Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

On
Thursday,
which
Senator
introduced
legislation
to
expand
the
Supreme
Court
by
six
seats?

Hint:
The
likely
unsuccessful
legislation
proposal
from
the
Democratic
senator
would
also
require
a
Court
super
majority
to
overturn
federal
legislation.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

“I
have
been
clear
that
I
will
not
tolerate
the
participation
of
noncitizens
in
our
elections,”
Alabama
Secretary
of
State
Wes
Allen
said
on
August
13
as
he
announced
that
he
had
ordered
that
3,251
voters
to
be
kicked
off
the
rolls.
According
to
a

press
release
from
his
office,
Allen
ordered
the
purge
after
discovering
that
the
affected
individuals
“have
been
issued
noncitizen
identification
numbers
by
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.”

Turns
out
the
word
“have”
is
doing
a
lot
of
work
there,
since
at
least
700
of
the
affected
voters
have
since
become
citizens,
so
the
fact
that
these
people
at
one
point

had
such
an
identifier
is
irrelevant.
But
what

is
relevant
is
Section
8(c)(2)
of
the

National
Voter
Registration
Act
(NVRA),
which
specifies
a
90-day
“quiet
period”
before
the
election
in
which
states
shall
not
“clean”
their
voter
rolls.

A
State
shall
complete,
not
later
than
90
days
prior
to
the
date
of
a
primary
or
general
election
for
Federal
office,
any
program
the
purpose
of
which
is
to
systematically
remove
the
names
of
ineligible
voters
from
the
official
lists
of
eligible
voters.

According
to
calendars
—
which
are
WOKE!
—
August
13
was
84
days
before
November
5,
2024,
and
thus
Allen
was
in
flagrant
violation
of
the
NVRA.

Allen
was
promptly
sued twice,
once
by
a
coalition
of
voting
rights
groups
and
affected
voters,
and
then
last
week
by
the
Justice
Department.

The

DOJ
suit
requests
injunctive
relief
ordering
Allen
to
reactivate
the
purged
voters
and
send
them
curative
letters
explaining
that
he
screwed
up.
The
Civil
Division
didn’t
even
ask
for
Allen
to
undergo
remedial
Election
Law
for
Dummies
training.
(Although
the
court
could
order
it
sua
sponte!)

The
civilian
plaintiffs
include
Roald
Hazelhoff,
who
was
born
in
the
Netherlands
and
became
a
US
citizen
in
2022,
and
James
Stroop,
who
was
born
in
Florida
and
has
been
a
US
citizen
all
his
life.

These
are
embarrassing
errors
that
were
almost
inevitable
when
Allen

announced
in
2023
that
he
was
pulling
the
state
out
of
the
Electronic
Registration
Information
Center
(ERIC),
the
multi-state
compact
which
uses
drivers
license
and
other
data
to
compare
voter
rolls
across
states
and
eliminate
duplication
registrations.
Mumbling
nonsense
about
George
Soros’s
involvement
in
ERIC,
Allen
trumpeted
the
development
of
the
Alabama
Voter
Integrity
Database
(AVID),
which
would
do
what
ERIC
did
but
way
less
accurately.

“We
are
the
first
state
in
the
nation
to
implement
a
system
like
this,”
he
said
proudly.

AVID
seems
to
have
worked
by
combing
public
records
for
any
indication
that
a
voter
was
at
one
time
a
non-citizen,
and
then
flagging
that
person
for
deactivation.
In
the
case
of
Stroop,
he
appears
to
have
inadvertently
checked
a
box
on
an
unemployment
application
in
2021
saying
he
was
a
non-citizen.
When
the
unemployment
office
asked
him
about
it,
he
immediately
amended
his
application.
But
there
are
no
backsies
in
Alabama,
and
so
Allen’s
office
not
only
kicked
him
off
the
rolls,
but
informed
him
he’d
have
to
re-register
when
he
called
up
to
complain
about
the
purge
letter.

The
civilian
plaintiffs

advocate
a
return
to
the
pre-Shelby
County
preclearance
days:

Enter
an
order
pursuant
to
Section
3(c)
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act,
52
U.S.C.
§
10302(c),
retaining
jurisdiction
for
such
period
of
time
as
may
be
appropriate,
and
requiring
preclearance
of
voting
changes
that
the
State
of
Alabama
enacts
or
seeks
to
administer
with
respect
to
removal
of
persons
from
the
voting
rolls
on
grounds
of
alleged
non-citizenship,
as
specified
in
Section
3(c);

The
cases
have
been

consolidated
and
are
before
Judge
Anna
Manasco,
the
Trump
appointee
who

tossed
Alabama’s
racially
gerrymandered
districts
for
violating
Section
2
of
the
VRA.
That
case,
which
went
to
the
Supreme
Court
twice,
also
featured
Allen
as
the
defendant.
Seems
like
he’s
on
track
for
another
cracking
victory
this
go
round.

