Category: News Feeds

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Amy
Bowen
and
Elise
Buie
back
to
our
pages.
Click


here

if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.

Raising
children
isn’t
easy.
There,
I
said
it,
so
you
don’t
have
to.
I
raised
four,

who
I
also
homeschooled
for
10
years.
When
my
divorce
sent
me
back
to
work
and
my
kids
back
to
brick-and-mortar
schools,
college
tuition
payments
looming
large,
I
started
my
own
family
law
practice
from
scratch
in
a
new
city,
far
from
home,
where
I
pretty
much
knew
nobody. 

My
natural
ability
to
network,
coupled
with
becoming
the
sole
breadwinner
for
my
family,
translated
into
many
long
days
(and
nights).
I
started
getting
referral
after
referral
and
quickly
became
the
“it”
girl
for
guardian
ad
litem
work.
I
was
able
to
pay
for
my
first
child’s
college
education
and
the
ones
that
followed
as
those
referrals
became
the
foundation
upon
which
I
built
my
family
law
and
estate
planning
practices.
But
wow,
did
I
work
a
lot!

I
was
used
to
it,
though.
The
memories
of
working
in
person
for
a
law
firm
during
my
early
days
as
a
young
lawyer,
racking
up
the
billable
hours,
were
never
far
from
my
mind.
It
was
all
I
knew.

Decades
later,
I
realized
that
many
traditional
practices
in
law
—
working
in
person
during
“normal”
business
hours
and
expecting
women
to
manage
both
professional
and
household
responsibilities
without
adequate
support
—
were
not
just
impractical.
They,
for
lack
of
a
better
word
and
because
I
like
it,
sucked.     

I’ve
tried
many
approaches
to
buck
the
system,
each
with
varying
degrees
of
success.
My
greatest
achievements
so
far?
Building
a

fully
remote
law
firm,
implementing

Eve
Rodsky’s
Fair
Play
model
at
home,
teaching
others
to
do
the
same
in
their
households,
and
most
recently,
rolling
out
flat-fee
billing.
We
introduced
it
earlier
this
year
for
relationship
agreements
and
estate
planning,
marking
an
exciting
milestone
in
our
evolution.

Since
things
are
going
well,
we
plan
to
continue
adding
more
services
at
flat
fees
next
year
—
and
the
year
after,
if
needed.
I
genuinely
believe
in
the
power
of
flat-fee
pricing
to
improve
how
we
approach
work-life
balance.
Personally,
though,
I
prefer
the
term
“life-work
integration,”
with
an
emphasis
on
the
life
part,
something
many
lawyer-moms
struggle
to
achieve.
Here’s
how
flat
fees
can
help.

Flat
Fees
Lower
Administrative
Costs  

It’s
a
basic
concept,
but
one
that
should
still
be
discussed
and
emphasized
due
to
its
importance.
Flat-fee
billing
lowers
administrative
costs
—
from
the
lawyer
to
the
bookkeeper. 

With
flat-fee
billing
in
place
and
calibrated
to
the
point
that
we
are
confident
it’s
accurately
reflecting
the
work
we’re
doing,
lawyers
won’t
have
to
calculate
how
much
time
they’re
spending
on
even
the
most
minute
tasks,
such
as
reading
and
answering
quick
emails.
As
we
all
know,
those
time
expenditures
can
eat
away
at
the
day,
chipping
into
the
time
we
could
otherwise
take
advantage
of
for
strategy
and
casework. 

The
same
holds
for
the
administrative
staff
in
our
offices,
whose
organization
talents
we
could
otherwise
apply
to
on-demand
projects
leading
to
the
firm’s
growth,
for
example.
That
is,
if
they
weren’t
so
focused
on
creating
and
sending
out
invoices. 

We
are
still
tracking
it
for
everything
during
this
experimental
phase,
but
so
far
so
great.Bottom
line:
The
reduced
time
and
financial
resources
offered
by
flat-fee
billing
allow
law
firms
to
reallocate
these
valuable
assets
to
more
meaningful
areas,
enhancing
the
efficiency
of
operations.

