Category: News Feeds

The
traditional
route
to
becoming
a
lawyer
in
the
United
States
is
to
spend
three
years
and
tens
(or
hundreds)
of
thousands
of
dollars
on
a
law
school
education,
and
then
spend
another
two
months
and
another
few
thousand
dollars
preparing
for
the
bar
exam.

If
you
think
there
has
to
be
a
better
way,
you’re
not
alone.
Earlier
this
year,
the

ABA
endorsed
alternative
pathways
to
attorney
licensing
beyond
the
traditional
bar
exam,
as
a
growing
number
of
states
establish
other
methods
that
focus
more
on
experiential
learning.
For
example:

Earlier:


Utah
May
Add
A
New
Path
To
Practicing
Law


California
Holds
On
Tight
To
Its
Notoriously
Difficult
Bar
Exam


Nevada
Could
Join
Growing
Number
Of
States
With
Alternatives
To
The
Bar

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
final
installment
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences.

Read
the
previous
installment
here. 

In
this
final
chapter
of
“Conquering
Conferences,”
we
delve
into
the
essence
of
networking
—
building
friendships.

It’s
not
just
about
collecting
business
cards;
it’s
about
finding
your
tribe
and
nurturing
relationships
that
go
beyond
the
conference
halls.

Building
Friendships
(Or
How
to
Be
the
Cool
Kid
in
Conference
Land) 

Let’s
face
it
—
knowing
someone’s
favorite
SCOTUS
justice
is
great,
but
finding
out
they
share
your
love
for
karaoke?
That’s
gold.

Remember,
it’s
not
about
how
many
cards
you
collect,
it’s
about
finding
your
tribe
in
this
conference
jungle
gym.

Sometimes,
the
most
memorable
connections
come
from
the
most
unexpected
places.

Early
in
my
career,
at
the
National
Conference
for
the
South
Asian
Bar
Association,
I
saw
an
opportunity
in
the
unexpected.
Among
the
list
of
presenters,
there
was
one
attorney
who
stood
out
because
he
wasn’t
South
Asian.

I
figured
he
might
not
know
many
people
there.
So,
I
reached
out
with
a
simple,
thoughtful
email,
inviting
him
to
join
a
group
dinner.
It
was
a
shot
in
the
dark,
but
it
paid
off.

Not
only
did
he
join
us,
but
that
single
act
of
inclusivity
fostered
a
relationship
that
has
spanned
over
two
decades.
He
became
a
client,
a
friend,
and
an
advisor.

This
experience
taught
me
that
networking
is
more
than
just
exchanging
business
cards;
it’s
about
being
thoughtful,
sometimes
stepping
out
of
your
comfort
zone,
and
seeing
every
individual
as
a
potential
connection.

Networking
at
conferences
shouldn’t
feel
like
a
chore.

It’s
all
about
making
authentic
connections,
not
just
adding
names
to
your
contact
list.
Strive
for
meaningful
interactions
where
you
can
effortlessly
and
comfortably
reach
out.

True
success
lies
not
in
the
quantity
but
the
quality
of
connections
made.
Imagine
creating
five
to10
solid
relationships,
rather
than
a
sea
of
forgettable
handshakes.

These
are
the
connections
that
will
bring
a
sense
of
anticipation
and
excitement
for
future
encounters,
transforming
the
once-dreaded
networking
ritual
into
an
opportunity
for
genuine
friendship
building.

After
the
Conference:
The
Art
of
Keeping
the
Dance
Alive

Once
the
conference’s
final
curtain
falls,
the
real
magic
of
networking
begins.

It’s
about
nurturing
those
five
to
10
meaningful
relationships
you’ve
ignited.
A
follow-up
email
that
recalls
a
personal
tidbit
or
a
professional
insight
shared
during
your
chat
can
work
wonders.

Remember,
the
goal
is
to
transform
a
brief
encounter
into
a
lasting
professional
friendship.

So,
reach
out
with
a
personalized
touch
—
a
LinkedIn
message,
a
friendly
email,
or
even
a
quick
call
can
keep
the
rhythm
of
your
new
networking
dance
going
long
after
the
conference
lights
have
dimmed.