---

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It’s
so
disgraceful,
this
court,
that
it
shouldn’t
even
be
allowed
to
be
called
the
Supreme
Court.
It
isn’t.
It’s
an
insult
to
Motown
to
call
it
the
Supreme
Court.
It’s
not
even
a
court.
It’s
only
a
court
in
the
sense
that
the
court
of
Louis
the
16th
was
a
court.
Basically,
it’s
a
harem.
It’s
Trump’s
harem.

What
Biden
should
do,
not
that
you
asked,
but
when
they
passed
that
law,
that
ruling,
where
they
said
‘you’re
not
the
president,
there’s
a
king,’
which
is
what
that
ruling
is,
you
can
do
whatever
you
want,
you
can
never
be
held
responsible,
I
thought,
‘You
know,
Biden
is
still
the
president.
No
one
seems
to
notice.’
But
I
think
Biden
should
dissolve
the
Supreme
Court.

—
Author

Fran
Lebowitz,
in
comments
given
during
a
recent

appearance
on
Bill
Maher’s
Real
Time,
where
she
suggested
that
President

Joe
Biden
do
away
with
the
Supreme
Court
after
speaking
about

Trump
v.
U.S.,
the
landmark
presidential
immunity
case.
“I
always
feel
sorry
for
the
three
real
judges
on
the
court,”
she
went
on
to
tell
Maher.
“Could
you
imagine
having
to
go
to
work
every
day
with
Alito?
With
Kavanaugh?
It
must
be
horrible.”

---

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.

Federal
judges
are
some
of
the
most
unaccountable
members
of
the
government,
since
they
are
exempt
from

Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964.

Judges,
simply
put,
are
above
the
anti-discrimination
laws
they
interpret.
And
law
clerks
—
the
public
servants
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
—
lack
basic
workplace
protections.

Not
for
much
longer,
if
Congress
acts.

Thanks
to
sustained
advocacy
and
public
consciousness-raising,
last
week,
with
little
fanfare,
Congress
reintroduced
the
Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA)
(House/Senate),
legislation
that
will
extend
federal
anti-discrimination
protections
to
more
than
30,000
federal
judiciary
employees,
including
law
clerks
and

federal
public
defenders.

Importantly,
Article
I
federal
courts
—
including
the
D.C.
courts,

where
I
clerked
—
are
included,
thereby
ensuring
those
who
clerk
in
courts
created
by
Congress,
for
judges
who
are
confirmed
by
the
Senate
for
terms
of
15
years
or
less,
also
enjoy
basic
workplace
protections.

The
federal
judiciary,
unlike
the
two
other
branches
of
government
and
most
private
workplaces,
is
uniquely
exempt
from
not
just
Title
VII,
but
also
from
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
the
Rehabilitation
Act,
and
the
Age
Discrimination
Act.

The
JAA
would
correct
this
injustice
by:

1. Extending
   protection
   against
   discrimination
   based
   on
   gender,
   gender
   identity,
   race,
   disability,
   and
   age;
   as
   well
   as
   whistleblower
   protection
   against
   retaliation.
2. Standardizing
   internal
   
   Employee
   Dispute
   Resolution
   (EDR)
   Plans
   in
   all
   federal
   circuits.
3. Revising
   the
   judicial
   complaint
   process
   under
   the
   Judicial
   Conduct
   and
   Disability
   Act
   so
   judicial
   misconduct
   investigations 
   can
   continue
   even
   after
   judges
   step
   down.
4. Creating
   confidential
   reporting
   channels
   for
   clerks.
5. Requiring
   the
   federal
   judiciary
   to
   collect
   and
   report
   data
   —
   publicly
   and
   to
   Congress
   —
   annually
   on
   demographics
   in
   law
   clerk
   hiring,
   outcomes
   of
   judicial
   misconduct
   complaints,
   an
   annual
   workplace
   culture
   assessment,
   and
   an
   assessment
   of
   the
   EDR
   Plan’s
   effectiveness,
   since
   quantifying
   the
   scope
   of
   these
   problems
   is
   the
   first
   step
   toward
   crafting
   effective
   solutions.

What
does
it
mean,
in
practice,
to
work
in
an
environment
that’s
exempt
from
anti-discrimination
laws?

If
you
are
a
disabled
clerkship
applicant,
judges
can
legally
refuse
to
hire
you.
As
a
clerk,
they
can
refuse
to
provide
you
reasonable
accommodations,
or
fire
you
rather
than
accommodate
your
disability.

Suppose
you
are
a
female
clerk
who,

like
me,
presents
as
“bossy”
or
assertive.
In
that
case,
the
judge
can
fire
you
—
and
you
have
no
legal
recourse
for
harm
done
to
your
career,
reputation,
or
future
earning
potential.

If
you
get
pregnant
during
your
clerkship,
or
you
have
childcare
responsibilities,
it
is

up
to
the
judge’s
discretion
whether
to
offer
any
parental
leave.
Too
often,
judges

consider
this
a
“disruption”
to
chambers
and
opt
for
the
“easier”
path
—
telling
the
clerk
to
leave.