Flat
Fees
Promote
Conflict
Resolution

In
the
traditional
hourly
billing
structure,
lawyers
are
rewarded
for
the
hours
they
bill
and
penalized
(even
fired)
if
they
fail
to
meet
their
firm’s
yearly
billable
hour
goal.
This
goal
is
arbitrary
and
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
quality
of
work
done
by
an
attorney.
Therefore,
the
quick
resolution
of
cases
is
not
the
obvious
path
to
success
for
attorneys
confined
to
this
method. 

With
flat
fees,
however,
attorneys
are
rewarded
according
to
how
many
matters
they
close,
incentivizing
them
to
seek
conflict
resolution
on
behalf
of
their
clients.
Conflict
resolution
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving,
especially
in
family
law,
where
amicable
relationships
between
spouses
continue
to
help
exes
and
co-parents
relate
long
after
they
sign
their
divorce
decree. 

But
should
court
become
the
only
viable
solution,
rest
assured,
there’s
a
flat
fee
for
that
as
well.
We
all
know
court
appearances
don’t
come
cheap,
and
with
flat-fee
billing,
the
client
will
understand
the
cost
of
those
services
upfront. 

This
knowledge
continues
to
incentivize
both
client
and
attorney
to
do
what
they
came
to
do:
the
client
because
they
likely
won’t
want
to
keep
incurring
court
costs,
and
the
attorney
who,
if
they
don’t
achieve
resolution,
will
have
already
received
a
flat
fee
for
that
segment
of
the
case
and
likely
will
not
receive
any
further
payment
until
the
case
progresses.
In
this
way,
conflict
resolution
frees
up
time,
whether
for
another
matter
or
to
spend
time
doing
something
else

besides
working. 

Flat
Fees
Encourage
Attorneys
And
Clients
To
Invest
In
Their
Future

In
a
traditional
hourly
billing
model,
clients
are
discouraged
from
asking
their
lawyer
questions
for
fear
of
the
clock
ticking.
Every
question
comes
with
a
hefty
price
tag
in
the
client’s
mind.
Not
asking
questions,
alternatively,
leaves
clients
confused
and
insecure.

Clients
who
communicate
with
their
lawyer
despite
hourly
billing
about
every
thought
they
have
as
it
pops
into
their
heads
present
different
challenges.
The
first
is
clients
receiving
a
large
bill
they
weren’t
expecting
in
their
inbox,
which
they
then
vent
about
to
the
lawyer
and
anyone
else
who
will
listen.
The
second
is
the
time
lawyers
must
spend
addressing
frequent
emails
and
phone
calls,
emails
and
phone
calls
that
could
be
answered
if
the
clients
had
access
to
the
right
resources
and
were
educated
about
the
issues
being
addressed
in
their
cases.
Both
scenarios
drain
lawyers
and
their
clients
of
money,
time,
and
energy.

Recognizing
this,
I
am
developing
a
“university”
for
my
clients
to
access
at
their
leisure,
which
will
coordinate
well
with
our
flat-fee
billing
system.
In
addition
to
our
already
plentiful
educational
resources
—
our
website
blog,
on-brand
client-facing
articles
we
pitch
for
publication
to
outside
platforms,
ebooks,
videos,
and
webinars
—
we
are
creating
modules
from
which
clients
can
learn
about
the
issues
most
relevant
to
their
cases. 

Of
course,
we
will
continue
to
be
available
to
communicate
with
our
clients
personally,
but
many
of
our
clients’
most
pressing
questions
can
be
answered
with
the
click
of
a
mouse
24
hours
a
day,
seven
days
a
week.
Win!
Everyone
gets
back
time,
money,
and,
hopefully,
some
sanity.
It’s
no
secret
that
family
law
matters
can
be
stressful
for
everyone
involved
if
we
allow
them
to
be.

Flat
Fees
Redefine
Success

In
contrast
to
hourly
billing
models,
where
every
moment
invested
in
a
case
is
meticulously
recorded
and
judged
for
its
contribution
to
an
arbitrary
billing
quota,
flat
fees
can
redefine
what
success
looks
like
for
attorneys
and,
by
extension,
their
clients. 

