Why Match Milbank When You Could Beat Them? – See Also – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)


This
Firm
Has
A
Tradition
Of
Paying
Above
Market:


$200k
special
bonus
!


Other
Firms
Pay
Out
Bigly
Too!:


Here’s
to
Morgan
Lewis
!


Climate
Activists
Come
For
Biglaw:


A&O
Shearman
did
a
lot
of
work
for
fossil
fuel
companies
over
the
last
few
years
.


Judge
Dies
On
Hill
That
Diversity
And
Merit
Are
At
Odds
With
Each
Other:


Reed
O’Conner,
everybody
.


We
Do
The
Enforcing
Here!:


Gorsuch
really
doesn’t
seem
to
want
the
Court
to
be
held
accountable
.

Biglaw’s 2025 Outlook Is So Bright Partners Need To Wear Shades – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


We
also
anticipate
the
return
of
M&A,
corporate
and
transactional
work
broadly
across
all
segments,
as
interest
rates
continue
to
fall
and
market
conditions
improve.
We
expect
that
2025
will
be
a
very
good
year
for
law
firms.




An
excerpt
from
the

2025
Citi
Hildebrandt
Client
Advisory
,
which
details
the

legal
industry’s
strong
footing

as
2024
draws
to
a
close,
with
even
higher
hopes
for
what
2025
will
look
like.
As
further
noted
by
one
of
the
report’s
authors,
Gretta
Rusanow,
head
of
advisory
services
for
Citi’s
Global
Wealth
at
Work
Law
Firm
Group,
“there’s
a
growth
mindset
among
firms
that
we’re
likely
to
see
continue
into
next
year.”



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

What’s Up With Neil Gorsuch’s Hatred Of An Enforceable Ethics Code For The Supreme Court? – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Justin
Sullivan/Getty
Images)

Supreme
Court
ethics
are
in
complete
disarray.
It’s
actually
embarrassing
for
our
nation
that
the
highest
court
in
the
land
can’t
get
it
together.
The
last
year
and
a
half
has
been
an
onslaught
of
ethics
scandals
that
have
plagued
the
Court.

Most
prominent
of
those
scandals
were
those
surrounding
Clarence
Thomas.
Specifically,
that
he
took

hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
undisclosed
gifts
.
Thomas
had
wealthy
buddies
cover private
school
tuition
for
his
family
on
his
behalf
provide
his
mother
rent-free
housing
, and buy
him
an
RV
.

There
 were so so so many revelations
about
the luxury
gifts
 Thomas received and repeatedly failed
to disclose.
And
part
of
the
reason
the
gifts
started
pouring
in
to
the
justice
was
because
he
made conservatives
nervous
he
was
going
to
retire

if
he
*didn’t*
start
living
the
high
life. 
Plus,
we
learned

Ginni
Thomas
 (Clarence’s
wife)
was
supporter of
the January
6th
rioters
,
and despite
this
,
Thomas
refused
to recuse
himself

from
any
cases
related
to
the
insurrection.

But
Thomas
wasn’t
the
only
justice
who
had
issues
disclosing
fancy
gifts.
Samuel
Alito

notably

got
gifts
from
European
aristocracy,
including
a
knighthood
(ignore
the

constitutional
issues
with
that
one
).
And
there’s
the
insurrection
sympathy
Alito’s
flirted
with.
Though
he
blamed
it
on

his
wife

Alito’s
home
was
seen

flying
a
flag
 favored
by
insurrectionists.
And
his
vacation
home
on
Long
Beach
Island,
New
Jersey,
flew an
“Appeal
to
Heaven”
flag

which
has
come
to
be
seen
as
symbol
of
Christian
nationalism.
Which
tracks,
given
he was
also

caught
on
tape
 saying
there
are
“fundamental
things
that
really
can’t
be
compromised”
with
the
left.
And
that
he
thinks
the
country
needs
to
return
to
a
place
of
godliness.

There
was
also
the
questionable
Neil
Gorsuch
real
estate

deal. 
The work
of
Jane
Roberts
,
wife
of
the
Chief,
(probably
wrongly)
also
came
under
scrutiny.
As
did
Sonia
Sotomayor’s

publishing
deal
.


Despite
these
mounting
scandals,
the
institutional
response
has


struggled
.
Unlike
every
other
federal
court,
SCOTUS
didn’t
actually
have
an
ethical
code.
And
when
the
Court
finally
released
one
it
was…
unenforceable.

A
lot
of
sound
and
fury
signifying
nothing.

But
at
least
some
justices
have

come
out

in
favor
of
an

ethical
code
with
teeth. 
The
New
York
Times
recently

published

an
exposé
revealing
the
behind-the-scenes
discussion
that
led
to
the
neutered
code.

Alito
and
Thomas,
predictably,
blew
off
concerns
as

politically
motivated
and
unappeasable.”
Which
is
a
fantastic
red
herring
to
throw
in
the
road
when
most
of
the
focus
has
been
on
you.

But
interestingly,
the
most
vocal
opponent
of
an
enforceable
code
of
ethics
was
someone
else.