As
we
conclude
our
series,
remember
that
the
true
magic
of
networking
lies
in
the
relationships
you
cultivate
after
the
conference.

Keeping
the
dance
alive
through
thoughtful
follow-ups
and
genuine
connections
is
the
key
to
transforming
brief
encounters
into
lasting
professional
friendships.

Thank
you
for
joining
me
on
this
journey
through
the
world
of
networking.

May
your
future
conferences
be
less
awkward,
more
rewarding,
and
filled
with
successful
connections.

Have
any
tips
on
how
you’ve
successfully
nurtured
post-conference
connections?
Let’s
hear
those,
too
—
the
more
creative,
the
merrier!

Final
Steps

✔️
Follow
up
with
new
connections
in
a
personalized
and
thoughtful
manner.
✔️ Transform
brief
encounters
into
lasting
professional
relationships.

Your
Turn!

✔️
Share
your
own
tips
and
stories
on
successful
post-conference
follow-ups.

---

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

One
thing
litigators
know
all
too
well
is
that
most
of
the
time
spent
in
a
courthouse
is
not
spent
on
legal
tasks.
Rather,
lawyers
usually
need
to
wait
for
their
case
to
be
called,
and
the
time
they
spend
in
front
of
a
judge
or
other
court
officer
can
be
rather
limited
compared
to
the
time
they
spend
in
court.
This
is
frustrating,
since
lawyers
could
be
doing
other
activities
rather
than
waiting
in
court,
and
clients
probably
wish
they
did
not
need
to
pay
lawyers
to
sit
idly
around
a
courthouse.
However,
courts
can
manage
their
affairs
in
certain
ways
to
reduce
the
time
lawyers
waste
in
court.

Before
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
it
was
common
for
courts
in
a
jurisdiction
in
which
I
practice
to
schedule
numerous
matters
to
be
heard
at
a
particular
date
and
time.
Dozens
of
lawyers
might
arrive
at
court
for
a
scheduled
9:30
a.m.
appearance
even
though
the
court
could
only
take
the
cases
one
at
a
time.
To
some
extent,
this
makes
sense,
since
people
might
show
up
to
court
a
little
late,
and
the
court
could
hear
cases
in
which
all
of
the
attorneys
were
present
before
other
matters
were
ready
to
be
called.
However,
other
lawyers
wasted
time
waiting
around
since
court
officers
can
only
hear
a
select
number
of
cases
at
a
time.

During
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
this
phenomenon
largely
disappeared.
Courts
usually
scheduled
matters
for
discrete
times,
typically
at
hour
or
half-hour
increments.
Since
people
simply
needed
to
log
into
Zoom
at
a
scheduled
time
rather
than
appear
in
person,
attorneys
showing
up
late
was
rarely
an
issue.
In
this
situation,
attorneys
and
courts
did
not
waste
time
waiting
around
since
there
was
a
set
time
block
to
discuss
matters.

Only
once
did
I
see
a
court
schedule
dozens
of
matters
at
the
same
time
for
Zoom
appearances,
requiring
attorneys
to
wait
while
cases
were
called
into
separate
Zoom
rooms
one
at
a
time.
Since
all
of
us
were
at
home
or
in
our
offices
logging
into
Zoom,
not
much
time
was
wasted,
since
everyone
could
work
on
other
tasks
while
waiting.
However,
parties
waste
the
least
time
when
courts
schedule
specific
periods
to
conduct
court
hearings
so
no
one
has
to
wait
around.

Now
that
remote
proceedings
are
mostly
a
thing
of
the
past
for
many
courts,
judicial
proceedings
are
being
conducted
in
a
similar
way
to
before
COVID-19.
Several
times
this
year,
I
appeared
on
cases
that
were
calendared
for
the
same
time
as
dozens
of
other
cases,
requiring
all
of
the
lawyers
to
wait
in
court
for
hours
while
court
staff
managed
all
of
the
cases
that
had
been
scheduled
for
that
date
and
time.