Instead
of
being
rewarded
for
accumulating
billable
hours,
a
flat-fee
billing
model
prioritizes
efficiently
resolving
cases
while
meeting
clients’
objectives.
This
shift
aligns
with
the
interests
of
lawyers
and
clients
alike,
encouraging
both
to
work
proactively
to
prevent
issues
from
escalating.
This
approach
maximizes
time
and
fosters
a
life-work
balance
that
prioritizes
the
health
and
well-being
of
all
involved,
especially
those
kiddos
—
young
and
old(er),
children
of
lawyers,
and
children
of
divorce
clients
—
who
just
need
their
moms
to
be
moms.

Final
Thoughts
…

The
advantages
of
flat-fee
billing
in
legal
practice
extend
beyond
mere
cost
transparency.
This
is
particularly
so
for
law
moms
juggling
the
demands
of
raising
children
while
being

fully
present
with
a
spouse
or
partner
or
those
parenting
solo. 

Whatever
the
situation,
flat-fee
billing
can
offer
law
moms
like
you
and
me
the
most
strategic
benefit
of
all:
time.
Time
for
work,
time
for
family,
and,
most
importantly,
time
for
us
to
remember
why
we
chose
the
lives
we
did
—
and
the
opportunity
to
say
without
faltering
that
we’d
choose
them
again.  

---

Stacey
Freeman
contributed
to
the
writing
of
this
article. 

Elise
Buie
is
a
Seattle
divorce
and
family
lawyer
and
founder
of


Elise
Buie
Family
Law
Group,
a
law
firm
devoted
to
divorce
and
family
law
and
estate
planning​.
A
champion
for
maintaining
civility
throughout
the
divorce
process,
Elise
advocates
for
her
clients
and
the
best
interests
of
their
children,
helping
them
move
forward
with
dignity
and
from
a
position
of
strength.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
think
that
the
creation
of
chaos
certainly
seems
intentional.
That
is
making
it
very
hard
for
everyone
to
catch
their
breath
and
figure
out
the
actual
implications
of
any
one
set
of
materials.

Now
is
the
time
for
schools
to
work
with
legal
counsel
and
other
stakeholders
to
make
reasoned
decisions
about
which
programs
are
potentially
violations
of
the
new
policies.
There
is
still
time
to
engage
in
those
conversations
with
legal
counsel
and
make
measured
decisions.

—
 Kayleigh
Baker,
an
attorney
and
senior
consultant
with
TNG
Consulting,
a
member
of
the
advisory
board
for
the
Association
of
Title
IX
Administrators,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com,
on
the
“Dear
Colleague”
letter
issued
by
the
Department
of
Education
that
is
making
institutes
of
higher
education
rush
to
scrub
any
evidence
of
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
(DEI)
programs
and
policies
from
their
websites.


Unfortunately,
many
law
schools
have

already
taken
such
actions.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Wannabe
Gestapo
“Eagle”
Ed
Martin
is
making
a
name
for
himself
with
the
DOGE
Führer.

The
acting
head
of
the
US
Attorney’s
Office
in
DC
has
informed
the
president’s
biggest
donor
that

he
will
hunt
down
anyone
who
behaved
illegally
or
even
unethically
and
“chase
them
to
the
end
of
the
Earth.”

“Noone
is
above
the
law,”
he
preened
in
illiterate
ecstasy.

It’s
a
bizarre
flex
for
a
prosecutor
who
just

dismissed
a
case
against
his
“former”
client
—
although
he’d
failed
to
withdraw
his
appearance.
Presumably
Martin
will
not
be
chasing
himself
to
the
“end
of
the
Earth”
for
ethical
lapses.

But
Martin
isn’t
just
swearing
fealty
to
Musk
“via
X
only.”
He’s
also
threatening
Democratic
politicians
for
speech
he
doesn’t
like.

