Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Firm
Prospects’
2024
Am
Law
200
Lateral
Hiring
Report,
which
firm
hired
the
most
laterals
in
2024?

Hint:
The
firm
hired
a
total
of
448
laterals
last
year.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

I
live
not
too
far
away
from
the
Eaton
fire
which,
as
of
Tuesday
night,
is
35%
contained.
When
the
fire
started
last
week
due
to
high
winds,
the
surrounding
area
(which
includes
where
I
live)
had
its
power
shut
off
for
up
to
48
hours.
Not
only
that,
the
ash
from
the
fire
was
visible
in
the
air
and
turned
the
streets
into
ashtrays.
The
air
quality
was
so
bad
that
many
residents
voluntarily
evacuated
to
other
cities.

Eventually,
the
multiple
fires
in
Los
Angeles
County
will
be
contained.
But
the
damage
has
been
done,
and
the
current
estimated
cost
of

$250
billion
is
likely
to
rise.

Many
would
expect
that
insurance
would
cover
the
losses.
But
some
insurance
companies
have
either
dropped
their
fire
insurance
coverage
in
California
or
stopped
accepting
new
applications.
This
means
that
some
homeowners
had
to
turn
to
the
state’s
last-resort
insurance
coverage,
which
is
more
expensive
and
provides
less
coverage.
Others
had
no
insurance,
which
means
they
will
be
out
of
luck,
which
is
particularly
painful
for
those
who
owned
multimillion-dollar
houses.

But
the
majority
who
have
insurance
will
file
claims
with
their
insurers.
Given
the
size
of
the
damages
and
recent
efforts
by
insurance
companies
to
stop
accepting
new
clients
in
California,
it
may
make
people
wonder
how
they
will
handle
the
large
number
of
claims.

California
has
been
undergoing
an
insurance
crisis
for
the
past
few
years.
Since
2022,
several
major
insurance
companies,
including

State
Farm,

Allstate,
and

Farmers,
have
stopped
or
limited
new
fire
insurance
applications
in
California,
particularly
in
fire-prone
areas.
They
cite
various
reasons,
including
climate
change,
rising
labor
and
material
costs
as
a
result
of
inflation,
and
the
payouts
made
due
to
the
2017
and
2018
wildfires.

Also,
California
has
strict
laws
which
limit
how
much
insurance
companies
can
charge
for
premiums.

Proposition
103
requires
insurance
companies
to
obtain
approval
before
implementing
a
premium
rate
increase.
While
this
was
designed
to
protect
consumers
from
arbitrary
rate
increases
and
has
kept
premiums
low,
this
has
also
resulted
in
stricter
underwriting
requirements,
and
the
termination
of
new
applications
mentioned
earlier.

Furthermore,
Senate
Bill
824
prohibits
insurance
companies
from
canceling
insurance
policies
for
up
to
one
year
after
a
state
of
emergency
has
been
declared.
Indeed,
Insurance
Commissioner
Ricardo
Lara
used
this
to

declare
a
moratorium
on
cancellations
as
a
result
of
the
recent
wildfires.

But
in
2023,
in
an
effort
to
bring
insurance
companies
back,
the
California
Department
of
Insurance
implemented
a

major
regulatory
overhaul.
This
would
allow
insurance
companies
to
use
wildfire
catastrophe
modeling
to
set
rates
and
allow
them
to
pass
on
some
of
the
costs
of
reinsurance
to
customers.
This
generally
means
substantially
higher
premiums
in
exchange
for
accepting
new
insurance
applications
and
continuing
existing
coverage.

It’s
hard
to
be
an
insurance
company
in
California.
Rate
increases
must
be
approved
by
the
insurance
commissioner.
Since
the
commissioner
is
directly
elected
by
the
voters,
a
huge,
arbitrary
rate
increase
could
result
in
the
commissioner
being
unelectable
in
the
future,
or
—
worse
—
being
recalled.
If
insurance
companies
can’t
bring
in
the
enough
premium
revenue
to
pay
out
claims
and
maintain
operations,
why
bother
operating?

Some
may
ask,
why
doesn’t
the
state
become
an
insurer?
It
could
expand
its
current
FAIR
program
to
cover
more
people
and
make
it
affordable.
Since
the
state
may
have
less
of
a
profit
motive
than
the
private
sector,
wouldn’t
they
be
trusted
to
pay
claims
fairly
and
quickly?