And,
of
course,
because
the
judiciary
refuses
to
collect
and
report
any
data
on
the
demographics
of
law
clerk
hiring,
we
know
very
little
about
the
demographics
of
judges’
chambers
or
their
hiring
practices
—
except
when
judges
announce
who
they’re

boycotting
that
day.

As
long
as
judges
are
immune
from
accountability,
there
will
be
no
guardrails
in
place
to
protect
against
some
of
the
worst
human
impulses,
particularly
in
small,
secluded,
stressful,
hierarchical
work
environments
—
such
as
screaming
at
and
berating
subordinates,
throwing
things,
and
even
firing
clerks
in
moments
of
frustration
—
because
judges
cannot
be
held
legally
accountable
for
abusive
conduct.
Title
VII
sets
a
bare
minimum
for
workplace
conduct
standards
—
one
the
judiciary
falls
short
of,
even
as
judges
preside
over
Title
VII
cases
themselves.
This
exemption
also
reinforces
the
warped
idea
of
a
judge’s
chambers
as
their
little
“fiefdom”
—
where
each
individual
judge
is
hiring
coordinator,
human
resources
director,
and
DEI
manager,
even
though
they
often
lack
the
training
and
expertise
for
these
roles.

Due
to
the
dangerous
combination
of
the
lack
of
workplace
protections,
lack
of
outside
oversight
over
judges’
dealings
with
clerks
or
training
on
management
style,
and
decentralized
nature
of
the
judiciary,
the
Administrative
Office
of
the
U.S.
Courts
(AO)
and
Judicial
Conference
have
gotten
away
with
turning
a
blind
eye
to
judicial
misconduct
for
decades.
And
law
clerks
—
the
least
powerful
members
of
the
judicial
branch
—
are
typically
silenced
due
to
fear
of
reputational
harm
or
retaliation,
and

self-interest.

While
the
AO
occasionally
engages
in
signaling
mechanisms
following
high-profile
scandals
—
for
example,
making
some
window
dressing
changes
to
internal
policies
following
notorious
Ninth
Circuit
harasser
Alex
Kozinski’s
2017
resignation
—
they
seem
intent
on
riding
out
one
scandal
and
waiting
for
the
next,
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
they
have
used
the
same
stock
statement
—

claiming
that
they
have
“robust
internal
reporting
mechanisms”
in
place
—
in
response
to
news
stories
about
multiple
scandals
this
summer.

Sadly,
as
long
as
neither
Congress
nor
the
media
holds
the
Third
Branch
accountable,
by
asking
tough
questions
about
or
reporting
on
their
repeated
failures
to
ensure
safe
work
environments
for
employees
or
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct,
the
judiciary
will
conduct
business
as
usual,
rather
than
engage
in
the
hard
work
of
implementing
meaningful
reform
—
especially
if
it
would
uncover
actionable
misconduct
in
their
ranks
and
require
disciplining
their
colleagues.

I
—
and
later

The
Legal
Accountability
Project
—
have
been
sounding
the
alarm
bells
about
the
urgency
of
passing
the
JAA
since
the
bill
was
first
introduced
in
2021.

When
I
started
this
work,
few
knew
the
federal
judiciary
was
exempt
from
Title
VII,
let
alone
cared
enough
to
ask
about
the
legislation’s
status.
Now,
broad
public
awareness
and
support
extend
far
beyond
the
legal
profession.

Why
now?

This
legislation
has
garnered
renewed
attention
—
and
the
federal
judiciary,
renewed
scrutiny
—
this
summer,
in
the
wake
of
former
Alaska
federal
judge

Joshua
Kindred’s
resignation.

Kindred

resigned
in
scandal
in
July
after
a
rare
20-month

Ninth
Circuit
Judicial
Council
investigation
revealed
appalling
—
but
not
surprising
—
abuse
and
sexual
harassment
in
his
judicial
chambers.
And,
in
another
rare
move
by
the
Judicial
Conference,
the
federal
judiciary’s
policy-making
body,
even
after
Kindred
resigned,

recommended
the
U.S.
House
of
Representatives
consider
potential
impeachment
proceedings.
If
successful,
impeachment
would
bar
Kindred
from
holding
public
office
again.

This
may
also
be
why
the
JAA

garnered
support
from
Alaska
Republican
Sen.
Lisa
Murkowski,
who
has
been
vocal
about
the
need
for
reform
since

Kindred’s
resignation.
Of
course,
judicial
accountability

is
not
a
partisan
issue:
both
Democratic
and
Republican
judicial
appointees
mistreat
their
clerks,
and
both
liberal
and
conservative
clerks
are
mistreated
by
the
most
powerful
members
of
the
profession,
with
no
legal
recourse.
Yet
this
issue
warrants
a
broader
bipartisan
legislative
response.