Here
he
is
shitposting
at
Rep.
Robert
Garcia
because
the
California
Congressman
had
the
temerity
to
say
on
TV
that
Americans
want
Democrats
to
“bring
actual
weapons
to
a
bar
fight.”

“This
sounds
to
some
like
a
threat
to
Mr.
Musk
–
an
appointed
representative
of
President
Donald
Trump
who
you
call
a
‘dick’
–
and
government
staff
who
work
for
him,”
Martin
blustered.
“Their
concerns
have
led
to
this
inquiry.”

(Private
prison
owners
must
be
salivating
at
the
prospect
of
arresting
everyone
who
calls
Elon
Musk
a
dick.)

Martin,
who
attended
the
protest
at
the
Capitol
on
January
6,
has
a
long
history
of

confusion
about
actual
threats.

At
2:57pm
on
January
6,
rioters
were
inside
both
chambers
of
Congress,
the
members
had
all
been
evacuated,
Ashli
Babbit
had
just
been
shot,
Vice
President
Pence
was
in
hiding,
and
the
crowd
was
demanding
that
police
hand
over
then-Speaker
Nancy
Pelosi.

But
Martin
wasn’t
done.
According
to
the
Washington
Post,
he’s
just
launched

Operation
Whirlwind,
so
named
for
an

ill-advised
comment
by
Senate
Minority
Leader
Chuck
Schumer
in
2020
warning
Justices
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
that
“You
have
released
the
whirlwind
and
you
will
pay
the
price.
You
won’t
know
what
hit
you
if
you
go
forward
with
these
awful
decisions.”

Schumer
immediately
apologized
and
insisted
that
he
had
not
been
threatening
the
justices.
And
Trump
says
ten
menacing
things
online
before
breakfast.
Nonetheless,
Martin

sent
a
letter
to
Senator
Schumer
demanding
that
he
explain
himself,
and
then
followed
up
with
a
missive
to
all
staff
promising
to
“protect
DOGE.”

Surely
they’ll
get
right
on
that
after
they
get
through
investigating
their
own
colleagues
for
prosecuting
January
6
rioters.

The
staff
may
be
feeling
extra
anxious
this
week,
since
the
departure
of
Denise
Cheung,
a
24-year
DOJ
veteran
who
until
Tuesday
served
as head
of
the
criminal
division
at
the
DC
US
Attorney’s
Office.
Cheung
quit
rather
than
order
Citibank
to
freeze
$20
billion
of
EPA
funds
disbursed
during
the
Biden
administration
based
on
a
bullshit
demand
from
Emil
Bove
that
she
dummy
up
a
pretextual
criminal
investigation.

The
issue
appears
to
have
something
to
do
with
a

claim
by
EPA
administrator
Lee
Zeldin
that
the
Biden
administration
parked
$20
billion
of
gold
bars
with
a
“Stacey
Abrams’
Connected
Group.”

But
Cheung
was
not
convinced
that
there
was
probable
cause
to
seize
the
funds.

“When
I
explained
that
the
quantum
of
evidence
did
not
support
that
action,
you
stated
that
you
believed
that
there
was
sufficient
evidence,”
she
wrote
in
a
letter
obtained
by

Politico.
“I
still
do
not
believe
that
there
is
sufficient
evidence
to
issue
the
letter
you
described.”

All
of
this
may
look
to
an
outside
observer
like
an
office
careening
into
chaos
under
a
lawyer
with
all
the
understanding
of
the
First
Amendment
as
a
member
of
the
Schutzstaffel.
But
apparently
it’s
exactly
what
the
president
ordered,
since
he’s
now
nominated
Martin
to
head
the
office
permanently.

Earlier: Turning
Over
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
To
Conspiracy
Theorist
Working
Out
As
Expected

---

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

While
law
firms
struggle
to

keep
a
lid
on
AI
security
threats
and
otherwise

control
lawyers
using
AI
out
of
turn,
Linklaters
has
a
forward-thinking
solution
that
more
firms
should
embrace.