While
that
sounds
nice,
it
hasn’t
worked
out
that
way.
Not
only
is
the
state’s
FAIR
program
a
“last
resort”
policy,
the
insurance
commissioner
is
trying
to
bring
private
insurers
back
to
the
table.
For
reasons
only
the
commissioner
and
legislators
know,
the
state
does
not
want
to
get
too
deep
in
insurance.
Maybe
it
is
too
much
work.
Maybe
taxpayers
and
voters
in
modest
and
less
disaster-prone
areas
would
be
angry
to
see
their
tax
bills
go
up
so
that
their
celebrity
and
business-titan
neighbors
in
the
Pacific
Palisades
can
get
their
seven-
or
eight-figure
casualty
claims
paid.

And
then
there
is
the
matter
of
addressing
the
insurance
companies’
grievances
or,
as
some
of
them
have
done,
they
will
simply
stop
taking
new
customers
and
slowly
exit
the
California
market.
Premiums
will
have
to
increase
to
account
for
inflation
and
to
pay
laborers
fairly,
but
a
system
should
be
set
up
to
increase
premiums
gradually
so
customers
will
not
suffer
sticker
shock.

But
there
is
the
matter
of
climate
change,
which
only
Mother
Nature
can
fully
control.
It
is
also
a
controversial
topic
with
its
fair
share
of
skeptics.
But
at
least
insurance
companies
acknowledge
its
existence
and
its
impact
on
the
environment
and
its
customers.
That
can
be
a
common-ground
starting
point
for
discussing
how
all
stakeholders
can
do
their
part
to
improve
everyone’s
financial
bottom
line.

The
recent
California
fires
have
unfortunately
displaced
a
lot
of
people
from
all
tax
brackets.
In
the
near
future,
we
will
see
how
insurance
companies
treat
their
customers
who
were
impacted.
It
is
a
complicated
business
but
in
light
of
a

recent
tragedy,
doing
the
right
thing
can
greatly
improve
the
companies’
public
images
and
make
customers
feel
slightly
better
about
paying
a
higher
premium.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

Well,
it’s
a
wrap
for


CES
2025.
Five
and
a
half
days
of
keynotes,
educational
sessions,
walking
exhibit
floors,
networking,
and,
well,
partying
have
come
to
an
end.
I’m
pooped.

I
covered
the
show
for
Above
the
Law
last
week
and
have
been
posting


my
opinions

about
what
I
have
seen
and,
most
importantly,
how
what
I
have
seen
impacts
the
law. 

The
Top
10

Now
that
I
have
returned
to
reality
and
had
a
chance
to
catch
my
breath,
here
are
my
top
10
overall
impressions
—
both
legal-related
and
general.

1.
First,
the
numbers:
The
final
statistics,
courtesy
of


CES,
are
themselves
pretty
staggering.
4500+
exhibitors
and
141K+
attendees,
including
6K+
media.
No
wonder
I’m
worn
out.
The
number
of
exhibitors
and
attendees
was
slightly
up
over
last
year.
See
my


2024
Wrap-Up.

2.
As
expected,
AI
was
front
and
center,
everywhere,
all
the
time.
While
many
presenters
went
out
of
their
way
to
establish
that
AI
was
becoming
embedded
in
products
and
what
we
all
do,
just
like
the
internet
or
electricity,
you
couldn’t
tell
it
from
the
exhibit
floor.
The
AI
capabilities
of
every
product
were
being
shouted
from
the
rooftops,
whether
AI
actually
had
a
significant
role
in
what
was
being
offered
or
not.
We
are
not
over
the
hype
cycle
in
consumer
products
or
in
legal
by
any
means.

3.
It
did
seem
clear
to
me
that
there
is
a
recognition
that
the
business
workforce
(and,
for
that
matter,
legal
workforce)
is
changing.
It’s
trending
younger
(think
Gen
Z),
and
workers
come
to
work
with
expectations
of
how
technology
should
empower
and
assist
them,
just
as
technology
does
in
home
life.
Law
firm
management
and
older
partners
need
to
realize
these
expectations
and
attitudes
toward
technology
in
supervising
workers,
training
workers,
and
in
the
hardware
and
software
they
provide.