Soon
after
Kindred’s
resignation,
back
to
back
reports
were
released
—
from
the

Federal
Judicial
Center
and
National
Academy
of
Public
Administration,
then
by
the

U.S.
Government
Accountability
Office
—
underscoring
enormous
deficiencies
in
the
federal
judiciary’s
internal
mechanism
of
“self-policing,”
the

Employee
Dispute
Resolution
(EDR)
Plan.
These
reports
highlighted
a
lack
of
standardized
processes,
metrics
for
success,
data
collection,
and
transparency
—
as
well
as
a
lack
of
training
for
the
EDR
Coordinators
and
Directors
of
Workplace
Relations
tasked
with
enforcing
the
plan
in
courthouses
nationwide.
Mistreated
clerks’
courthouse
and
circuit

points
of
contact
are
not
there
to
represent
their
interests
or
help
them
navigate
the
byzantine
reporting
and
complaint
processes.
Rather,
they
serve
as
“HR
for
the
judiciary.”

The
federal
judiciary’s
insular
insistence
on
strictly
“self-policing”
—
eschewing
any
attempts
by
Congress
at
outside
oversight
—
has
led
to
an
outrageous
lack
of
accountability
for
judges
who
commit
misconduct,
including
those
who
mistreat
their
clerks.

Sexual
and
gender-based
harassment,
discrimination,
bullying,
abusive
conduct,
and
retaliation
are
pervasive
and
unaddressed
in
the
federal
courts.
Yet
the
judiciary
has
historically
been
unwilling
to
collect
and
report
any
data
—
the
first
step
toward
crafting
effective
solutions,
nor
admit
the
scope
of
these
problems
—
let
alone
enact
the
sweeping
reforms
necessary
to
fix
them.

My
nonprofit,
The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
runs
a
nationwide

Centralized
Clerkships
Database,
compared
to
“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”
containing
over
1,300
candid
reviews
about
more
than
900
federal
and
state
judges.
I
also
spend
extensive
time
counseling
clerks
on
their
options
and
speaking
with
law
school
clerkship
advisors,
federal
judges,
and
occasionally
others
within
the
federal
courts
about
how
to
foster
transparency
and
accountability
in
judicial
clerkships
and
the
judiciary.

It’s
clear
these
problems
run
much
deeper
than
anyone
would
care
to
admit.
Clerks
who
were
bullied,
harassed,
or
terminated
(or

quit
rather
than
endure
abuse),
or
retaliated
against,
overwhelmingly
have
not
and
would
not
report
the
mistreatment
to
the
federal
judiciary,
either
under
the
EDR
Plan
or
the

Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Act.
Clerks
believe
their
concerns
will
not
be
taken
seriously.
And
perhaps
even
more
importantly,
they
are

not
legally
protected
under
Title
VII
against
retaliation
by
judges
—
their
powerful,
life-tenured
bosses
who
wield
enormous
power
over
their
careers
and
reputations.
When
the
stakes
are
high
and
the
likelihood
of
success
is
low,
they’re
unlikely
to
stick
their
necks
out
by
reporting
misconduct.

A
wholly
internal
mechanism
of
dispute
resolution
that
relies
on
subordinates
—
fresh-out-of-law-school
clerks,
in
their
first
legal
jobs,
totally
dependent
on
judges
for
references
and
career
advancement
—
reporting
on
their
powerful
superiors
—
life-tenured
federal
judges,
the
most
powerful
(and
unaccountable)
members
of
our
profession
—
does
not
and
will
not
work,
unless
clerks
are
legally
protected
against
retaliation.

It
is
the

height
of
injustice
that
law
clerks
—
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
—
lack
basic
workplace
protections.
There
is
no
better
time
to
pass
the
JAA
—
when
these
issues
are
particularly
salient
in
the
public
consciousness
—
to
finally
ensure
legal
accountability
for
judges
who
mistreat
clerks,
as
well
as
safe
work
environments
for
law
clerks.

The
JAA
is
a

forceful
step
toward
ensuring
safe,
supportive
work
environments
for
judiciary
employees
through
legal
accountability.
As
someone
who
not
only
could
have
benefited
from
these
protections
myself,
but
who

now works
to
fix
the
systems
that
failed
me
when
I
was
a
clerk, I
hope
Congress
will
make
passing
this
legislation
a
priority.

There
is
no
substitute
for
congressional
action.
Correcting
this
injustice
has
never
been
more
urgent,
as
another
class
of
eager
young
attorneys
are
embarking
on
federal
clerkships,
and
thousands
more
are
about
to
begin
the

clerkship
application
process.

We
should
hold
the
federal
judiciary
to
the
highest
ethical
standards,
not
the
lowest.
And
in
the
face
of
repeated
evidence
of
egregious
misconduct
and
repeated
failures
to
enact
change,
we
should
demand
not
just
answers,
but
action
—
from
both
the
judiciary
and
lawmakers.

Judges
should
not
be
above
the
laws
they
interpret.
And,
if
we
can
inspire
some
steely
spines
and
congressional
action,
they
won’t
be
any
longer.

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

It’s
not
a
bribe,
it’s
a
gratuity!