However,
courts
should
learn
the
lesson
of
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
and
implement
practices
that
reduce
time
wastage.
Many
courts
can
schedule
matters
for
discrete
times
rather
than
order
dozens
of
lawyers
to
show
up
on
a
given
morning
and
just
take
the
cases
one
by
one
as
the
lawyers
fully
appear
on
a
matter.
Perhaps,
for
some
reason
—
and
I
would
appreciate
someone
explaining
the
reasoning,
if
they
know
it
—
courts
prefer
to
schedule
matters
en
masse.
Maybe
it
is
a
bigger
administrative
challenge
to
schedule
matters
as
discrete
units
rather
than
just
tell
a
collection
of
lawyers
on
various
cases
to
appear
in
court
on
a
given
morning.
However,
courts
should
consider
scheduling
matters
for
particular
periods
so
that
lawyers
waste
less
time
in
court.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at




[email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
don’t
think
that
there’s
a
single
industry
that’s
safe
anymore,
safe
meaning
like
off-limits
from
investigations.

—

Michael
Bell,
a
partner
at
Hogan
Lovells,
in
comments
given
to
the

National
Law
Journal,
on
why
Biglaw
congressional
investigations
practices
are
getting
ready
for
more
work
in
2025,
when
the
White
House
and
Congress
will
be
controlled
by
Republicans.
“From
a
pure
bandwidth
perspective,
there
could
be
some
impact,
certainly
at
the
beginning
of
the
new
administration,
where
there
will
be
a
huge
focus
on
confirming
appointees
to
the
various
positions
within
the
Trump
administration,”
Bell
continued.
“And
that
will
take
up
a
significant
portion
of
the
bandwidth
in
the
Senate,
and
so
it
may
delay,
or
slow,
to
some
extent,
the
initiation
of
some
investigations,
but
I
do
think
over
time,
we’re
going
to
see
a
fairly
significant
increase
in
that
activity
in
the
Senate.”

---

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.

Rudy
Giuliani

goes
through
lawyers
like
he
goes
through
wives
—
quickly,
and
leaving
a
trail
of

resentment
and

unpaid
bills
in
his
wake.

America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
is
currently
in
multiple
federal
and
state
courts
defending
his
honor,
along
with
whatever
is
left
of
his
assets.
And
he
might
soon
be

doing
it

pro
se,
at
least
in
New
York
where
he
faces
a
collection
action
on
the
$148
million
defamation
judgment
he
owes
to
former
Georgia
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.
Giuliani
has
already
endeared
himself
to
Judge
Lewis
Liman
by
failing
to
respond
to
court
ordered
discovery,
stripping
his
Manhattan
apartment
of
its
contents
before
abandoning
it
to
the
plaintiffs,
and
arriving
at
an
election
party
in
the
Mercedes
he’d
been
explicitly
ordered
to
hand
over.

On
Wednesday,
Rudy’s
attorneys
Ken
Caruso
and
David
Labkowski

requested
permission
to
file
“two
sealed
ex
parte
documents”
to
protect
“confidential
information”
they
described
as
“ancillary”
to
the
court’s
judicial
authority.

Judge
Liman
promptly
rejected
the
request,
noting
the
presumption
of
public
access
to
court
documents. 

“Although
the
presumption
is
not
strong,
no
countervailing
factors
justify
the
sealing
of
information
regarding
the
identity
and
role
of
the
declarant,
the
relief
sought,
the
grounds
for
the
motion,
and
the
posture
of
the
matters
discussed,”
he

wrote.
But
he
did
allow
for
a
partial
redaction
of
three
paragraphs
containing
privileged
information
in
Caruso’s
declaration.
(Although,
as
former
federal
prosecutor
Ken
White

notes,
attorneys
have
an
obligation
to
protect
client
confidences,
even
in ex
parte
communications
with
the
court.)

In
any
event,
Caruso
and
Labkowski’s
plea
to
be
cut
loose
is
now
largely

visible
on
the
public
docket.
And,
hold
on
to
your
hats,
kids,
but
it
turns
out
Rudy
is
kind
of
a
terrible
client!