Justice
Gorsuch
was
especially
vocal
in
opposing
any
enforcement
mechanism
beyond
voluntary
compliance,
arguing
that
additional
measures
could
undermine
the
court.
The
justices’
strength
was
their
independence,
he
said,
and
he
vowed
to
have
no
part
in
diminishing
it.

That’s
a…
weird
reaction

Gorsuch
even
penned
a
10-page
memo
outlining
all
the
reasons
why
the
Court
should
not
be
bound
by
mere
ethical
concerns.
As
noted
by

Fix
the
Court’s
Gabe
Roth
,
Gorsuch’s
“stridency
is
odd
seeing
as
how
Gorsuch
was
a
circuit
judge
for
more
than
a
decade
and
lived
quite
blissfully
under
an
enforceable
ethics
regimen.
And
having
a
body
of
senior
judges
recommend,
say,
that
a
justice
return
a
gift
or
take
an
ethics
training
course,
or
whatever
the
panel’s
‘enforcement’
decision
would
be,
would
in
no
way
imperil
the
independence
of
the
Supreme
Court.
Really
an
overblown
concern
here.”

Maybe
he
was
just
in
the
writing
zone
and
decided
having
rules
that
actually
apply
to
him
was
too
off
brand.

At
the
time
the
justices
were
debating
the
ethics
questions,
Justice
Gorsuch
was
working
on
a
book
asserting
that
Americans
were
afflicted
with
too
many
laws.
He
warned
colleagues
that
enforcement
could
undermine
the
independence
of
the
court
by
putting
other
figures
in
a
position
to
judge
the
justices,
according
to
several
people
familiar
with
the
discussions.
Justice
Alito
echoed
some
of
those
concerns.

Gorsuch
might
like
fancying
himself
bound
by
no
rules,
but
the

American
people 
pretty
dislike
it.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
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].

FBI Nominee Kash Patel Threatens To Sue Olivia Troye For Aggravated Mean Words Crimes – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Brandon
Bell/Getty
Images)

Kash
Patel,
the
MAGA
dipshit
who
Trump
wants
to
put
in
charge
of
the
FBI,
is
no
one’s
idea
of
a
serious
person.
This
is
a
guy
who
left
a
post
on
the
National
Security
Council
to
run
the
wingnut
grift
circuit.

Can
he
interest
you
in
some

wine
?
American
flag

tchotchkes
?

Children’s
books
about
King
Donald,
the
evil
Hillary
Queen,
and
a
heroic
wizard
named
Kash
?


K$H!

You’re
damn
right.

Patel
has
been
very
busy

shouting

about
all
the
Deep
State
enemies
who
will
be
brought
to
justice
when
he’s
in
charge.
This
list
includes
obvious
ones,
like
Robert
Mueller,
Alexander
Vindman,
and
President
Biden.
But
it’s
also
got
some
surprises,
like
Pat
Cipollone,
the
former
White
House
Counsel
to
Trump,
and
Chris
Wray,
the
current
director
of
the
FBI,
whom
Trump
nominated
for
a
ten-year
term
in
2017
and
who
will
be
shoved
aside
to
make
way
for
Kash
himself.

But
now
Kash
has
set
his
sites
on
a
new
target:
former
Mike
Pence
aide
Olivia
Troye.
Troye,
a
lifelong
Republican
who
turned
into
a
vocal
Trump
critic,
said
mean
words
about
Kash
on
teevee,
and
this
is

not
allowed
.

Patel
is
bigly
mad
about
Troye’s
appearance
on
MSNBC
last
week,
and
he’s
threatening
to
sue:

On
December
2,
2024,
you
appeared
as
a
live
guest
on
MSNBC
and
made
several
false
and
defamatory
statements
about
Mr.
Patel.
These
comments
include
that
Mr.
Patel
would
“lie
about
intelligence”
and
would
“lie
about
making
things
up
on
operations”
to
the
point
where
Mr.
Patel
“put
the
lives
of
Navy
Seals
at
risk
when
it
came
to
Nigeria,”
and
that
Mr.
Patel
was
even
misinforming
Vice
President
Mike
Pence.

Last
week,
Troye
referred
to
a

widely


reported

episode
where
Patel
is
said
to
have
lied
about
securing
permission
from
Nigeria
for
SEAL
Team
6
to
enter
that
country’s
airspace
for
a
hostage
rescue
operation.
And
Patel
is
big
mad
about
it.

“This
is
a
complete
fabrication,
and
you
know
it
is
false
by
virtue
of
your
former
position
in
the
White
House,”
he
fumes.
“Mr.
Patel
demands
that
you
retract
your
lies
in
a
public
statement
on
your
X
account
within
five
business
days
of
receipt
of
this
letter.
Unless
this
step
is
taken,
Mr.
Patel
will
take
swift
legal
action
to
uphold
his
rights
and
reputation.”

The
wanking
motion
is
implied.