That
is
the
actual
argument
New
York
Mayor
Eric
Adams
makes
in
his
motion
to
dismiss
the
bribery
count
in
the
federal
indictment
unsealed
last
Thursday.

“First,
the
statute
prohibits
only
bribes,
not
gratuities,”
he
argues,
pointing
to
Count
V,
which
charges
him
with
bribery
under
18
USC
§666.
He
adds
that
“Importantly,
gratuities
come
in
two
forms:
(i)
something
‘given
after
the
fact,
as
‘thanks’
for
an
act
but
not
in
exchange
for
it,’
and
(ii)
something
‘given
with
a
nonspecific
intent
to
‘curry
favor’
with
the
public
official
to
whom
it
was
given.’”

The
argument
is
that,

yes,
Adams
accepted
free
travel
perks
and
straw
man
donations
for
the
Turkish
government.
But
that
wasn’t
connected
to
any
official
act,
and
thus
it
doesn’t
count
as
a
bribe.
And,

fine,
okay,
he
did
lean
on
the
Fire
Department
Commissioner
in
September
of
2021
to
approve
a
building
permit
so
that
the
newly
constructed
Turkish
House
would
be
open
in
time
for
Turkish
President
Erdagon’s
visit.
But
he
was
only
Brooklyn
Borough
President
at
the
time,
not
the
mayor,
having
won
the
Democratic
primary
but
not
the
general
election.
So
texting
the
Fire
Department
Commissioner
wasn’t
an
official
act,
it
was
just,
uh,
friendly
advice.
So
there
was
no
quid,
and
no
quo,
and
certainly
no
pro.

And
thanks
to
the
Supreme
Court,
it
just
might
work.

Chief
Justice
Roberts
and
his
pals
have
been
on
a
years-long
crusade
to
legalize
political
corruption.
In
2016,
they

reversed
the
conviction
of
former
Virginia
Governor
Bob
McDonnell,
who
took
money
and
favors
from
a
supplement
salesman
and
talked
up
his
product,
but
didn’t
do
any
“official
act”
to
support
him,
so
it
was

totes
cool.
In
2024,
the
conservative
justices

tossed
the
bribery
conviction
of
the
former
mayor
of
Portage,
Indiana,
who
awarded
$1.1
million
in
trucking
contracts
to
a
company
in
2013,
and
then
took
a
$13,000
check
the
following
year.

“‘[G]ratuities
after
the
official
act
are
not
the
same
as
bribes
before
the
official
act,”
Justice
Kavanaugh
wrote
cheerfully
for
the
Court’s
six
conservatives.
He
did
concede
that
“gratuities
can
sometimes
also
raise
ethical
and
appearance
concerns,”
but
then
scoffed
that
federal
regulation
would
criminalize
a
Christmas
gift
to
the
mailman,
conveniently
ignoring
the
actual
payoff
at
issue
in
the
case
before
him.

Plus
there
was
that
whole
unpleasantness
where
the
Court
ruled
that
you
have
to
let
presidents
do
crimes
or
they’ll
be
hindered
from
boldly
mounting
a
coup.
So
perhaps
it’s
unsurprising
that
Adams
is
making
this
“it’s
not
a
bribe,
it’s
a
sparkling
gratuity”
argument.
After
all,
he
did
have
the
forethought
to
begin
taking
favors
from
Turkish
government
agents
early
in
his
career,
before
he
had
anything
real
to
offer.
So
perhaps
that
will
insulate
him
from
charges
of
bribery
now,
despite
the
fact
that
the
Turkish
official
who
requested
Adams’s
intercession
claimed
it
was
“his
turn”
to
support
his
Turkish
handlers,
to
which
Adams’s
staffer
responded,
“I
know.”

Perhaps
most
amazingly,
Adams
argues
that
the
FDNY
Commissioner
was threatening
to
fire
his
subordinates
if
they
didn’t
greenlight
the
permit
for
Turkish
House,
rather
than
suggesting
that
Adams
would
fire
them
all
in
November
if
he
didn’t
get
what
he
wanted.
Maybe
Curtis
Sliwa
could
have
pulled
it
off!

In
short,
they’ve
got
chutzpah
filing
this
thing,
and
it
probably
won’t
work
with
Judge
Dale
Ho.
But
with
Chief
Justice
Roberts?

Probably.

US
v.
Adams
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

When
we
last
checked
in
on
Burns
&
Levinson
—
a
midsized
firm
that
had
been
virtually

ransacked
by
Biglaw
firms
looking
for
attorneys
to
fill
their
new
offices
in
Boston
—
the
firm
was
still
in
search
of
a
potential
merger
partner,
but
at
the
time,
things
were

looking
bleak.

Would
the
legal
profession
wave
goodbye
to
this
firm,
or
would
a
merger
partner
finally
come
to
its
rescue?
Unfortunately,
it
seems
that
the
former
has
come
to
pass.
Burns
&
Levinson
has
decided
to
close
its
doors
after
64
years
in
operation.