The
grounds
for
this
motion
arise
under
Professional
Rule
1.16(c)(4),
(6)
and
(7),
which
provide:

a
lawyer
may
withdraw
from
representing
a
client
when:
.
.
.
(4)
the
client
insists
upon
taking
action
with
which
the
lawyer
has
a
fundamental
disagreement;
.
.
.
(6)
the
client
insists
upon
presenting
a
claim
or
defense
that
is
not
warranted
under
existing
law
and
cannot
be
supported
by
good
faith
argument
for
an
extension,
modification,
or
reversal
of
existing
law;
[or]
.
.
.
(7)
the
client
fails
to
cooperate
in
the
representation
or
otherwise
renders
the
representation
unreasonably
difficult
for
the
lawyer
to
carry
out
employment
effectively[.]

You
mean
a
guy
who
got
himself
a
default
judgment
after
completely
failing
to
comply
with
discovery,
and
then
got
himself
kicked
out
of
bankruptcy
for
same,
and
is
currently
claiming
that
he

definitely
resides
in
Florida
for
the
purpose
of
the
homestead
exception,
unless
he
loses,
in
which
case
he definitely
resides
in
New
York
—

that
guy
wants
his
lawyers
to
do
something
that
isn’t
100
percent
on
the
up
and
up?
The
devil
you
say!

Judge
Liman
has
given
Rudy
until
Monday
to
respond.
And
just
in
case
the
former
head
of
SDNY
(late
of the
bar,
although
not
of


a
bar)
is
confused,
the
court
specifies
that
his
response
should
be
submitted
directly
to
chambers,
cc-ing
Caruso
and
Labkowski,
but
not
“any
other
party.”
A
hearing
on
the
matter
is
scheduled
for
November
26,
where
the
court
is
also
prepared
to
hear
from
Giuliani’s
girlfriend
Maria
Ryan
and
his
assistant
Ted
Goodman
as
to
why
they
failed
to
respond
to
subpoenas
served
back
in
August.

If
there’s
one
thing
that
could
make
this
situation
more
of
a
clusterfuck,
it
would
be
Rudy
representing
himself

pro
se.
And,
PS,
Caruso
and
Labkowski
are
his
primary
counsel
on
the
appeal
of
the
underlying
judgment
to
the
DC
Circuit.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

The
Federalist
Society’s
National
Lawyers
Convention
got
wild
yesterday.
As
wild
as
a
gathering
of
right-wing
lawyers
can
get,
anyway.
Actually,
I
guess
the
wildest
a
gathering
of
right-wing
lawyers
can
get
was
January
6,
so
this
was
just
slightly
less
than
the
wildest
a
gathering
of
right-wing
lawyers
can
get.

Fifth
Circuit
Judge
Edith
Jones
took
the
opportunity
of
sitting
next
to
Georgetown
University
Law
Center
Professor
Steve
Vladeck
to
go,
I
believe
the
technical
term
is
“absolutely
bonkers.”
An
eye-popping
and
eye-rolling
meltdown
from
a
federal
judge.

Let’s
not
undersell
this…

conservatives
were
aghast
at
her
behavior:

It
all
went
down
at
the
panel
on
The
Continued
Independence
of
the
Judiciary,
featuring
Jones
and
Vladeck
along
with
Paul
Weiss’s
Kannon
Shanmugam,
Washington
University
St.
Louis
Law
School
Professor
Dan
Epps,
and
moderated
by
fellow
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
James
Ho.

(It
starts
at
14:04.
For
some
reason
automatic
timestamps
aren’t
working.
Sorry.)

The
panel
begins
as
a
relatively
straightforward
academic
talk,
with
Vladeck
expounding
upon
the
problems
with
the
Supreme
Court’s
reliance
on
the
“shadow
docket”
to
issue
rapid,

unsupported
legal
rulings
and
the
risk
this
poses
to
faith
in
the
judiciary.
He
did
not
address
the
issue
of
single-judge
courthouse
shopping,
a
practice
that’s
notoriously
employed
within
the
Fifth
Circuit,
where
plaintiffs
can
file
their
claim
in
tiny
courthouses
without
fear
that
it
will
be
randomly
assigned
to
a
judge
within
the
district,
but
rather
knowing
with
certainty
that
it
will
go
to
the
lone
judge
sitting
in
that
courthouse.

But
that’s
all
Judge
Jones
wanted
to
talk
about,
so
here
we
go.