Patel
is
in
fact
a
lawyer,
but,
amazingly,
he’s
not
embarking
on
this
exercise pro
se
.
He’s
accompanied
by
MAGA
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall,
who
has
represented
Trump
and
the
Trump
campaign
in
various
garbage
trollsuits.
He
last

appeared

in
these
pages
as
the
lawyer
for
North
Carolina
Lt.
Governor
Mark
Robinson,
who
filed
a
$50
million
defamation
suit
against
CNN
and
a
former
porn
store
employee.
That
lawsuit
is

going
great
.

And
apparently
Binnall
and
Troye
have
played
knifey-spooney
before.

“This
is,
of
course,
not
the
first
time
you
have
milked
your
former
title
as
a
means
of
spreading
lies
about
associates
of
President
Donald
J.
Trump.
You
are
already
embroiled
in
a
lawsuit
for
your
disgusting
lies
about
Ambassador
Ric
Grenell
on
Twitter,”
Binnall
snarks
in
his
Patel’s
cease
and
desist
howlergram.


Of
course

Binnall
represents
Grenell
in
that
lawsuit
against
Troye

there
are
only
three
lawyers
in
Trumpland,
and
he’s
one
of
them.
Troye
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
under
Virginia’s
SLAPP
law
that
has
been
pending
since
May.

Meanwhile
Republicans
in
the
Senate
seem

alarmingly
receptive

to
Patel’s
nomination.
What
could
possibly
go
wrong
if
we
put
a
thin-skinned
bully
who
has
vowed
to
take
revenge
on
anyone
who
criticizes
him
in
charge
of
the
nation’s
law
enforcement?

Good
thing
that
guy
didn’t
sexually
harass
any
women,
or
he
might
be
in
real
trouble.





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

Judge Nixes Boeing Plea Deal Because Parties Had Agreed NOT To Discriminate Against Black People – Above the Law

Reed
O’Connor

There
are
a
lot
of
reasons
to
reject
the
plea
deal
hammered
out
between
the
Department
of
Justice
and
Boeing.
The
investigation
into
Boeing’s
multiple
737
Max
crashes

the
apparent
result
of
failings
that
occurred

after

it
agreed
to
a
deferred
prosecution
agreement
in
exchange
for
a
pledge
to
clean
up
its
act

set
the
stage
for
a
damning
trial
that
could’ve
delivered
huge
awards
for
the
victims’
families.
But
instead,
the
DOJ
agreed
to
a
$230-some-odd
million
fine
and
a
pledge
to
allow
an
independent
monitor
keep
Boeing
in
compliance.
So
a
judge
might
have
rejected
this
agreement
as
a
disgraceful
sweetheart
deal.

But
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
is
not
a
typical
judge,
so
he
rejected
the
deal
because
the
parties
agreed
not
to
engage
in
discrimination
when
choosing
the
independent
monitor.

The
oft-reversed
Republican
judge
has
tried
to strike
down
Obamacare

(reversed),
strike
down

other parts of
Obamacare

(reversed),
strike
down

the
Indian
Child
Welfare
Act

(reversed),
invent
a

constitutional
right
for
crybaby
anti-vaxxers
 —
and,
well,
you’re
not
going
to
believe
this,
but
he
got reversed.
Now
he’s
hearing
the
Boeing
case
and
settled
upon
the
dumbest
possible
reason
to
reject
the
deal.

The
plea
agreement
provides
that
the
retention
of
an
independent
compliance
monitor
is
a
special
condition
of
probation,
meaning
if
Boeing
fails
to
retain
the
monitor,
it
will
violate
its
probation.
But
the
plea
agreement
prohibits
imposing
as
a
condition
of
probation
a
requirement
for
Boeing
to
comply
with
the
monitor’s
anti-fraud
recommendations.
Additionally,
the
independent
monitor
is
selected
by
and
reports
to
the
Government,
not
the
Court.
Moreover,
Boeing
will
have
the
opportunity
to
prevent
the
hiring
of
one
of
the
six
monitor
candidates
chosen
by
the
Government.
And
finally,

the
Government
will
select
the
independent
monitor
“in
keeping
with
the
Department’s
commitment
to
diversity
and
inclusion.”


(Relevant
language
in
bold)

Note
that
this
agreement
does

not

say
that
the
DOJ
will
actually
hire
a
diversity-enhancing
candidate
for
this
job
or
even
that
it
will
employ
some
sort
of
affirmative
action
policy.
It’s
just
the
standard
boilerplate
used
by
entities
both
public
and
private
to
say,
“Hey,
we’re
not
going
to
discriminate.”

By
way
of
confirmation,
one
need
look
no
further
than
the
fact
that

in
living
by
this
vague
pledge

the
Department
of
Justice
includes
a
whole
lot
of
white
guys.
Specifically,

the
DOJ
is
around
40%
women
and
67%
white.

But
research
is
hard
when
you’re
more
interested
in
putting
out
a
Townhall
article
than
a
considered
legal
opinion.