“Unfortunately,
after
exhaustive
analysis,
we
have
determined
that
the
economics,
the
timeline
and
the
complexity
of
deals
offered
would
not
work
for
the
remaining
partners
as
a
group
and
for
our
wonderfully
varied
practices,”
Paul
Mastrocola,
the
firm’s
managing
partner,
said
in
the
statement.
“Ultimately,
as
a
partnership,
we
have
decided
that
it
is
better
for
our
amazing
attorneys
to
move
on
to
different
firms
where
each
of
our
practices
can
thrive
and
our
clients
can—and
will—be
well
served.”

Prior
to
the
firm’s
decision
to
wind
down,
it
had
been
in
merger
talks
with
Barclay
Damon.
The

American
Lawyer
has
additional
details:

Barclay
Damon
is
set
to
hire
approximately
10
attorneys
from
Burns
&
Levinson’s
intellectual
property
and
real
estate
groups,
firm
chair
John
Langan
said.
Barclay
Damon
was
initially
in
talks
with
Burns
&
Levinson
for
a
full
merger,
but
ultimately
couldn’t
make
it
work
based
on
the
varying
profitability
of
Burns
&
Levinson’s
remaining
practices.

“It’s
sad,
and
unfortunate,
but
we’re
going
to
try
and
make
the
best
of
it,”
Langan
said.
“We’re
excited
about
the
talent
that
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
bring
in.”

We
wish
the
remaining
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
at
Burns
&
Levinson
the
best
of
luck
as
they
seek
new
opportunities
in
the
legal
industry
and
beyond.

If
your
firm
or
organization
is
closing
its
doors
or
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive
—
we’ll
never
ignore
you.
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Thank
you!

Burns
&
Levinson
to
Wind
Down
After
64
Years
in
Boston
[American
Lawyer]

Earlier:

Midsize
Boston
Firm
Seeks
Merger
Partner
After
Losing
Nearly
50
Lawyers
To
Biglaw
In
Mass
Lateral
Moves

Midsize
Boston
Firm
Searching
For
Merger
Partner
After
Losing
Half
Its
Lawyers,
But
Things
Are
Getting
Tough

---

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.

Say
it
with
me
now:
just
because
they
work
for
the
government,
it
does
not
mean
that
they
are
good
people.
Eric
Adams
is
facing
the
most
flack
for
the
Turkish
hospitality
he’s
allegedly
received,
but
he’s
far
from
the
only
(former)
New
York
employee
in
trouble
with
the
law.
The
New
York
Times
has
coverage:

An
employee
at
the
Queens
district
attorney’s
office
[Derek
Klever]
was
accused
on
Thursday
of
threatening
to
detonate
a
device
at
a
New
York
City
migrant
shelter
after
the
police
found
explosive
materials
in
his
home,
according
to
a
complaint
filed
in
Queens
criminal
court.

…

Mr.
Klever
told
the
witness
that
he
had
been
tinkering
with
the
fireworks
and
that
he
was
thinking
of
renting
a
drone
he
could
use
to
drop
an
explosive,
according
to
the
complaint.
Mr.
Klever
said
that
his
intention
was
to
maim,
not
kill,
and
that
the
migrants
“should
live
in
terror
and
fear
every
day,”
the
complaint
said.

His
plan
was
far
more
sinister
than
“tinkering
with
fireworks”
leads
on.
The
“tinkering”
also
included
nail
gun
cartridges
that
were
set
to
fire
off
in
the
explosion.
The
reason?
His
neighbors
at
a
migrant
shelter
reportedly
partied
too
hard,
too
early.
I
would
imagine
that
headphones
or
moving
would
be
easier,
more
practical
responses
to
a
nose
complaint,
but
what
do
I
know?
I
don’t
work
for
the
DA.
Now,
neither
does
he
—
the
Queens
DA’s
office
confirmed
that
an
employee
was
arrested
and
terminated.

Parties
don’t
have
curfews
in
the
city
that
never
sleeps.
Want
something
different?
Move
to
Connecticut.
Klever
will
have
to
learn
his
lesson
in
prison
if
he’s
convicted.
You
can
learn
it
from
this
article.
Now
get
back
to
work.

D.A.
Employee
Threatened
to
Blow
Up
Queens
Migrant
Shelter,
Police
Say
[NYT]

---

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.

In
2016,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
do
an
inspirational
number
of
things
if
we
elected
him.

Trump promised
he
would:
Eliminate
the
$19
trillion
national
debt
within
eight
years,
cut
the
budget
by
20%,
repeal
and
replace
Obamacare,
lower
drug
prices
by
allowing
Medicare
to
negotiate
with
drug
companies,
build
a
wall
—
that
Mexico
would
finance!
—
along
the
southern
border,
invest
in
infrastructure,
triple
the
number
of
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
officers,
raise
the
federal
minimum
wage
to
$10
per
hour,
and
“be
so
presidential,
you’re
going
to
be
bored.”