Professor
Vladeck
has
left
the
Fifth
Circuit
and
the
Fifth
Circuit
is
happy
to
announce
that
Professor
Vladeck
will
soon
be
criticizing
the
Ninth
Circuit
and
the
DC
Circuit,
where
I
believe
many
initiatives
of
the
Trump
administration
will
find
an
immediate
litigating
home
and
a
federal
judiciary
that
is
at
least
90%
appointed
by
presidents
whose
appointments
have
not
been
criticized.

This
is
the
sort
of
weird
“own
the
libs”
rhetoric
that
often

finds
its
way
into
conservative
legal
opinions
but
is
nonetheless
vapid.
The
critique
of
the
judge
shopping
problem
in
the
Fifth
Circuit
isn’t
about
finding
a
vaguely
friendly
audience,
but
on
the
threat
to
legitimacy
presented
when
litigants
create
artificial
ties
to
bumblefuck
locations
in
order
to
tie
the
hands
of
the
whole
federal
government.
Suing
the
FDA
in
DC
and
taking
a
turn
at
the
judge
assignment
wheel
doesn’t
carry
the
same
concerns
as
a
case
against
the
FDA
with
the
one
judge
you
know
sits
in
Amarillo.

This
is
fast
forwarding
a
bit,
but
Jones
will
never
even
attempt
to
address
this
specific
defect
in
her
loony
rant.
But
we’ll
offer
her
every
unearned
benefit
of
the
doubt
and
suggest
that
she

could
be
arguing
that
—
fundamentally
—
having
a
100
percent
chance
of
drawing
a
Matthew
Kacsmaryk
for
an
abortion
case
is
no
different
than
having
a
95
percent
chance
of
drawing
someone
in
the
Northern
District
of
California
appointed
by
a
Democrat
(there
is
one
G.W.
Bush
senior
status
judge
still
hearing
cases
in
the
district)
to
hear
a
challenge
to
mass
deportation.
If
that’s
the
comparison
she’s
trying
to
make,
it’s
weak.
Different
judges
are,
well,
different.
An
older
Clinton
judge
might
not
see
a
case
the
same
as
a
younger
Biden
judge.
A
Clinton
judge
confirmed
by
the
post-Contract
With
America
Senate
will
be
different
than
an
early
Obama
judge
confirmed
with
a
near
supermajority.
This
argument
is
just
categorically
different
than
allowing
plaintiffs
to
choose
a
single
judge.

For
the
record,
Jones
will
eventually
quote
Vladeck
addressing
this
issue
in
the
past
and
noting
that
none
of
the
California
judges
are
as
ideologically
committed
to
the
“left”
as
Kacsmaryk
—
a
former
lawyer
for
an
activist
conservative
religious
group
—
is
to
the
“right.”
Jones
dismisses
this
as
“if
that’s
not
an
attack
on
the
character
of
the
judge,
I
don’t
know
what
is.”
In
other
words,
she
does
not
know
what
one
is.

But
we’re
not
even
going
to
have
that
debate,
because
Jones
is
off
in
her
own
little
world.

Back
in
the
1970s,
there
was
one
judge
in
Tyler,
Texas
named
William
Wayne
Justice,
and
the
government
and
the
ACLU
liked
to
file
suit
in
Tyler,
Texas,
because
William
Wayne
Justice
was
the
arbiter
of
the
constitutional
law….
And
in
that
role,
he
ran
the
Texas
prison
system,
the
Texas
Mental
health
and
retardation
system,
the
Texas
juvenile
justice
system,
and
when
he
tried
to
take
over
the
Texas
education
system,
the
Fifth
Circuit
finally
said
that
was
maybe
a
bridge
too
far.
That
is
what
you
call
judge
picking.

Sure…
except,
in
these
prepared
remarks
the
only
devious
liberal
example
of
judge
picking
she
could
find
involved:
the
Texas
prison
system,
the
Texas
mental
disabilities
program,
and
the
Texas
juvenile
justice
system.
This
seems
significant
that
these
are
all
TEXAS
programs
litigated
in
TEXAS.
A
plaintiff
who
legitimately
resides
in
a
far-flung
rural
area
of
Texas
might
have
a
beef
against
the
state
government
wholly
within
that
jurisdiction.
That’s
a
whole
order
different
than
the
present
controversy
about
a
judge
in
Amarillo
imposing
a
national
ban
based
on
a
challenge
brought

by
non-Texans
setting
up
a
straw
organization
in
town
to
attack
a
nationwide
FDA
regulation.