4.
AI,
spatial
computing,
and
the
increased
blurring
of
the
real
and
virtual
worlds
are
coming
things.
While
I’m
not
sure
we
see
it
yet
in
the
workforce
to
the
extent
many
presenters
claim,
the
fact
that
we
are
witnessing
this
blurring
in
deepfakes
and
misinformation
suggests
we
can’t
ignore
it.

5.
I
was
impressed
by
how
many
women
and
people
of
color
were
presenters
and
offered
keynotes.
Keynote
speakers
and
key
women
presenters
included:

I
would
like
to
think
these
speakers
reflect
a
crack
in
the
glass
ceiling.
The
reality,
of
course,
is
white
men
still
hold
a
disproportionate
number
of
C-suite
positions,
particularly
in
the
tech
industry
and
legal.
Kudos
to
CTA,
though,
for
making
an
effort
to
showcase
women
and
minorities.

6.
Ahh,
the
products.
With
over
4,500
exhibitors,
it’s
impossible
to
see
even
the
tip
of
the
proverbial
iceberg
when
it
comes
to
the
products
displayed.
Here’s
the
thing,
though.
I
would
guess
some
75-80%
of
the
products
displayed
will
never
see
the
light
of
day
again.
They
are
just
too
experimental
and
pie
in
the
sky
to
go
mainstream,
at
least
not
yet.
Some
15-20%
of
the
products
displayed
do
something
that
other,
more
established
products
already
do.
That
leaves
a
small
percentage
of
products
that
we
will
actually
see
in
the
marketplace.
Why
bother
with
the
exhibit
halls,
then?
It’s
to
see
possibilities.
It’s
to
see
concepts
and
ideas.
It’s
to
see
products
that
may
morph
into
products
that
actually
do
make
it. 

What
product
did
I
see
that
I
think
may
go
mainstream?
Eyeglasses
that
double
as
hearing
aids.
It
is
too
a
good
fit
between
practicality
and
vanity
to
not
work.
One
other
end
of
the
spectrum
was
the
flying
car
that
was
touted
as
the
first
flying
car
to
fit
in
your
trunk.
WTF? 

Strangest
product
experience?
The
golden
retriever
service
dog
trying
to
get
its
head
around
the
natural-looking
golden
retriever
robot. 

7.
Robots.
There
was
an
increased
emphasis
on
robots
this
year.
Most
fit
in
the
enchanted
cute
pet
category.
A
few
exhibitors
displayed
human-looking
robots
that
could
perform
assembly
line
type
tasks.
My
guess
is
that
a
more
efficient
robot
would
be
less
human-looking
and
more
practical
oriented.
I
don’t
think
we
are
beyond
the
cute
stage
for
human
robots
quite
yet.

8.
One
thing
I
didn’t
report
on:
the
Yaccarino
Keynote.
Why?
She
said
everything
you
would
expect
someone
who
works
for
Elon
to
say.
Everyone
is
on
X.
All
the
advertisers
are
back.
The
best
way
to
fact-check
is
to
let
the
“community”
decide
what’s
true;
independent
fact-checking
be
damned.
DOGE
should
be
something
every
American
should
applaud.
(Unless,
I
suppose,
you
are
on
Medicaid,
Medicare,
or
Social
Security
and
happen
to
like
NPR).
Move
along;
nothing
to
see
here.

9.
Another
thing
I
didn’t
report
on
is
quantum
computing.
I
did
go
to
several
sessions
and
tried
to
get
my
head
around
it.
(One
presenter
said
classic
computing
is
based
on
math,
and
quantum
computing
is
based
on
physics.
I
sort
of
get
it.)
The
best
I
can
tell
from
all
the
presentations
is
that
quantum
computers
will
be
supercomputers
that
exponentially
increase
what
can
now
be
done
by
classic
computers.
But
most
agree
the
technology
is
not
yet
far
enough
along
to
know
precisely
what
applications
can
be
developed
to
work
with
these
computers.