As
to
those
promises,
Trump
went
0
for
the
bunch
of
’em.

Now,
Trump
tells
us
that
if
Kamala
Harris
wins
the
election,
the
United
States
will
go
to
hell
in
a
handbasket:
Harris
doesn’t
know
what
she’s
doing!
Her
father
was
a
communist!
We’re
heading
to

World
War
III!
If
Harris
wins
the
election,
there
will
be
a

1929-style depression.

Yeah,
yeah.

Bigly.
The
likes
of
which
we’ve
never
seen
before.
Many
people
are
saying
this.

Take
just
a
moment
to
remember
the
things
that Trump
told
us
would
happen if
Joe
Biden
won
the
election
in
2020:

If
Biden
won,
the
economy
was
going
to
sink
into
an
unprecedented
recession.

If
Biden
won,
the
suburbs
would
be
destroyed.

If
Biden
won,
police
departments
would
be
defunded.

If
Biden
won,
there’d
be
an
energy
crisis
for
seniors.

If
Biden
won,
your
guns
would
be
confiscated.

If
Biden
won,
your
religious
freedoms
would
be
assailed.

If
Biden
won,
there’d
be
violence
in
the
cities.

If
Biden
won,
the stock
market
would
crash.

Of
course,
Trump
was
saying
these
things
in
2016
and
2020
only
because
he
was
in
elections,
and
you
expect
a
candidate
to
say
crazy
things
during
election
season.

But
Trump
is
again
in
an
election
season,
and
he’s
again
saying
crazy
things.

Every
time
Trump
says
that
the
country
can’t
survive
four
years
of
Harris,
think
about
the
clarity
of
Trump’s
crystal
ball
when
he
was
making
predictions
in
the
past.

---

 Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
is
now
deputy
general
counsel
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of



The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

Lawyers
are
still
using
real,
live
people
to
take
a
first
crack
at
document
review,
but
much
like
the
“I’m
not
dead
yet”
guy
from
Monty
Python
and
the
Holy
Grail,
it’s
a
job
that
will
be
stone
dead
soon.
Because
there
are
a
lot
of

deeply
human
tasks
that
AI
will
struggle
to
replace,
but
getting
through
a
first
run
of
documents
doesn’t
look
like
one
of
them.

At
last
week’s

Relativity
Fest,
the
star
of
the
show
was
obviously

Relativity
aiR
for
Review,
which
the
company
moved
to
general
availability.
In
conjunction
with
the
release,
Relativity
pointed
to
impressive
results
the
product
racked
up
during
the
limited
availability
period
including

Cimplifi
reporting
that
the
product
cut
review
time
in
half
and

JND
finding
a
60
percent
cut
in
costs.

“We’ve
used
Relativity
aiR
for
Review
on
multiple
live
projects
with
tremendous
success,”
said Mike
Cichy,
Regional
Manager
of
Litigation
Support
at
Foley
&
Lardner
LLP.
“In
one
case, we
had
an
extremely
tight
production
deadline;
aiR
for
Review
completed
the
review,
which
would
have
taken
over
15
people
and
three
weeks
of
time,
in
less
than
one
week,
all
while
delivering
results
that
far
outperformed
what
we’ve
seen
in
traditional
human
review.”

A
recurring
tale
among
early
users
was
a
belt-and-suspenders
approach
to
first
pass
review,
maintaining
a
team
of
human
reviewers
as
a
quality
assurance
measure.
It’s
a
natural
response
for
a
terminally
overcautious
profession,
but
it’s
also
one
that
multiple
early
adopters
said
they
ultimately
would
abandon
as
unnecessary.
In
fact,
more
than
one
said
the
humans
were
just…
more
wrong.

Not
released
to
the
general
public
yet
—
but
coming
soon
—
Relativity
also
previewed
its

aiR
for
Privilege
product
capable
of
identifying
privileged
documents
and
drafting
a
consistent,
single
voice
privilege
log.
Troutman
Pepper,
already
using
the
limited
availability
product,
anticipates
it
will
cut
privilege
review
time
by
more
than
50
percent.
One
testimonial
provided
at
the
keynote
shared
that
the
product
correctly
found
a
clutch
of
hundreds
of
privileged
documents
that
the
human
reviewers
had
missed.

Turning
over
first
pass
to
the
computers
isn’t
entirely
new.
We’ve
had
TAR
procedures
that
could
tackle
this
for
some
time,
but
lawyers
spent
the
last
decade
performatively
bad
mouthing
tech
review
in
the
courts.
Now,
armed
with
generative
AI,
attorneys
seem
to
have
discovered
a
new
level
of
trust.
Especially
senior
lawyers
who
are

actually
engaging
with
discovery
platforms
for
the
first
time.