As
RollOnFriday
notes,
Linklaters
puts
its
prospective
robot
lawyers
through
a
UK
law
exam
of
their
own
design,
crafting
50
questions
from
10
different
practice
areas
geared
toward
a
“competent
mid-level
lawyer
specialised
in
that
practice
area”
and
asked
the
AI
to
hash
it
out.

It’s
the
Baby
Bar
for
robots.
So,
like,
a
Nano
Bar?
Whatever
it
is,
it’s

working
better
than
the
California
Bar.

It’s
not
like
Linklaters
is
alone
on
this.
Tech
professionals
across
Biglaw
perform
tests
like
these
all
the
time.
The
distinction
is
that
Linklaters
is
doing
this
out
in
the
open.
And
senior
lawyers
graded
the
responses
for
substance,
introducing
important
stakeholders
to
the
AI
evaluation
process
that
can
get
overlooked
when
tools
are
considered
exclusively
by
IT
teams
and
firm
tech
committees.
Which
isn’t
a
knock
on
the
conscientious
approach
firm
staff
and
tech-savvy
attorneys
bring
to
these
decisions
but…
sometimes
you
need
to
take
these
issues
outside
the
nerd
circle.

The
good
news
for
firms
is
that
AI
is
getting
better:

Linklaters
noted
there
was
a
“significant
improvement”
in
the
results
when
compared
with
tests
it
ran
in
October
2023.
The
firm
said
that
the
AI
models
are
starting
to
perform
at
a
level
where
they
should
be
able
to
assist
in
legal
research,
such
as
providing
a
first
draft
or
“as
a
cross-check
on
an
existing
answer,”
and
could
also
be
useful
“for
tasks
that
involve
summarising
relatively
well-known
areas
of
law”.
 

OpenAI
delivered
the
best-performing
AI
model
on
the
Linklaters
test.
That
said,
the
tool
only
scored
6.4
out
of
10
and
bet-the-company
lawyering
doesn’t
grade
on
a
curve.
The
report
doesn’t
provide
Grok’s
score,
but
based
on

its
stated
approach
to
legal
reasoning,
we’re
guessing
it
made
OpenAI
look
like
William
Blackstone
crawled
out
of
the
grave
for
a
spot
of
tea
and
a
run
at
some
contracts.

But
putting
AI
through
the
wringer
in
such
a
public
way
signals
to
lawyers
that
the
firm
both
sees
potential
in
AI
while
still
making
the
clear
case
to
everyone
that
AI
isn’t
ready
for
prime
time.

This
approach
should
push
back
against
the
“shadow
AI
economy”
problem
Hill
Dickinson
recently
addressed.
When
firms
downplay
or
outright
shun
AI,
unruly
lawyers
are
going
to
start
experimenting
with
AI
tools
on
their
own.
And
that’s
how
you
end
up
with
confidential
client
data
being
uploaded
to
random
servers
in
hostile
countries.
Transparency
keeps
everyone
on
the
same
page
when
it
comes
to
when
and
where
AI
fits
into
a
modern
legal
practice.

Linklaters
makes
AI
sit
law
exams
[RollOnFriday]

---

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.

Last
night,
Sixth
Circuit
Judge
Chad
Readler
appeared
at
an
American
University
Washington
College
of
Law
event.
The
former
acting
chief
of
the
DOJ
Civil
Division
spoke
to
Federalist
Society
students
about
the
role
of
DOJ
in
“Defending
Presidential
Priorities.”
It’s
a
subject
he
can
certainly
speak
to
based
on
his
experience
—
even
if
the
first
Trump
administration
maintained
the

appearance
of
a
Justice
Department
beholden
to
the
government
and
the
Constitution
as
opposed
to
its

now
explicit
mission
as
Trump’s
personal
lawyers.
But
SHOULD
a
sitting
federal
judge
be
speaking
to
this
subject?

Probably
not.
On
the
other
hand,
it’s
nice
to
get
a
little
transparency.
He’s
writing
the
same
opinion
either
way.
If
he
wants
to
create
a
paper
trail
to
undermine
America’s
flagging
faith
in
judicial
independence
so
he
can
enjoy
a
weekend
in
D.C.,
then
have
at
it.