At
least
when
Judge
Ho
tried
to
concoct
a
defense
of
this
practice,
he
spun
a
story

drenched
in
disingenuous
rhetoric
about
preserving
local
access
to
justice.
It
made
no
sense
either,
but
at
least
it
was
structured
to
address
THE
ACTUAL
ISSUE
AT
HAND.

I
hasten
to
point
out
that
when
[Vladeck]
was
filing
his
complaints,
his
articles,
his
amicus
briefs,
his
tweets,
calling
out
by
name…
started
out
with
Judge
Kacsmaryk,
went
to
judge
Reed
O’Connor,
later
on
included
Judge
Mark
Pitman,
Judge
Cam
Barker,
Judge
Jeremy
Kernodle
—
that’s
an
awful
lot
of
single
judges,
I
might
add
—
But
he
singled
them
all
out
for
criticism,
and
yet
the
actual
litigators
in
that
case,
which
was
often
the
US
government,
did
not
move
to
change
venue.
They
did
not
move
to
recuse
these
judges…
they
did
not
even
question
the
judge’s
integrity.

I’m
not
sure
she
even
understands
the
issue
here.

As
a
litigant,
the
DOJ
did
not
challenge
these
assignments

because
we
all
agree
that
this
is
how
the
law
currently
works.
Vladeck
is
not
disputing
that
this
is
what
the
law
currently
says,
he’s
making
a
normative
argument
that
it
should
not
work
that
way.
That’s
a
policy
question
above
the
pay
grade
of
any
litigant
in
a
specific
case.

It’s
why
the
Judicial
Conference
—
headed
by
a
Republican
judge
and
ultimately
answerable
to
a
Republican
Chief
Justice
—

went
out
of
its
way
to
pass
a
rule
to
change
this
process.
The
proposed
rule
was
limited
to
civil
actions
that
seek
to
bar
or
mandate
state
or
federal
actions,
“whether
by
declaratory
judgment
and/or
any
form
of
injunctive
relief,”
and
required
districts
in
those
cases
which
clearly
have
no
limited
geographic
tie
to
any
out-of-the-way
courthouse
to
be
assigned
through
a
district-wide
random
selection
process.

Jones
calls
this
a
“strange
idea”
and
revels
in
the
Fifth
Circuit
refusing
to
comply,
claiming
that
the
Conference
has
no
authority
over
them
because
district
assignments
are
governed
by
statute.
The
Conference
ceded
the
point.

Some
just
want
to
see
the
world
burn.

As
Professor
Vladeck
conceded,
while
he’s
complaining
about
single
judge
courthouses,
he
understands
it’s
the
law
and
that
Congress
can
change
it
if
he
can
lobby
them
to
do
that.

This
is
sort
of
a
side
issue
in
the
grand
scheme
of
this,
but
later
in
the
talk
she
characterized
the
prospect
of
legislation
to
reform
this
process
as
a
threat.
Almost
as
though
this
“just
lobby
Congress”
concession
was
entirely
disingenuous.

Oh
snap!
She
brought
a
visual
aide!

This
purports
to
be
her
collection
of
Vladeck’s
writings
on
the
subject.
What
good
faith
reason
would
she
have
for
bringing
that
to
a
panel
when
Vladeck
isn’t
even
talking
about
single-judge
courthouses?
Hush
now.
Stop
asking
silly
questions.

“This
is
not
ad
hominem,
professor,”
she
begins,
sounding
the
universal
signal
that
this
is
very
much
going
to
be
ad
hominem.
Most
folks
misunderstand
what
ad
hominem
means
and
use
it
as
a
synonym
for
insults.
That’s
not
necessarily
the
case.
It
refers
to
the
logical
fallacy
of
substituting
reasoned,
substantive
argument
with
claims
that
the
audience
shouldn’t
believe
the
other
side
simply
because
they
are,
supposedly,
just
a
bad
person.
And
that
has
little
to
do
with
whether
or
not
there
are
any
“insults”
involved.