The
use
of
quantum
computing
in
legal
is
unclear
other
than
being
able
to
do
some
things
better
and
faster.
One
thing
that
all
the
quantum
presenters
did
talk
about
(and
about
which
they
were
visibly
concerned)
was
the
impact
of
quantum
on
cyber
security.
The
sheer
power
of
these
computers
could
very
well
render
most
cyber
security
protections
obsolete.
And
precious
little
appears
to
be
being
done
about
it.

10.
Covid?
What
Covid?
Very
few
people
were
wearing
masks.
Very
few
references
were
made
to
Covid
anywhere.
I
got
the
distinct
impression
that
the
fear
of
Covid
has
faded
into
the
woodwork.
I
got
the
impression
that
this
show,
more
than
any
other,
has
entirely
returned
to
the
pre-Covid
normal.
We
shall
see
post-show,
I
suppose.
Pre-Covid,
it
was
a
standard
joke
that
most
attendees
came
down
with
the
“CES
crud”
post
show.
It
may
be
that
even
if
Covid
hits
attendees,
we
won’t
hear
much
about
it. 

What
About
Legal?

What
did
I
see
and
hear
that
will
have
the
most
significant
impact
on
legal?
Three
things:

1.
While
I’m
not
sure
agentic
agents
will
advance
as
far
and
as
fast
as
some
at
CES
seem
to
think,
I
do
believe
we
will
see
LLMs
advance
over
the
next
year
to
the
point
that
they
can
successfully
respond
to
prompts
with
multiple
tasks
and
questions.
And
make
decisions
and
recommendations
based
on
the
prompts.
This
ability
will
enable
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
reduce
time
on
nonproductive
work
and
enhance
efficiencies.
I
wrote
a


post

at
the
show
on
this
subject. 

2.
The
deepfake
problems
and
potential
are
real
and
getting
worse.
It
will
bedevil
lawyers
and
judges.
We
don’t
have
a
systemic
way
to
deal
with
this
crisis
and
the
gap
between
what
is
real
and
what
isn’t.
It’s
going
to
affect
litigation
and
legal.

3.
Law
firm
management
and
supervising
lawyers
need
to
deal
with
the
different
expectations
of
the
workforce
when
it
comes
to
technology.
Law
firm
management
needs
to
think
about
how
to
deal
with
the
workforce
disruption
that
is
coming
as
AI
does
more
and
more
tasks
that
humans
now
do.
If
management
doesn’t
plan,
it
will
be
faced
with
replacing
current
workers
who
know
and
understand
firm
culture
with
workers
who
may
have
the
skills
but
not
the
institutional
knowledge
and
commitment.

The
bottom
line
is
that
it’s
time
for
law
firms
and
in-house
legal
departments
to
stop
chasing
shiny
new
AI
objects
and
get
a
better
vision
of
what
the
technology
means
and
how
it
will
impact
what
we
do
and
how
we
do
it.

CES:
always
a
great
and
invigorating
Show.
Thanks


Above
the
Law

for
the
opportunity
to
cover
it.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

There
will
never
be
an
enemies
list
within
the
Department
of
Justice.

—
Former
Florida
attorney
general

Pam
Bondi,
President-elect
Donald
Trump’s
nominee
for
U.S.
attorney
general,
in

comments
given
during
her
confirmation
hearing
before
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee.
“If
confirmed,
I
will
fight
every
day
to
restore
confidence
and
integrity
to
the
Department
of
Justice
–
and
each
of
its
components,”
she
said.
“Under
my
watch,
the
partisan
weaponization
of
the
Department
of
Justice
will
end.
America
must
have
one
tier
of
justice
for
all.”

---

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

The
wild
ethical
scandal
birthed
via
Texas
bankruptcy
judge

David
R.
Jones’s
romantic
relationship
just
keeps
on
getting
bigger.

Jones,
the
(now
former)
federal
bankruptcy
judge,
was
involved
with

Elizabeth
Freeman,
the
(now
former)
bankruptcy
partner
of
a
major
law
firm
—
Jackson
Walker
—
but
he
continued
to
hear
cases
involving
that
partner/law
firm.
That
led
to
his
resignation
from
the
bench
and
a
whole
mess
of
legal
issues.
Now,
the
Department
of
Justice
is
suing
Freeman’s
former
firm
to
try
to
disgorge
up
to
$23
million
in
fees
it
collected
in
cases
overseen
by
Jones.