O’Connor
notes
that
existing
law
prohibits
discrimination

ipso
facto

including
these
words
in
contract
MUST
signal
something
beyond
the
strictures
of
the
law.
This
is
not
how
agreements
work
in
the
real
world,
but
let’s
let
him
cook
for
a
second.

Critically
though,
the
plea
agreement
does
not
define
the
terms
“diversity”
and
“inclusion.”
For
that,
the
Government
directs
the
Court
to
a
2021
Executive
Order
to
clarify
the
meaning
of
these
terms.
The
stated
purpose
of
this
Executive
Order
was
to
“further
advance
equity
within
the
Federal
Government”
and
“cultivate
a
workforce
that
draws
from
the
full
diversity
of
the
Nation.”
The
Executive
Order
defined
“diversity”
as
“the
practice
of
including
the
many
communities,
identities,
races,
ethnicities,
backgrounds,
abilities,
cultures,
and
beliefs
of
the
American
people,
including
underserved
communities.”
Similarly,
“‘inclusion’
means
the
recognition,
appreciation,
and
use
of
the
talents
and
skills
of
employees
of
all
backgrounds.”

These
quotes
are
taken
from
the
general
summary
and
definitions
section
of

Executive
Order
14035
.
O’Connor
uses
this
language
to
give
the
impression
that
the
federal
government
is
willy-nilly
stacking
the
workforce
with
women
and
minorities.
But
definitions
hold
little
probative
weight
outside
of
their
contextual
usage,
and
the
order
commits
the
government
to
adhere
to
“merit
system
principles”
first
and
foremost
while
vaguely
promising
to
find
strategies
to
increase
diversity
and
inclusion.

It
does
not
commit
to
race-based
“hiring”
except
to
the
extent
someone
with
a
diverse
background
interviewing
for
the
job
that
otherwise
might
not
have
ends
up
winning
the
position
on
the
merits.

While
the
Government
assures
the
Court
that
the
Government
will
consider
all
possible
monitors
(i.e.,
all
backgrounds,
etc.)
but
will
choose
a
monitor
solely
based
on
merit
and
talent,
the
Court
is
skeptical
of
this
assertion.

This
is
just
an
astounding
sentence.
It
rests
on
the
premise
that
there’s
a
fundamental
disconnect
between
considering
women
and
minorities
for
a
job
and
merit.
It’s
not
the
quiet
part
out
loud,
but
it’s
certainly
the
quiet
part
pushed
to
a
distractingly
loud
whisper.

Despite
the
Government’s
efforts
to
divorce
the
Executive
Order
from
the
plea
agreement,
the
Court
is
not
convinced
in
light
of
the
foregoing
that
the
Government
will

not

choose
a
monitor
without
race-based
considerations
and
thus
will

not

act
in
a
nondiscriminatory
manner.

He’s
not
convinced
that
they
will
not.
Stop
for
a
second
and
consider
how
one
proves
this
negative.
There’s
no
consistent
method
of
complying
with
his
new
standard
other
than
making
sure
only
straight
white
dudes
are
considered.
Because
if
you
think
this
opinion
would
be
different
if
the
DOJ
showed
up
with
a
bunch
of
minority
candidates
but
had
just
avoided
ever
saying
“diversity”
or
“inclusion”
out
loud…
you
must
have
a
lot
of
trouble
with
the
wallet
inspector.

And
he’s
not
happy
about
Boeing’s
generic
diversity
policies
either
and
cites
them
as
a
compounding
feature:

Accordingly,
based
on
Boeing’s
supplemental
briefing
and
its
policies,
the
Court
is
concerned
Boeing
will
exercise
its
strike
of
one
of
the
Government’s
six
chosen
monitor
candidates
in
a
discriminatory
manner
and
with
racial
considerations.

The
purest
conservative
argument
against
affirmative
action
is
that
it
impairs
freedom
to
contract.
If
a
private
party
wants
to
hire
only
white
people

the
Goldwater-Reagan
foot
soldiers
argued

that
may
be
unfortunate,
but
it’s
their
right
as
Americans!
In
fact,
Judge
O’Connor
sees
it
this
way

when
an
employer
discriminates
against
LGBTQ+
employees

because
employers
are
free
“to
regulate
the
sexual
conduct
of
their
employees…
including
sodomy,
premarital
sex,
adultery,
and
any
other
kind
of
sexual
activity
that
occurs
outside
the
context
of
a
marriage
between
a
man
and
a
woman.”

But
in
this
case,
the
contractual
artifice
crumbles.
Boeing,
as
a
sophisticated
private
entity
represented
by
competent
counsel,
cannot
be

trusted

to
enter
a
contract
if
there’s
any
chance
that
it
might
not
hire
a
white
guy
to
do
this
job.
It’s
an
inescapable
loop:
it’s
wrong
to
stop
private
companies
from
hiring
straight
white
guys
if
that’s
what
they
want…
but
also
it’s
wrong
to
allow
companies
the
freedom
to
hire
a
women
or
minority
if
that’s
what
they
want.