But
that’s
not
what
we’re
here
to
talk
about
today.
Come
on
FedSoc…
it’s
time
to
let
go
of
the
Chick-fil-A
thing.

Every.
Single.
Time.

Look,
we
get
it.
You’re
unrepentant
bigots
and
you
want
to
make
that
as
obvious
as
possible.
It
gnaws
at
you
that
liberal
groups
can
signal
their
sympathies
by
offering
cuisine
from
one
of
the
countless
cultures
your
intellectual
heroes
work
so
hard
to
demonize.
Chick-fil-A
has
given
you
so
many
golden
moments
to
“own
the
libs”
at
the
expense
of
functional
arteries.

But
it’s
time
to
face
reality.
Chick-fil-A’s
turn
as
the
go-to
gay
bashing
totem
was
like,
13
years
ago.
The
history
is
a
little
more
complex,
but
essentially
the
company’s
leadership
expressed
their
opposition
to
gay
rights,
Mike
Huckabee
made
it
a
rallying
cry
for
conservatives
to
flock
to
the
fast
food
joint
as
the
world’s
goofiest
performative
protest
against
equality,
and
right-wingers
have
—
literally
and
figuratively
—
eaten
it
up
ever
since.

Indeed,
we’re
11
years
removed
from
a
post

on
this
very
site
about
the
Federalist
Society
going
all
in
on
Chick-fil-A.
Over
a
decade
ago,
there
remained
a
modestly
colorable
defense
that
students
weren’t
trolling.

I
didn’t
buy
this
argument
even
then:

It
is
true
that
marriage
equality
is
probably
coming
sooner
rather
than
later.
But
just
like
winning
the
Civil
War
or
winning
WWII
didn’t
rob
the
symbols
of
the
opposing
ideologies
of
their
power,
marriage
equality
doesn’t
make
it
cool
to
gin
up
business
by
embracing
anti-gay
populace
who
rally
around
your
product.

Again,
eating
Chick-fil-A
is
a
political
statement
—
even
if
it’s
a
statement
that
you’ve
decided
not
to
care.
Sometimes
there
are
issues
bigger
than
whether
or
not
something
is
tasty.

The
problem
with
running
the
same
joke
into
the
ground
is
that
it’s
lost
most
of
its
punch.
It’s
predictable
to
the
point
it
often
passes
without
comment
and
half
the
liberals
you’re
trying
to
own
only
know
the
chain
from
its
“our
customers
have
DISTURBINGLY
close
relationships
with
our
drive-through
tellers”
commercials.

Would
you
delegate
the
watershed
moment
of
your
life
to
Burger
King?
I
THINK
NOT!
What
about
handing
your
pregnancy
over
to
Five
Guys?
Wait…
maybe
don’t
answer
that
one.

It
just
smacks
of
pathetically
clinging
to
a
conservative
cultural
moment
that
happened
when
you
were
in
third
grade.

Hell,
a
Chick-fil-A
order
isn’t
even
a
right-wing
purity
test
anymore!
MIKE
HUCKABEE
—
who
started
all
this
—

hates
Chick-fil-A
now
because
the
company
embraced
the
verboten
“DEI”
concept.
Apparently
its
disdain
doesn’t
carry
over
to
a
large
enough
cohort
of
minorities
for
some.

We
understand
that
it’s
a
point
of
personal
pride
(oops,
wrong
word
for
you
all…
“honor”)
to
make
these
little
jabs
in
all
your
announcements,
but
Chick-fil-A
isn’t
where
it’s
at
anymore.
Try
something
new
that
gets
the
same
point
across.
Like:

I
mean,
come
on!
Get
creative!
There
are
so
many
patently
offensive
options
you
can
try
that
are
sure
to
keep
you

ostracized
by
polite
law
school
society.
Hand
out
MAGA
hats
or
something.
It’s
far
more
culturally
relevant
to
2025
than
rehashing
2012’s
dankest
Fox
News
memes.

Or
you
could
try
being
normal
for
a
change.