As
part
of
that
case,
Kirkland
&
Ellis
partner
Joshua
Sussberg
gave
a
deposition
where
Jones
had
a
“lapse
in
judgment.”
Which,
honestly,
seems
like
an
understatement.
As

reported
by
Bloomberg
Law,
during
the
deposition
he
made
it
clear
what
Kirkland
would
have
done
if
they
knew
what
was
going
on
—
for
the
record
Sussberg
said,
“We
were
absolutely
shocked,”
when
news
of
the
relationship
became
public.

“To
the
extent
that
we
were
aware
of
an
actual
financial
relationship,
I
can’t
tell
you
exactly
what
it
was
we
would
have
done,
but
we
absolutely
would’ve
made
certain
that
that
was
out
in
the
open
for
fear
of
disrupting
an
existing
case
or
go
forward
cases,”
Sussberg
said.

Kirkland
worked
extensively
with
Jackson
Walker
on
bankruptcy
matters
in
Texas.
And
Sussberg
said
during
the
deposition
that
had
he
known
about
the
Freeman/Jones
relationship,
he
would
have
blown
the
whistle.
Not
*necessarily*
out
of
a
higher
ethical
standard
but
because
Kirkland
has
“reputation
and
a
brand
that
it’s
protecting.”

Sussberg
went
on
to
note
that
even
if
the
bankruptcy
regulations
do
not
specifically
mandate
disclosure
of
the
Jones/Freeman
relationship,
Kirkland
errs
on
the
side
of
disclosure.
“There’s
all
sorts
of
different
legal
rules,
regulations,
and
ability
to
challenge,
and
remedies
and
the
like,
but
I
would
absolutely
say
that
I
do
believe
it
tarnishes
all
these
cases,”
Sussberg
said.
“And
that’s
a
great
concern
from
our
perspective.”

Jackson
Walker

maintains
Freeman
misled
the
firm
about
the
nature
of
her
relationship
with
Jones.
The
disgorgment
case
is
slated
to
go
to
trial
in
April.

Earlier:

Former
Judge
Gets
Combative
When
Pressed
On
His
Romantic
Relationship

Who
Knew
What
When?
The
Latest
In
The
Judge/Partner
Romantic
Scandal
Rocking
The
Legal
World

You
Have
To
Read
The
Texts
Uncovered
In
The
Judge/
Biglaw
Partner
Romantic
Scandal

Federal
Judge
Slams
Biglaw
Firm,
Says
Firm
‘Defiled
The
Very
Temple
Of
Justice’

Biglaw
Firm
Still
Paying
The
Price
For
Former
Partner’s
Romantic
Scandal

Scandal-Ridden
Former
Federal
Judge
Seeks
To
Squash
Lawsuit
That
Started
It
All

The
Wild
Ethical
Lapse
That
Led
To
The
Resignation
Of
A
Top
Bankruptcy
Judge

---

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].

Biglaw
firm
Proskauer
was

quick
on
the
trigger
to
announce
a
bonus
scale
for
associates
that
met
the
prevailing
market
rate.
But
according
to
insiders
at
the
firm,
that
doesn’t
mean
they’re
doing
right
by
associates.
It
seems
the
firm
decided
there’s
a
new
hours
requirement
in
order
to
get
your
bonus,
but
they
didn’t
tell
associates
that
fact
until
*after*
they
failed
to
meet
the
threshold
(that
they
didn’t
know
about).

There’s
a

post
on
Reddit
making
the
rounds
where
user
syrnaza
revealed
that
Proskauer
is
doing
associates
dirty
by
announcing
an
hours
requirement
—
retroactively
to
2024.
Wait,
that’s
not
quite
what’s
going
on
—
according
to
the
post,
the
firm
is
*enforcing*
the
hours
requirement
but
never
formally
announced
it
to
all
associates.
Even
shadier.

Proskauer
instituted
an
hours
requirement
for
bonus
this
year
despite
NEVER
TELLING
ANYONE
about
it.
And
is
withholding
bonuses
for
people
who
missed
this
imaginary
made
up
hours
requirement
by
THREE
HOURS.