Remember,
he
could’ve
gotten
the
same
result
by
rejecting
the
deal
as
unfair
to
the
victims
and
instead
contrived
this
strained
reading
of
diversity
and
inclusion.
Which
makes
statements
from
the
families
so
much
more
tragic:

Ike
and
Susan
Riffel
of
California
who
lost
their
two
sons
Melvin
and
Bennett,
reacted
to
the
judge’s
opinion:
“The
judge
did
the
right
thing
throwing
this
terrible
plea
deal
out.
This
plea
deal
was
nothing
more
than
a
get
out
of
jail
free
card
for
Boeing. 
This
deal
didn’t
hold
anyone
accountable
for
the
deaths
of
346
people
and
did
nothing
to
protect
the
flying
public.
I’m
very
happy
with
Judge
O’Connor’s
decision
and
now
we
can
move
forward
with
real
justice
for
our
loved ones.
This
is
another
step
forward
in
holding
the
people
accountable
for
the
deaths
of
346
people.”

Will
the
ultimate
deal
result
in
a
better
outcome
for
the
victims’
families?
Hard
to
imagine
when
he
couldn’t
be
bothered
to
make
these
deficiencies
a
feature
of

this

order.
He
seems
entirely
on
board
with
the
woefully
insufficient
award
as
long
as
the
monitor
isn’t
a
diversity
hire.

Almost
like
he
doesn’t
care
about
the
victims
as
much
as
he
cares
about
generating
a
headline…


Earlier
:

Judge
Reed
O’Connor
Seems
To
Own
Too
Much
Tesla
To
Rule
Against
CVS,
Just
Enough
To
Rule
Against
Liberal
Fact-Checkers


Media
Matters
Isn’t
Saying
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
Is
Conflicted.
They’re
Just
Saying
That
He
Stands
To
Financially
Benefit
From
Twitter
SLAPP
Suit.


Elon
Musk
Says
Advertisers
Are
Doing
The
RICO
If
They
Don’t
Give
Him
Money




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

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

Bluesky

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

It’s Not Who You Know, It’s Who Knows You: The Biggest Lesson I Learned In 2024 – Above the Law

There’s
a
saying
I
first
heard
from
Robert
Hanna,
a
legal
recruiter
and
LinkedIn
influencer,
that
has
stuck
with
me:
“It’s
not
who
you
know,
it’s
who
knows
you.”
And,
let
me
tell
you,
he’s
absolutely
right.
As
an
in-house
lawyer,
relationships
are
everything

but
it’s
not
just
about
collecting
connections.
It’s
about
building
your
brand
and
reputation,
both
online
and
offline,
so
when
opportunities
arise,
people
think
of
you
first.
It’s
about
staying
top
of
mind,
becoming
that
trusted
person
to
whom
others
will
reach
out
because
they
know
you
bring
value,
integrity,
and
solutions
to
the
table.

I’ve
learned
over
time
that
this
reputation
isn’t
something
you
can
just
create
overnight

it’s
built
in
the
small,
consistent
actions
you
take
in
your
daily
interactions.
This
means
showing
up,
delivering
on
promises,
and
being
intentional
about
how
you
handle
challenges,
whether
they
come
from
colleagues,
clients,
or
even
the
competition.

The
legal
profession
is
a
surprisingly
small
world,
so
burning
bridges
is
never
a
good
strategy.
Trust
me
on
this:
no
matter
how
tempting
it
may
be
to
walk
away
from
a
role
or
a
relationship
in
frustration,
how
you
transition
out
of
a
situation
often
speaks
louder
than
how
you
entered
it.
Taking
the
time
to
leave
gracefully,
no
matter
the
circumstances,
leaves
a
lasting
impression.
It’s
not
easy,
but
the
legal
community
has
a
long
memory,
and
how
you
manage
those
tricky
exits
will
be
remembered.

One
of
the
biggest
challenges
I’ve
faced
is
learning
to
say
no

and
doing
so
with
grace.
As
in-house
counsel,
we
often
wear
many
hats,
and
the
ability
to
set
boundaries
is
critical
to
maintaining
focus
and
sanity,
but
“no”
doesn’t
have
to
be
a
door
slam.
I’ve
come
to
appreciate
that
saying
“no”
professionally,
respectfully,
and
with
gratitude
often
leaves
more
doors
open
than
it
closes.
Don’t
get
me
wrong.
I
have
not
always
done
this
as
well
as
I
should
have.
I
have
made
mistakes.
I
have
fumbled
through
awkward
transitions.
I
have
been
less
diplomatic
than
I
should’ve
been.
I
am
learning
and
I
am
improving

and
that’s
the
real
lesson
here.
I
am
not
perfect,
but
I
do
know
that
I
am
capable
of
getting
better.