How
long
will
attorneys
keep
humans
in
the
loop
for
their
own
peace
of
mind?
As
Relativity’s
CAO/CLO
Adam
Weiss
told
me,
“the
more
ubiquitous
this
technology
becomes,
the
runway
gets
shortened
considerably.”
In
other
words,
lawyers
won’t
let
AI
take
the
wheel
out
of
the
gate,
but
the
more
customers
are
willing
to
say
“trust
us,
we
did
the
same
thing
and
you’ll
soon
realize
it’s
costly
and
useless,”
it’s
going
to
get
harder
to
justify
keeping
the
human
first
pass
reviewers
around.

Which
is
good
news
for
clients
and
attorneys
trying
to
do
more
and
higher
level
work.
It’s
not
particularly
great
news
for
folks
working
as
contract
attorneys
to
pick
up
work
on
brute
force
review
projects.
There’s
still
a
market
for
alternative
legal
service
providers
—
collecting
and
loading
up
documents
remains
a
skill
that
outside
consultants
can
perform
better
and
cheaper
than
a
law
firm.
But
anyone
out
there
with
a
business
model
reliant
on
throwing
hundreds
of
bodies
at
a
problem
should
start
rethinking.

---

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.

Baker
McKenzie
is
no
slouch
in
the
world
of
Biglaw
—
by
gross
revenue,
the
metric
used
to
create
the
Am
Law
200
ranking,
the
firm
took
in
$3,286,791,000
in
2023,
making
it
the
number
4
firm.
But
firm
leaders
aren’t
content
to
just
sit
at
the
top
of
that
ranking.
The
international
firm
is
plotting
for
more
growth,
focused
primarily
in
New
York
and
North
America.
They’re
looking
to
lure
lateral
partners
into
the
fold
and
boost
thir
profits
per
equity
partner
(PEP).

As
Colin
Murray,
Baker
McKenzie’s
North
American
CEO,

told
Law.com,
“If
you’re
going
to
go
after
the
best
talent,
you
have
to
pay
market-level
compensation.
Our
U.S.
[PEP]
would
land
us
around
No.
39.
Our
goal
is
to
be
playing
in
the
top
25.”
That
goal
would
raise
the
PEP
from
$3.5
million
to
$8
million.

Alan
Zoccolillo,
chair
of
the
North
American
transactional
practices,
was
blunt
that
in
order
to
get
more
profitable,
they
have
to
offer
big
paydays.
In
the
partner
lateral
market,
compensation
“plays
a
huge
factor,”
he
noted,
and
“part
of
our
success
has
been
growing
the
profitability
of
our
practice
in
the
U.S.”
And
he
gave
some
hints
about
what
that
looks
like
at
Baker
McKenzie.

For
top
lateral
talent,
the
firm
offers
two-
to
three-year
guarantees
in
cash
or
shares
to
laterals,
depending
on
the
partner,
according
to
Zoccolillo.

“Typically
we
offer
multiyear
cash
guarantees
in
line
with
market
compensation
for
laterals,
but
sometimes
do
combine
that
with
shares.
It
really
depends
upon
the
specific
situation,”
Zoccolillo
said.
The
firm
has
not
adjusted
compensation
for
other
lawyers
in
order
to
pay
top
performers,
he
added.

One
practice
area
the
firm
is
looking
to
grow
is
mergers
and
acquisitions.
As
Zoccolillo
said,
“10
years
ago,
we
were
a
smaller,
more
middle
market
player
in
M&A.”
But,
“With
our
focus
on
internal
growth,
bringing
on
high-quality
people,
and
focusing
on
key
clients
and
key
industries,
we’ve
substantially
changed
our
profile
and
are
now
routinely
advising
on
some
of
the
world’s
largest
and
most
complicated
transactions.”

But
the
firm
has
stuff
to
offer
laterals
outside
of
*just*
money.
Baker
McKenzie
has
an
international
reach
with
86%
of
partner
outside
the
U.S.
And
they
see
that
as
an
advantage.

“You’re
not
going
to
bring
in
the
very
best
talent
just
through
compensation.
There
has
to
be
a
differentiating
factor,”
Murray
said,
adding
those
factors
include
the
firm’s
“strong
and
collegial
culture”
as
well
as
its
“global
footprint.”
Zoccolillo
added
the
firm
believes
its
“global
footprint
and
practice
depth
is
key.”

Recent
lateral
partner
Arturo
Carrillo
said
the
firm’s
global
reach
in
Latin
and
South
America
was
attractive
when
he
made
the
move
to
Baker.

Some
of
the
most
recent
international
deals
include
NSE
listings
in
Mexico,
M&A
transactions
in
Peru
and
bank
financings
in
Colombia,
according
to
Carrillo.

“The
global
transactions
we
work
on
often
involve
50,
60,70,
sometimes
100
jurisdictions.
There
really
isn’t
another
firm
that
has
the
global
reach
and
full-service
transactional
team
and
that
does
it
as
well
as
we
do,”
Zoccolillo
said.

With
a

lateral
partner
market
that
is
fire
right
now,
Baker
McKenzie
isn’t
alone
in
its
quest
for
the
best
legal
talent.
But
it’s
clear
they’re
putting
in
the
work
to
grow,
grow,
grow.

---

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].