Oh.
And
the
only
associates
they’ve
told
are
the
ones
whose
bonuses
got
withheld.
They
didn’t
even
announce
it
firmwide.
And
they
didn’t
announce
the
upcoming
requirement
for
bonus.
We
officially
“don’t
have
an
hours
requirement”

Disgusting
behavior.

The

Nonequity
Partner
Instagram
account
also
confirmed
the
hours
requirement
was
applied
pretty
draconianly
and
without
any
notice
(notably
after
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year,
so
there
was
no
opportunity
for
associates
to
make
up
the
hours),
plus
there
is
no
clarity
as
to
which
nonbillable
hours
counted
toward
the
threshold.

Now,
this

isn’t
the
first
time
a
Biglaw
firm
has
leveraged
the
“discretion”
in
discretionary
bonuses
to
retroactively
apply
policies
to
associates’
bonuses.
But
it’s
still
shitty.

Working
in
Biglaw
is
an
intense,
laborious
grind
and
the
number
one
thing
that
makes
it
okay
is
the
compensation.
When
a
firm
shifts
the
goalposts
and
leaves
associates
(up
to)
$135,000
poorer
as
a
result,
that’s
not
cool.

Above
the
Law
reached
out
to
Proskauer
for
comment
but
we
have
not
heard
back.

---

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].

---

---

Mike
Lindell
ain’t
what
he
used
to
be.

Oh,
sure,
the
pillow
pumper’s
hair
is
still
the
color
of
a
burnt
sienna
Crayola,
and
his
mustache
would
make
a
pornstar
tumescent
with
rage.
But
a
lot
of
the
stuffing
has
come
out
of
that
cushion.

Yesterday,
Judge
Carl
Nichols

ordered
Lindell
to
pay
$56,369
in
sanctions
to
the
voting
machine
company
Smartmatic…
in
a
lawsuit
filed

against
Lindell
by
the
rival
company
Dominion
Voting
Systems.

It’s
a
bit
of
a
bet-you’re-wondering-how-I-got-here-record-scratch
moment.
Here’s
how

we
described
it
in
2022:

After
Dominion
Voting
Systems
sued
him
for
defamation
in
DC
federal
court,
Lindell
and
his
company
filed
a counterclaim against
Dominion
and
its
direct
competitor,
Smartmatic,
alleging
civil
RICO
and
defamation.
And
he
filed
it
in
the
District
of
Minnesota, obviously.

US
District
Judge
Patrick
Schlitz declined Lindell’s
invitation
to
punish
Dominion
Voting
Systems
for
the
tort
of
suing
Mike
Lindell,
and
transferred
the
case
to
DC,
at
which
point
Smartmatic
warned
that
it
was
going
to
request
Rule
11
sanctions
against
Lindell
and
his
lawyers.
But
these
brain
geniuses
ignored
the
threat,
and
instead
dismissed
their
claims
against
Smartmatic,
then
added
the
company
back
as
third
party
defendant
in
the
pending
Dominion
case.
Only
this
time
on
top
of
the
RICO
libelslander
allegations,
Lindell
accused
Smartmatic
of
witness
tampering
via
cease
and
desist
letters
sent
to
people
making
false
claims
about
the
company.

Judge
Nichols,
a
Trump
appointee,
has
been
presiding
over
Dominion’s
defamation
suits
against
Sidney
Powell,
Lindell,
Rudy
Giuliani,
the
parent
company
of
One
America
News,
and
the
election-denying

Overstock
weirdo
Patrick
Byrne.
Unsurprisingly,
it’s
been
a
shitshow,
despite
the
court
consolidating
discovery
for
the
sake
of
efficiency
and
assigning
Magistrate
Judge
Moxila
Upadhyaya
so
oversee
it.
This
is
the
same
set
of
cases
where
Byrne
fired
his
competent
counsel
and
hired
election
denying
nutbag
Stefanie
Lambert,
a
Michigan
lawyer

under
indictment
for
tampering
with
election
machines.
Lambert
immediately

handed
protected
discovery
over
to
her
election
denying
buddies,
refused
to
stop
when
ordered,
got
herself

disqualified
from
the
case,
and
yet

continues
to
file
motions.

But
the

second
biggest
turd
in
the
bowl
has
been
Lindell,
who
not
only
tried
to
drag
Smartmatic
into
this
nonsense,
but
also
howled
that
he
was
entitled
to
stay
discovery
by
filing
an
interlocutory
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit.
(He
was
not.)

