university.

His
“age
of
rage”
theory
implied
that
a
cabal
of
domestic
liberals
were
out
to
do
him
physical
harm
when
in
reality
they
just
laugh
at
his
buffoonery.
Instead,
it
seems
to
be
a
pair
of
foreign
nationals
engaged
in
a
broad-based
attack
on
public
figures
in
the
United
States.
Swing
and
a
miss,
Jon!

But
it
probably
feels
better
to
imagine
oneself
as
a
heroic
figure
speaking
truth
to
power
at
the
risk
of
political
violence
than
confront
just
being
a
punchline
for

Above
the
Law.
Note
how
he
carefully
describes
his
co-victims
as
“cabinet-level
executive
branch
officials”
rather
than
“Biden
administration
cabinet-level
executive
branch
officials,”
a
more
accurate
description
for
such
victims
in
December
2023
when
this
all
took
place.
So
the
attacks
did
include
Democrats despite
the
efforts
of
his
friends
at
Fox
News
to
milk
the
attacks
by
claiming
that
they
targeted
“3
GOP
lawmakers
since
Christmas”
in
an
article
Turley
participated
in.
Turley
conspicuously
avoids
the
phrase
“age
of
rage”
in
this
article
now
that
reality
has
thrown
water
on
his
previous
theory.

Speaking
of

Above
the
Law,
rather
than
address
the
fact
that
his
whole
theory
of
the
case
turned
out
to
be
utter
bullshit,
Turley
used
the
indictment
to
throw
a
random
stray
our
direction.
Specifically,
Turley
called
out
our
earlier
coverage
of
the
attack
when
we
lamented,
regardless
of
the
motive
behind
it,
that
the
stakes
of
swatting
have
grown
more
and
more
dangerous
because
“Swatting
is
a
byproduct
of
a
nation
awash
in
more
and
more
powerful
weapons
and
more
and
more
edgy
cops.”

As
it
happens,
this
claim
enjoys
empirical
support!

One
study
looking
at
the
impact
of
gun
laws
on
law
enforcement
reviewed
the
numbers
of
police
killed
over
a
14-year
period
in
two
groups
of
states
chosen
to
control
for
the
number
of
police
officers
in
each.
The
study
found
that
police
were
three
times
more
likely
to
be
killed
in
the
line
of
duty
in
the
cohort
of
gun-friendly
states
compared
to
the
states
with
fewer
guns.
That
officers
respond
accordingly
in
light
of
the
heightened
risk
isn’t
rocket
science.

Does
Turley
have
a
countervailing
data-driven
response?

For
some,
these
stories
become
irresistible
opportunities
to
vent
against
the
victims
or
even
bizarre
attacks
on
conservative
legal
theory. 
The
liberal
gotcha
site,
Above
the
Law,
covered
my
swatting
with
the
usual
ad
hominem
attacks
while
adding
a
truly
unhinged
spin
to
the
story.
Senior
Editor
Joe
Patrice
(who
has
defended
“predominantly
liberal
faculties”
and
not
hiring
conservative
or
libertarian
law
professors)
insisted
that
swatting
is
somehow
the
fault
of
gun
owners,
Second
Amendment
advocates,
and
“edgy”
police….

Prosecutors
notably
did
not
include
the
conservative
justices
as
co-conspirators
with
Szabo
and
Radovanovic.

Friends,
he
does
not.

This
barely
even
qualifies
as
handwaving.
The
man
has
had
almost
a
year
to
formulate
a
response
to
my
article
and
this
is
all
he
could
come
up
with?

No
one
—
least
of
all
me
—
advocated
for
holding
the
Supreme
Court
and
other
politicians
criminally
liable
just
because
their
policy
choices
have
heightened
the
inherent

risk
of
these
incidents.
Even
a
cursory
review
of
the
original

Above
the
Law
article
would
confirm
that
its
argument
is
not
that
lax
gun
laws
directly
cause
swatting,
but
that
lax
gun
laws
have
increased
the
likelihood
that
police
response
ends
in
tragedy.
This
has,
unfortunately,
provided
criminal
actors
a
more
dangerous
attack
to
exploit.
Turley
avoids
engaging
with
the
substance
of

this
claim
because
he’s
entered
an
intellectual
battle
armed
with
a
pool
noodle.