Along
the
way,
I’ve
also
learned
the
importance
of
owning
my
own
mistakes.
We
are
all
going
to
slip
up
from
time
to
time

what
matters
is
how
we
respond
to
those
slip
ups.
Don’t
try
to
bury
the
mistakes
you
make.
Acknowledge
them
and
use
them
as
a
chance
to
grow
and
develop.
The
truth
is,
you
can
turn
something
you’re
less
than
proud
of
into
something
you
can
be
proud
of.
It’s
not
about
the
mistake
you
make,
it’s
about
how
you
handle
what
happens
afterward.
People
are
far
less
likely
to
remember
the
mistake
and
far
more
likely
to
remember
your
integrity
in
addressing
it.
Handling
a
mistake
with
transparency
and
accountability
can
actually
strengthen
your
reputation
and
turn
a
negative
into
a
positive.

The
key
to
long-term
success
in
the
legal
profession
isn’t
just
knowing
the
law
or
being
great
at
what
you
do

it’s
also
about
being
remembered
for
how
you
handle
yourself.
Build
your
reputation,
nurture
relationships,
and
aim
to
leave
every
place
you
go
better
than
you
found
it.
Whether
you
are
engaging
online
or
in-person,
you
want
to
make
sure
that
these
actions
accurately
reflect
who
you
are
personally
and
who
you
are
professionally.

As
I
head
into
2025,
that’s
the
biggest
takeaway
for
me:
that
reputation
matters.
It’s
not
just
who
you
know

it’s
who
knows
you.
How
do
you
want
to
be
known?




Lisa_Lang_2Lisa
Lang
is
an
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
who
is
passionate
about
all
things
in-house. 
She
has
recently
launched
a
website
and
blog
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com
)
to
serve
as
a
resource
for
in-house
lawyers. 
You
can
e-mail
her
at





[email protected]



,
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn 
(
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/)
or
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@lang_lawyer).

Just 10 Days Left to Apply for Startup Alley at ABA TECHSHOW

If
you
are
a
legal
tech
startup,
don’t
miss
your
chance
to
compete
in
Startup
Alley,
the
pitch
competition
that
is
a
seminal
event
of

ABA
TECHSHOW
.
The
deadline
for
applications
is
Friday,
Dec.
13,
2024

just
10
days
away.

This
is
the
ninth
year
of
Startup
Alley,
in
which
15
startups
are
selected
to
compete
in
a
pitch
competition
that
is
TECHSHOW’s
opening
event
on
April
2,
2025.
The
15
startups
also
get
to
exhibit
in
a
special
Startup
Alley
section
of
the
exhibit
hall.

The
15
finalists
are
selected
from
among
all
the
companies
that
apply,
which
means
you
can’t
be
selected
if
you
don’t
get
your
application
in.

Read

full
details
about
the
competition
at
this
post
,
where
you
will
also
find
the
application
form.

We
are
making
a
special
push
this
year
to
encourage
applications
from
diverse
founders.

Read
more
about
that
here
.

Telehealth bridges gaps in Zimbabwe’s health sector

A
hot
wind
blows
over
parched
land
in
eastern
Zimbabwe
on
a
mid-November
day,
as
Smart
Sithole
walks
into
a
clinic
with
some
difficulty.
The
temperature
is
not
the
only
reason
that
the
56-year-old
is
using
a
cloth
to
wipe
away
the
beads
of
sweat
trickling
down
his
face.

Sithole
has
been
struggling
with
dizziness
and
chest
pain
for
weeks,
and
nurses
from
a
rural
council-owned
clinic
had
advised
him
to
come
in
and
see
a
doctor
at
this
private
health
facility
in
Chakohwa,
about
73
kilometres
from
Zimbabwe’s
third-largest
city,
Mutare.

“In
the
first
half
year
of
2025
we
aim
to
double
consultations
to
4,000
and
screen
at
least
50,000
clients.”


Dr
Admore
Jokwiro,
chief
medical
officer
and
co-founder
at
ZimSmart
Villages

But
“seeing
the
doctor”
has
an
unconventional
meaning
on
this
day.
The
consultation
will
take
place
online.

He
was
hesitant
at
first,
Sithole
says.
But
he
was
also
in
pain
and
wanted
answers,
so
he
agreed
to
dial
in
to
discuss
his
symptoms
via
video
call
with
a
physician
in
the
city.
“I
am
not
used
to
this,”
Sithole
remarked.

On
the
doctor’s
orders,
tests
were
carried
out
by
nursing
staff.
After
that,
the
doctor
confirmed
that
Sithole
had
high
blood
pressure,
and
whisked
through
a
prescription
to
treat
it.

“I
went
to
buy
tablets
from
a
nearby
pharmacy.
I
took
the
high
blood
pressure
medicines
for
the
first
time
in
my
life,”
said
the
father
of
four,
adding
that
he
was
feeling
better
just
a
few
weeks
later.

Taking
advantage
of
satellite
internet

Zimbabwe
has
just

1.7
doctors
per
100,000
people


less
than
the
African
mean
of
2.6,
and
way
under
the
World
Health
Organization’s
recommendation,
which
is
for
a
physician
density
of
1
doctor
per
1000
people.

Sithole’s
experience
is
not
a
solution

but
it’s
a
useful
patch.
Telehealth
or
telemedicine,
the
use
of
information
and
communications
technology
to
provide
clinical
services
when
a
doctor
and
a
patient
are
at
different
locations,
is
being
rolled
out
across
the
country
by
ZimSmart
Villages,
a
Zimbabwe
tech
organisation
working
together
with
the
Health
Ministry
and
local
telecom
companies.