Lindell’s
antics
with
regard
to
Smartmatic
got
him

sanctioned
back
in
May
of
2022,
with
Judge
Nichols
noting
that
“at
the
very
least
Lindell’s
claim
against
Smartmatic
under
the
Support
or
Advocacy
Clause
falls
on
the
frivolous
side
of
the
line
(other
claims
do
too).”
Specifically,
the
court
dinged
Lindell
for
accusing
Smartmatic
of
conspiring
with
its
own
lawyers
and
PR
firm
to
suppress
political
speech
by
filing
lawsuits
and
sending
out
cease
and
desist
letters.
You
can’t
conspire
with
your
own
agents
—

that
is
not
a
thing.
And,
as
the
court
notes,
the
Support
or
Advocacy
Clause
(42
U.S.
Code
§
1985(3))
was
a
Reconstruction
Era
statute
meant
to
protect
Black
voters.
He
did
not
add
that
it’s

utterly
filthy
to
use
it
as
a
means
to
defend
an
effort
to
disenfranchise
20
million
American
voters.

Smartmatic
invited
the
court
to
award
them
almost
$600,000,
most
of
their
legal
fees
themselves,
after
being
pointlessly
dragged
into
this
stupid
business.
But
in
the
end,
Judge
Nichols
elected
only
to
award
them
costs
for
the
Support
or
Advocacy
Clause
litigation,
roughly
ten
percent
of
their
original
ask.

This
case
is
set
to
go
to
trial
in
late
2025
(unless
he
gets
beamed
up
to
the
mothership
first).
At
which
point,
Lindell
is
probably
going
to
be
on
the
hook
for
a
lot
more
than
$56,000.

US
Dominion
Inc.
v.
MyPillow
Inc. [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
are

bringing
attorneys
back
to
the
office
five
days
a
week.
The
stated
reason
is
to
mirror
“normal
business
hours”
which
is
a
cruel
joke
in

an
abnormal
business
hour
industry.
Democratic
Party
superlawyer
Marc
Elias
faces
an
uprising
at
his
firm
after
staff

proposed
a
mandatory
arbitration
agreement
despite
many
of
his
top
clients
openly
campaigning
on…
banning
mandatory
arbitration
agreements.
Finally,
Wilson
Sonsini
hands
out
bonuses
but

pulls
a
fast
one
with
special
payments.

Intellectual
property
expert
Mark
Lemley
is
done
working
for
Facebook.
The
Stanford
Law
professor
represented
Facebook
in
the
copyright
case
brought
on
behalf
of
creators
claiming
the
social
media
giant
infringed
their
IP
while
training
its
large
language
model,
in
a
case
that
could
have
profound
implications
for
generative
AI’s
future
prospects.
And
while
Lemley
still
hopes
Facebook
prevails
on
principle,
he’s
done
associating
himself
with
the
company’s
“descent
into
toxic
masculinity
and
Neo-Nazi
madness.”

And
he
made
this
announcement
on
Facebook.

And
by
descent
into
Neo-Nazi
madness,
we’re
talking
about

policies
like
these
leaked
to
The
Intercept:

Overall
the
restrictions
on
claims
of
ethnic
or
religious
supremacy
has
been
eased
significantly.
The
document
explains
that
Meta
now
allows
“statements
of
superiority
as
long
as
the
statements
do
not
refer
to
inferiority
of
another
[protected
characteristic]
group
(a)
on
the
basis
of
inherent
intellectual
ability
and
(b)
without
support.”
Allowable
statements
under
this
rule
include
“Latinos
are
the
best!”
and
“Black
people
are
superior
to
all
others.”
Also
now
acceptable
are
comparative
claims
such
as
“Black
people
are
more
violent
than
Whites,”
“Mexicans
are
lazier
than
Asians,”
and
“Jews
are
flat
out
greedier
than
Christians.”
Off-limits,
only
because
it
pertains
to
intellectual
ability,
is
the
example
“White
people
are
more
intelligent
than
black
people.”