But
in
this
case,
Jones
replaced
a
substantive
explanation
why
she
thinks
it’s
good
for
the
judiciary
to
have
Potemkin
Plaintiffs
running
to
single-judge
courthouses
seeking
national
injunctions
with
the
idea
that
Steve
Vladeck
is
mean
on
Twitter.
Making
her
stunt
very
much
ad
hominem,
something
that
Dan
Epps
correctly
pointed
out,
breaking
his
silence
during
the
scuffle
to
note
that
this
was
all
a
whole
lot
of
rhetorical
fallacy.

This
is
at
1:17:00
or
so
and
it’s
worth
watching
as
high
comedic
performance
art.
Jones
is
going
to
read
clips
to
prove
that
Vladeck
attacks
judges
personally.
As
a
taste…

Well,
I’ll
read
you
a
few
tweet.
uh,
November
18th
of
2022.
Someone
says,
“isn’t
judge
picking
a
practice
as
old
as
the
sun
done
by
both
sides?”
Professor
Vladeck
says,
“nope,
forum
shopping
is,
but
literally
picking
a
single
judge
is
a
relatively
new
phenomenon
available
only
in
a
handful
of
(primarily
red)
states.”

So…
not
a
personal
attack
on
a
judge.
Maybe
the
others
will
get
more
direct
(they
will
not).

Jones:
Here’s
Judge
Hendrix
denying
DOJ’s
motion
to
transfer.
One
of
the
articles…

Vladeck:
What
was
the
attack
in
that?

Jones:
[Slams
table]

Pretty
much
sums
it
up.

But
Jones
has
one
more
bonkers
conclusion
to
close
off
this
trip
through
the
Magical
Folder
Of
Mundane:

The
consequence
of
all
this
is,
Judge
Kacsmaryk
is
under
24
hour
day
protection.
He
has
five
kids.
someone
has
been
indicted
for
a
depth
threat
against
him.

Ahem.

Seriously,
is
that
the
consequence
of

criticizing
district
judge
assignment
rules?
Because
it’s
probably
the
result
of
his
abortion
pill
opinion
that
even
this
Supreme
Court
thought

so
poorly
thought
out
that
it
unceremoniously
kicked
it
to
the
curb.

That’s
not
the
assignment
rules.
That’s
the
ruling.
As

Professor
Brian
Frye
put
it,
“The
idea
that
anyone
would
threaten
the
life
of
a
federal
judge
based
on
a
disagreement
about
how
to
apply
venue
rules
is
frankly
risible.”
Maybe
that’s
too
far…
maybe
there’s
a
1L
out
there
whose
civil
procedure
final
was
totally
wrecked
by
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
position
and
they
missed
out
on
law
review
and
want
revenge!

Probably
not…
let’s
go
with
risible.

But
if
it
has

anything
to
do
with
assignment
rules,
it’s
that
the
existing
judge
picking
system
—
put
aside
whether
or
not
the
judges
are
ACTUALLY
in
the
tank
for
one
side
or
the
other
—
feeds
the
impression
that
the

litigants
do
see
judges
as

bought
and
paid
for
toys.
That’s
bad
for
the
judiciary.
You’d
think
a
judge
might
want
to
make
a
simple
change
that,
likely
without
actually
changing
the
outcome,
would
stifle
that
impression.

Instead,
they’re
just
going
to
blame
anyone
questioning
judge
shopping
for
inspiring
death
threats.
As
always,
these
are
just
not
serious
people.

---

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.

In
recent
months
and
weeks,
some
local
and
central
government
authorities
have
enlisted
the
services
of
law
enforcement
agents
and
descended
on
some
villagers,
where
they
arrested
and
detained
them
and
also
getting
them
prosecuted
for
allegedly occupying gazetted land without
lawful
authority.

In
some
instances,
judicial
officers
have
convicted
the
villagers
and
ordered
them
to
move
from
their
homesteads
and
land,
which
they
have
occupied
for
several
years
as
it
is
their
ancestral
land.