The
“usual
ad
hominem
attacks”
line
is
reminiscent
of
the
recent

embarrassing
display
put
on
by
Judge
Edith
Jones.
Like
Jones
in
her
rant
against
Professor
Vladeck,
it’s
actually
Turley
committing
the

ad
hominem
fallacy
of
replacing
logical,
evidence-based
engagement
for
jabs.
“Vent,”
“bizarre
attacks,”
“liberal
gotcha
site”
are
all
attempts
to
“poison
the
well”
so
he
could
avoid
actually
addressing
the
substance.
There’s
nothing
wrong
with
dismissive
language
if
you’re
willing
to
back
it
up.
Turley,
it
seems,
is
not.

That
might
be
because
he
concludes
his
piece
adopting
one
of
my
core
arguments!

As
more
such
cases
are
prosecuted,
it
will
hopefully
shatter
the
sense
of
anonymity
and
impunity
of
such
culprits.

The
original
article
criticized
Turley’s
assertion
that
swatting
was
a
product
of
weak
deterrence
because
Virginia
state
law
only
categorized
it
as
a
misdemeanor
as
opposed
to
a
felony. 
I
argued
then
that
it
was
not
the
lack
of
severity
of
the
potential
punishment
but
that
“People
think
they
can
call
in
reports
anonymously
and
never
be
found.”
I’m
heartened
that
he
at
least
read
enough
of
the
article
to
be
persuaded
by
my
conclusion!

Also,
back
to
the
subject
of

ad
hominem, what’s
with
his
parenthetical
“(who
has

defended
‘predominantly
liberal
faculties’
and
not
hiring
conservative
or
libertarian
law
professors)”?
That’s
an
observation
apropos
of
absolutely
nothing
except
whipping
up
his
mouth-breathing
audience
to

a
priori
reject
my
warranted
arguments.

But
ultimately
it
carries
some
unintentional
relevance.
Because
Turley’s
attempt
at
an
argument
here
makes
a
pretty
compelling
case
that
law
schools
make
the
proper,
merit-based
decision
in
not
hiring
more
conservative
or
libertarian
law
professors.

Justice
Department
Indicts
Alleged
Swatters
of
Turley,
Members
of
Congress,
and
Others
[JonathanTurley.org]

Earlier:

Jonathan
Turley
Says
He
Was
Swatted,
Offers
Thoughts
And
Prayers
For
Himself

Unhinged
Federal
Judge
Thinks
Criticizing
Judge
Shopping
Causes
Death
Threats

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Biglaw
are
matching
bonuses
like
it’s
going
out
of
style
now
that

Cravath
has
signed
off
on
Milbank’s
incredibly
generous
bonus
scale,
with

year-end
bonuses
and

special
bonuses
ranging
up
to
$140,000
for
associates.

For
some
firms,
though,
these
market
bonuses
are
just
the
base
line
—
as
it
turns
out,
there’s
a
great
deal
of
extra
bonus
money
to
be
had.
Just
how
much
extra
bonus
money
are
we
talking?

On
Friday
afternoon,
Schulte
Roth
&
Zabel
announced
that
the
firm
would
be
matching
the
Milbank
scale.
With
a
maximum
bonus
potential
for
senior
associates
of
nearly
$200,000,
SRZ
is
in
it
to
win
it.
The
firm
—
which
brought
in
$545,430,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
95
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
is
now
the
second
one
outside
of
the
Am
Law
Top
50,
excluding
boutiques,
to
make
this
match.
Here’s
what
bonuses
looks
like
at
SRZ:

Schulte
is
once
again
offering
step-up
bonuses
to
associates
who
have
really
dedicated
themselves
to
the
firm
through
their
billable
hours.
Here’s
an
excerpt
from
the
memo:

The
Firm
will
again
reward
associates
who
have
made
extraordinary
contributions
to
the
Firm
and
our
clients
with
additional
bonuses,
ranging
from
$3,000
to
$51,750.
For
example,
an
associate
in
the
class
of
2017
is
eligible
to
receive
a
maximum
total
bonus
of
$191,750
for
2024.

These
above-market
bonuses
are
quite
the
“thank
you”
for
the
incredibly
hard
work
associates
have
been
putting
in
this
year.
A
source
at
the
firm
tells
Above
the
Law,
“I
think
plenty
of
people
will
be
getting
way
above
market
comp.”
Very
exciting
news.

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Schulte
Roth
&
Zabel!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
the
full
memo
from
the
firm.)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

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.

---

---