With
this
technology,
patients
from
remote
areas
can
speak
to
doctors
in
cities
like
Mutare
or
the
capital,
Harare,
via
an
online
platform
called
BatsiHealth,
at
various
internet-enabled
kiosks,
booths
and
centres.

Poor
internet
and
high
data
costs
have
been
barriers
to
telehealth
in
Zimbabwe,
a
country
that
has
some
of
the
most
expensive
internet
in
the
region.
This
is
changing
after
the
government
in
May
licensed
Starlink,
the
Elon
Musk-owned
satellite
network
using
a
low
Earth
orbit
to
deliver
broadband
internet
around
the
world,
including
in
remote
areas
that
have
struggled
for
access
previously.

ZimSmart
Villages,
which
has
been
setting
up
e-health
centres
in
Zimbabwe
since
February,
now
has
two
of
its
17
centres
now
connected
to
Starlink’s
high-speed
internet.

Dr
Admore
Jokwiro,
chief
medical
officer
and
co-founder
at
ZimSmart
Villages,
says
his
organisation
is
“democratising
access
to
health
care”
by
providing
remote
consultations
live
from
telehealth
kiosks,
remote
diagnostics
through
point-of-care
devices
and
remote
monitoring
through
a
virtual
hospital
network
led
by
trained
nurses.

ZimSmart
Villages
also
provides
screening
for
conditions
like
stroke
and
diabetes.

“Through
our
service
offering,
we
are
enabling
access
to
early
identification
of
chronic
illnesses
and
enrolment
into
care,
which
prevents
medical
complications
and
reduces
morbidity
and
crude
death
rate,”
Jokwiro
says.

According
to
ZimSmart
Villages,
they
are
starting
with
underserved
areas,
dominantly
including
rural
areas
and
peri-urban
zones.
Still,
in
time
they
will
also
set
up
kiosks
in
underserved
locations
in
urban
areas.

Improving
health
access

Stanley
Mukwambo
suffered
a
stroke
in
2017,
and
he
has
been
feeling
dizzy
and
struggling
with
hiccups
and
constipation
for
over
a
year
now.

Just
like
Sithole,
74-year-old
father
of
four
Mukwambo
consulted
a
doctor
online
in
the
first
week
of
November.

He
was
prescribed
medicine
and
asked
to
come
back
for
review
two
weeks
later.

Mukwambo’s
wife,
Susan
Zinyawo,
44,
says
the
symptoms
continued
to
be
grave.
“The
nurses
used
an
intravenous
drip
on
him.
He
could
not
take
some
of
the
medicine
orally
so
they
used
injections,”
she
tells

VaccinesWork
.

At
the
two-week
review
appointment,
his
condition
had
barely
changed,
so
the
doctor
changed
Mukwambo’s
medication
pending
another
review.

The
distant
doctors
are
not
flying
blind.
“Nurses
also
speak
to
doctors
via
a
video
call
to
get
instructions
on
what
to
administer
to
the
patient,”
says
Otilia
Mbano,
a
retired
nurse
who
established
the
clinic
where
both
Mukwambo
and
Sithole
were
treated.

“We
do
investigations
and
tests
like
a
full
blood
count,
red
blood
cell
count,
urinalysis
and
blood
glucose
levels.
We
also
use
X-rays
for
examinations.”

Mbano
says
the
telehealth
appointments
save
people
time
and
costs
of
travelling
to
Harare
or
Mutare
to
consult
doctors.
Consultation
fees
online
range
from
US$
5
to
US$
10.

Systemic
issues,
opportunistic
fixes

Zimbabwe
has
been
struggling
with
sluggish
economic
growth
that
has
left
hospitals
dysfunctional,
with
shortages
of
medicine
and
health
workers.
The
southern
African
nation
has
a
shortfall
of

64,000
health
care
workers

and
needs
to
double
the
workforce
by
2028
to
meet
the
health
care
needs
of
its
citizens,
according
to
Health
Minister
Douglas
Mombeshora.

Itai
Rusike,
executive
director
at
Community
Working
Group
on
Health
(CWGH),
says
telehealth
can
be
vital
during
pandemics
like
COVID-19
to
allow
primary
care
providers
to
continue
providing
medical
care
to
their
patients.

“But
the
successful
implementation
of
telehealth
requires
adequate
data
infrastructures,
adequate
and
well-trained
staff,
and
clear
management
and
communication
protocols
in
dealing
with
patients,”
he
says.

Meantime,
however,
telehealth
is
growing.
In
the
last
six
months,
1,800
telehealth
consultations
have
been
conducted
and
over
5,000
visits
for
blood
pressure
and
blood
glucose
checks,
says
ZimSmart
Villages’
Jokwiro.

“In
the
first
half
year
of
2025
we
aim
to
double
consultations
to
4,000
and
screen
at
least
50,000
clients,”
he
says.