Earlier:

Is
It
Ever
OK
To
Serve
Chick-Fil-A?
An
ATL
Debate

Yale
Law
Students:
‘Maybe
Don’t
Invite
FedSoc
To
Parties.’
Right
Wing:
‘Doxx
‘Em
And
Snitch
To
Employers’

---

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.

Hooboy!
Disgraced
former
Ninth
Circuit
judge

Alex
Kozinski
is
back.
He’s

written
a
piece
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal
asserting
—
with
little
more
then
naked
conjecture
—
that
the
United
States’
elections
could
be
canceled.
The
piece
is
very
short,
shockingly
devoid
of
context,
and
lacking
any
semblance
of
intellectual
rigor.

Kozinski
spends
a
solid
half
of
the
article
telling
an
anecdote
about
the
cancelation
of
the
elections
in
his
native
Romania.
He
uses
that
as
a
springboard
to
speculate
about
American
elections.
But
to
get
there,
he
first
has
to
throw
out
some
right-wing
talking
points
about
free
speech.

As
the
Fifth
U.S.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
detailed
in Missouri
v.
Biden, our
government
exerted
considerable
pressure,
even
coercion,
to
extirpate
ideas
from
social
media.
Certain
topics—such
as
Covid’s
origin,
remedies
and
vaccine
safety,
transgenderism,
climate
change
and
the
legitimacy
of
the
2020
election—were
deemed
nondebatable.
Many
who
expressed
views
contrary
to
the
official
position
were
canceled.

Listen,

there
are
some

genuine
problems
with

free
speech
in

this
country.
But
exactly
ZERO
of
them
are
anything
in

Missouri
v.
Biden
(later

Murthy
v.
Missouri).
And
it
is
very
telling
that
Kozinski
references
the
Fifth’s
Circuit’s
take
on
the
case
—
because
they
were

reversed
by
the
Supreme
Court
(you
know
the
Supreme
Court
that
has
a
6-3
conservative
majority).
There
is
no
free
speech
problem
there.

The
ex-jurist
is

already
on
record
defending
wild
conspiracy
theories
about
the
COVID-19
vaccine
and
the
2020
election
as
“correct
or
at
least
debatable.”
Which,
no,
they
aren’t.
But
advancing
far-right
theories
is
part
of
Kozinski’s

path
back
to
relevance
since
he
left
the
bench
under
a
cloud
of
scandal.
But
this
is
some
truly
out-of-pocket
shit.

The
former
judge’s
fall
from
grace
happened
in
2017. Kozinski
retired amid
a sexual
harassment
scandal that
rocked
the
legal
world.
While
the
jurist
was somewhat
famous in
legal
circles
for
his
bawdy
sense
of
humor,
the extent
of
the
alleged
harassment —
asking
women
clerks
to
view
pornography
with
him
in
his
chambers,
making
inappropriate
sexual
comments,
and
verbal
abuse
heaped
on
females
working
in
his
chambers
—
was
more
hidden.
However,
an
exposé
on
the
judge
sparked
an
avalanche
of
over
a
dozen
women
coming
forward
to
share
their
experiences
with
the
judge.
But
his
retirement

short-circuited
any
investigation
into
the
allegations.

In
the
WSJ
article,
Kozinski
pivots
from
individuals
getting
colloquially
“canceled”
to
the
actual
cancellation
of
U.S.
elections
with
all
the
grace
of
a
panda
learning
to
ice
skate.

Could
American
elections
be
canceled
next?
Some
states
came
close
in
2024
by
attempting
to
remove
from
their
ballots
the
candidate
who
eventually
won
the
presidency.
There
was
no
uproar;
the
Supreme
Court
had
to
intervene.
During
the
pandemic,
Americans
put
up
with
unprecedented
and
draconian
restrictions
on
their
freedom
of
movement,
school
closures,
destruction
of
businesses
and
interference
with
doctor-patient
relationships.
Much
of
this
met
with
little
resistance,
in
large
part
because
authorities
in
government
and
media
suppressed
discussion
and
debate.
If
enough
panic
is
stirred
up,
canceling
elections
isn’t
inconceivable.