There’s
a
certain
irony
in
the
fact
that

this
policy
has
cost
Facebook
its
lawyer
in
a
case
against
comedian
Sarah
Silverman,
who
famously/infamously
had
a
routine
lampooning
the
idea
that
proclaiming
love
for
an
ethnic
group
is
the
same
as
denigrating
that
group.

A
sanctimonious
segment
of
the
legal
profession
harps
on
the
idea
that
“everyone
is
entitled
an
attorney.”
Except
no
one
is
entitled
to

you
as
an
attorney.
Frankly,
no
one
is
entitled
to
anything
in
a
civil
case
and
to
the
extent
society
needs
to
extend
more
protections
to
indigent
clients
on
the
wrong
end
of
life-altering
civil
actions
—
landlord-tenant
cases
for
instance
—
there’s
definitely
no
such
entitlement
for
a
multibillion-dollar
company
in
a
copyright
dispute.

Representing
a
client
is
a
business
decision.
Some
lawyers
thrive
as
counsel
of
last
resort
and
model
their
business
around
the
willingness
to
represent
unpopular
clients.
Other
lawyers
build
their
business
on
crusading
for
good
causes.
A
whole
lot
of
lawyers
exist
somewhere
between
those
poles.
In
fact,
a
lot
of

deep-pocketed
clients
also
don’t
want
to
work
with
firms
associated
with
unpopular
causes
—
that’s
a
business
decision
too.

There’s
nothing
wrong
with
any
of
these
approaches.
Lawyers
should
feel
free
to
build
their
practice
however
they
want.

Lemley
isn’t
trying
to
be
a
Hollywood
criminal
law
fixer,
he’s
an
intellectual
property
lawyer.
He
doesn’t
need
to
build
an
artificial
firewall
between
his
moral
convictions
and
some
abstract
legal
principle.
He
can
choose
to
lend
his
skills
to
clients
that
reflect
his
values.

And
Facebook
doesn’t
at
this
point.

---

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.

Scorned
actor
and
gambling
advertiser
Aubrey
“Drake”
Graham
courted
an
ocean
of
controversy
after
he
accused
Spotify
and
Universal
Music
Group
of
illegally
boosting
the
numbers
for
Kendrick
Lamar’s
reputation-demolishing
“Not
Like
Us”
back
in
November.
In
just
two
short
months,
that
ocean
of
controversy
is
looking
a
lot
more
like
a
puddle.

Variety
has
coverage:

In
a
New
York
filing
on
Tuesday
reviewed
by Variety, Drake and
his
Frozen
Moments
company
withdrew
its
order
to
show
cause
seeking
pre-action
disclosure
and
preservation
of
certain
documents
and
communications
from
both
companies.

It’s
like
someone
in
Drake’s
camp
trained
him
to
battle
rap
the
same
way
that
Wimp-Lo-We
was
taught
to
fight:

The
PR
from
this
withdrawal
is
so
bad

that
it
makes
Honestly
Nevermind
look
like
a
career
highlight:

The
next
steps
for
the
duck-lipping
rapper
are
headed
toward
Universal
Music’s
alleged
role
in
defaming
him
by
allowing
Kendrick
to
release
“Not
Like
Us”
and
promote
the
track.
I
wonder
if
and
when
Drake’s
team
will
sue
YouTube
for
platforming
“Hey,
here’s
adult
Aubrey
kissing
a
17-year-old
on
stage”
videos.
I’m
not
being
glib
here
—
that’s
an
actual
thing:

Woe
to
whichever
stenographer
is
going
to
have
to
type
“You
17?
Why
do
you
look
like
that?
You
thick!…
Well
17,
I
had
fun.
I
don’t
know
if
I
should
feel
guilty
or
not
but
I
had
fun.
I
like
the
way
your
breasts
feel
against
my
chest.”
being
entered
in
to
evidence.
Like
it
or
not,
truth
is
a
defense
to
defamation
and
there’s
a
bunch
of
grooming
allegations
Drake
and
his
legal
team
will
have
to
overcome
if
they
are
successful.

Good
luck
with
the
suit,
Graham!
You’re
gonna
need
it.

Drake
Withdraws
Legal
Petition
Accusing
Spotify
and
Universal
Music
of
Artificially
Inflating
Kendrick
Lamar’s
‘Not
Like
Us’
[Variety]

---

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