The
intervention
by
ZLHR
in
representing
the
villagers
and
through
filing
appeals
in
court
challenging
their
eviction
as
an
infringement
of
their
right
to
freedom
from
arbitrary
eviction
guaranteed
in
section
74
of
the
Constitution,
has
saved
them
as
High
Court
Judges
have
set
aside
the
evictions.

The
insensitive
and
callous
eviction
of
people
against
clear
Constitutional
provisions
that
protect
against
arbitrary
eviction
stamps
from
both
the
local
and
central
government’s
intention
to
continue
violating
their
constitutionally
protected
rights
and
commit
rights
abuse
excesses
with
impunity. It
is
worrisome
that
both
the
central
and
local
governments
have dismally
failed
to
follow
the
dictates
of
the
law
in
executing
evictions.

ZLHR
does
not
support
lawlessness
in
occupying
land,
however,
forced evictions
have
the
effect
of
stripping
affected
families
which
include
women,
people
with
disabilities
and
children,
of
their
constitutional
right
to
freedom
from
arbitrary
eviction
and
dignity
and cause
loss
of
livelihoods,
life,
and
property
and,
in
turn,
impact
basic
social,
economic,
cultural,
political
and
civil
rights
of
several
people.

Despite
adopting
a
progressive
Constitution
in
2013, which
guarantees
freedom
from
arbitrary
eviction,
it
is
incomprehensible
that
both local
and
central
governments
have
once
again
chosen
to
embark
on
an
infamous
operation
to
forcibly
evict
and
displace
people
without
offering
them
any
alternative
accommodation
or
shelter.

The
heartless
evictions
and
displacements
amount
to
inhuman
and
degrading
treatment
of
citizens
in
contravention
of
guarantees
contained
in
the
Constitution
and
regional
and
international
instruments
to
which
Zimbabwe
is
a
state
party.

ZLHR
calls
upon
local
and
central
government
to
immediately
halt
the
forced
evictions,
ensure
the
protection
of
several
internally
displaced
people
and
other
vulnerable
groups
and
take
remedial
action
to
protect
the
rights
provided
in
the
Constitution
and
the
International
Covenant
on
Economic,
Social
and
Cultural
Rights.

It
is
prudent
for
both
the
local
and
central
government
to
invest
efforts
and
resources
in
creating
a
stable,
safe
and
just
society,
which
places
people
at
the
centre
of
development
plans
and
commits
to
advancing
social
development
including
uplifting
marginalised
communities
rather
than
perpetuating
injustice.
Local
and
Central
government
should
wherever
possible
prevent
people
from
constructing
houses
in
undesignated
areas
than
to
wait
for
them
to
finish
constructing
and
then
demolish
properties
without
following
the
due
process
of
law.

Post
published
in:

Agriculture

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“I
Can’t
Wait
for
Matt
Gaetz’s
Confirmation
Hearings”: Columnist
Michelle
Goldberg
has this
essay online
at
The
New
York
Times.

“Ho
Decries
White
Racism
as
Court
Rejects
‘MAGA’
Bullying
Case;
Split
circuit
court
dismissed
race-based
bullying
claims;
Ho
says
culture
‘increasingly
accepts’
racism
against
whites”: Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Two
Republicans
Resist
Trump
Demand
on
Biden
Judicial
Picks;
Sens.
Susan
Collins,
Lisa
Murkowski
voting
for
nominees;
Trump
wants
GOP
to
stop
Biden
judicial
confirmations”: Tiana
Headley
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“The
Judge
Newman
Story
in
Her
Own
Words”: IPWatchdog,
Inc.
recently
posted this
video on
YouTube.

“The
Conservative
Justices
Bet
Dobbs
Wouldn’t
Hurt
Republicans
Forever.
They
Were
Right.
Abortion
had
been
a
losing
issue
for
Republicans
at
the
ballot
box.
Not
so
in
2024.” Jay
Willis
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.

“Supreme
Court
Seems
Ready
to
Allow
Securities
Fraud
Case
Against
Nvidia;
The
case,
which
is
in
an
early
stage,
accused
the
giant
technology
company
of
misleading
investors
about
its
exposure
to
the
cryptocurrency
industry”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.