Back
in
Chakohwa,
Sithole

who
is
unemployed

is
taking
his
daily
medication
for
high
blood
pressure.

“I
am
getting
better
every
day.
Given
my
financial
status
I
was
not
going
to
afford
to
travel
to
Mutare
just
for
consultation,”
he
says.

Above The Law’s 2024 Lawyer Of The Year Contest: Nominations Needed – Above the Law

With
2024
nearly
in
the
rearview
mirror,
we
thought
it
would
be
a
good
time
to
solicit
nominations
for
Above
the
Law’s
annual

LAWYER
OF
THE
YEAR
 competition.
Which
lawyers
made
major
headlines
during
the
year
that
was?

We’ll
conduct
the
competition
as
we’ve
done
for
the
past
decade.
Please
submit
your
nominees
to
us by
email

(subject
line
“Lawyer
of
the
Year
2024”).
We
will
review
them
and
pick
a
slate
of
finalists,
and
then
you’ll
vote
on
them
in
a
reader
poll.

The
winner
will
join
an
august
group
of
past
LOTY
honorees,
including
Chief
Justice John
Roberts
 (2012)
and
President Barack
Obama

(2008).
But
the
contest
has
room
for
“fun”
as
well.
In
2019,
Christopher
Hook,
a
lawyer
who

told
a
Biglaw
partner
to
“eat
a
bowl
of
dicks”
 during
settlement
negotiations
took
home
the
grand
prize,
and
in
2015,
our
champion
was
a
young
Texas
lawyer
by
the
name
of
Bryan
Wilson

better
known
to
the
world
as
the
“Law
Hawk,”
famous
for
his irreverent
and
creative
attorney
advertisements
.

What
does
it
take
to
be
nominated?
As
we’ve
explained before:

What
are
the
criteria
for
being
our
Lawyer
of
the
Year?
Since
you’re
doing
the
nominating
and
voting,
it’s
really
up
to
you.

You
can
nominate
a
LOTY
based
on
whatever
reasoning
you
choose

e.g.,
because
the
lawyer
in
question
is
influential,
infamous,
awesome,
or
awful.

As
reflected
in
the
past
victory
of Loyola
2L
 (2007),
not
all
nominees
need
to
be
famous

or
even
named.
And
as
with
the
past
victory
of
Kyle
McEntee
and
Patrick
Lynch
(2010),
the
co-founders
of Law
School
Transparency
,
you
can
nominate
multiple
people
if
their
achievements
are
closely
related.

We
have
only
three
things
to
ask
of
you
before
the
nominations
begin
to
roll
in:

  • Please
    try
    to
    nominate
    actual
    lawyers.
  • Please
    try
    to
    nominate
    lawyers
    who
    are
    still
    living.
  • Please
    submit
    all
    nominations via
    email
    ,
    with
    this
    exact
    subject
    line:
    “Lawyer
    of
    the
    Year
    2024.”

Let
the
nominations
begin!
Please
submit
your
nominations
by THURSDAY,
DECEMBER
12,
at
11:59
p.m.

(Eastern
time).
We
look
forward
to
reading
your
thoughts
and
insights
on
the
potential
candidates
who
will
go
on
to
vie
for
the
title
of
Above
the
Law’s
Lawyer
of
the
Year
for
2024.



Staci ZaretskyStaci
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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Top 10 Biglaw Firm Offers Huge Stacks Of Bonus Cash To Associates – Above the Law

One
by
one,
slowly
but
surely,
Biglaw
firms
are
meeting
the
moment
to
match
Milbank’s
generous

year-end

and

special

bonuses.
We’re
now
hearing
that
one
of
Biglaw’s
most
successful
firms
gave
associates
a
lot
more
to
be
thankful
for,
just
before
Thanksgiving.

Sources
tell
us
that
on
November
27,
Morgan
Lewis

a
firm
that
brought
in
$2,898,514,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
10
on
the
Am
Law
100

left
voicemails
for
all
associates,
detailing
a
match
for
the
prevailing
market
rate
for
both
year-end
and
special
bonuses.
On
top
of
all
of
that
cash,
we’ve
been
told
that
associates
with
“outstanding”
reviews
may
be
eligible
for
additional
merit-based
bonuses.
Here’s
what
the
year-end
and
special
bonuses
look
like
at
the
firm:

  • Class
    of
    2023

    $20,000
    /
    $6,000
  • Class
    of
    2022

    $30,000
    /
    $10,000
  • Class
    of
    2021

    $57,500
    /
    $15,000
  • Class
    of
    2020

    $75,000
    /
    $20,000
  • Class
    of
    2019

    $90,000
    /
    $25,000
  • Class
    of
    2018

    $105,000
    /
    $25,000
  • Class
    of
    2017+

    $115,000
    /
    $25,000

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Morgan
Lewis!
Those
hard-earned
bonus
checks
will
hit
bank
accounts
on
January
31,
2025.

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 ZaretskyStaci
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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.


Bonus Time

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s

Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts
.