This
is
actually
head-smackingly
dumb.
Litigating
the
application
of
the
14th
Amendment’s
prohibition
on
insurrectionists
holding
office
is
actually
a
point
in
favor
of
the
rule
of
law.
It’s
not
like
political
animus
was
the
motivation
behind
some
states
trying
to
keep
Donald
Trump
off
the
ballot,
it
was
an
attempt
to
hold
fealty
to
the
Constitution.
The
final
authority
on
the
Constitution
weighed
in.
I
don’t
even
much
like
the
result
in
the
case
and
can
concede
that
is
how
our
system
is
designed
to
work.
And,
good
grief
with
the
COVID
victimization
trope
again!
Listen,
it
was
a
pandemic.
Our
laws
are
able
to
respond
to
extraordinary
circumstances,
and
good
faith
efforts
to
keep
people
alive
were
even

struck
down
when
courts
found
the
measures
impeded
rights.
This
is
all
a
demonstration
of
how
an
actual
functional
government
works.
From
these
examples,
rushing
to
a
conclusion
that
American
elections
could
be
canceled
because
of
vibes
is
whiplash
inducing.

Finally,
Kozinski
holds
up
JD
Vance’s

much
maligned
speech
at
the
Munich
Security
Conference,
where
the
vice
president
tried
to
pick
a
fight
with
some
of
America’s
strongest
allies,
as
a
sort
of
bellwether
of
freedom.

Our
legacy
media
have
greeted
Mr.
Vance’s
speech
largely
with
disdain
and
horror.
They
are
wrong.
The
speech
is
epic.
It
reminds
Europeans
and
Americans
that
the
values
of
the
Enlightenment,
as
captured
in
our
Constitution—not
least
the
right
to
think,
speak
and
debate
freely—are
the
glue
that
binds
us
together.
If
we
don’t
defend
those
values,
there
isn’t
much
left
worth
defending.

This
bit
right
here
makes
me
want
to
scream.
You
want
to
take
about
“the
right
to
think,
speak
and
debate
freely”?
Look
at
what
side
is

banning
books.
And

erasing
vital
parts
of
the
history
of
Stonewall.
And

memory-holing
the
reason
we
had
to
guarantee
birthright
citizenship.
And

trying
to
impeach
judges
just
because
they
don’t
like

how
they
ruled.
And

investigating
members
of
Congress
because
they
called
Elon
Musk
a
“dick”
on
TV.

And.

And.

And.

And.

And.

And.

The
article
is
so
wildly
disingenuous
for
a
legal
mind
that
was
one
considered
a

bright
star.
It’s
almost
like
there’s
something
else
afoot.

Oh.
OH.
Oh.
Canceling
elections
is
certainly
one
way
to
get
around
the

pesky
problem
of
the
22nd
Amendment.

---

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].

In
this
episode,
I
chat
with

Rebecca
Haw
Allensworth,
a
Vanderbilt
Law
School
professor
and
author
of
“The
Licensing
Racket.”
Discover
the
untold
stories
behind
professional
licensing,
the
unexpected
impact
on
various
careers,
and
why
these
regulations
might
not
always
serve
the
public.
Rebecca’s
firsthand
research
brings
intriguing
insights
into
how
licensing
affects
professions
from
barbers
to
doctors
and
potential
reforms.
Don’t
miss
this
chance
to
rethink
the
system
that
shapes
many
of
our
careers!

Highlights

• English
  vs.
  Law:
  Career
  advice.
• Antitrust:
  Economical
  dominance.
• Licensing
  paper:
  Supreme
  Court
  citation.
• Licensing
  board
  meetings
  investigation.
• Self-regulation
  across
  professions.
• Over-regulation:
  Haircuts
  vs.
  law
  degrees.
• Professional
  licenses
  as
  American
  Dream.
• Legal
  profession
  self-dealing.
• Cross-disciplinary
  board
  potential.
• Federalism
  complicates
  licensing
  reform.
• Hope
  for
  future
  board
  reforms.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

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].