Category: News Feeds

Unlike most of its peers, UBS had a pretty decent second quarter. Apparently, its unique constellation of other ailments renders it immune from the coronavirus.

But UBS is less exposed than its European rivals. Like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs in the U.S., UBS has a relatively low level of credit risk. Thanks to its strategic focus on wealth management, riskier forms of lending are limited. Most of its loan book is secured: Over half are mortgages, most of them in Switzerland, with a 55% average loan-to-value ratio, and another third are so-called Lombard loans to wealth-management clients backed by securities, with a 50% average LTV.

Imagine that it’s the morning before your dreaded civil procedure final. Ninety percent of your peers are already in the library studying. The other 10 percent are somewhere breathing into a paper bag. But you? You’re at home with your headphones on, lying on a lightly carpeted concrete floor, and your hip is starting to go numb. You’re assembling a bunk bed for your kids. No, you haven’t given up on law school. In fact, you’re on your way to graduating summa cum laude from BYU Law School (one of the most competitive law schools in the country).

Fast forward a couple of years. You have an hour break after a grueling morning of MBE questions. The bar exam isn’t over yet. You still have three hours of multiple-choice questions to go. You pop in your earbuds, grab your baseball bat and a bucket of balls out of your car, and walk to a nearby high school field. Between swings, you take a bite of lunch. No, you’re not about to fail. You don’t know it yet, but you’re going to score in the top 5 percent nationally on the Uniform Bar Exam.

Those unusual hypotheticals describe two real moments in the almost unbelievable story of 33-year-old Adam Balinski, the millennial who launched Crushendo, only a year after taking the bar exam himself.

Prior to law school, Balinski worked as a TV reporter for a CBS affiliate and then as a corporate trainer and instructional designer for Epic, a behemoth medical software company. Both careers proved critical in his preparation to found a revolutionary education company that specializes in audio outlines, audio flashcards, storytelling, and mnemonics.

It’s not an exaggeration to say no one has done law school quite like Balinski. While serving as a Law Review senior editor, he simultaneously served as editor-in-chief of the Education and Law Journal at BYU Law. During law school, he welcomed his third child. He served as a religious leader of a local congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Beginning with his 1L summer job, Balinski worked straight through graduation and the bar exam to support his young and growing family. He interned with a few law firms, was a legal writing teaching assistant, worked in-house at Melaleuca and Pluralsight, and even taught Swedish at the university — yes, he had all of those jobs at some point during law school. Vad fantastiskt!

Now, you’re probably wondering, how the heck did he manage all of that without become an absentee husband and father? Along with saying a mountain of prayers, he credits an innovative study group and custom-crafted audio outlines.

Balinski has blogged at length about how he creatively and efficiently leveraged his study group. So, this article will focus on how he used audio.

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Adam Balinski. In true Adam-fashion, he was doing two things at once. While I interviewed him, he was on his way to pick up an order of new Crushendo shirts. Here’s a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our lively conversation about bar review and how he built a successful company from the ground up.

Staci Zaretsky (SZ): Describe your journey. What made you decide to start this company?

Adam Balinski (AB): One way you can look at it is that it started more than a decade ago when I was studying as an undergrad. Even then, I would record my notes. I was listening to them between classes as I was getting ready for finals.

Those basic audio outlines helped immensely, so there was no way I wasn’t going to use a similar strategy during law school.

As it turns out, I quickly found that I couldn’t do law school the conventional way and be wildly happy. I thoroughly enjoyed class and had fun with my classmates, but then came the solitary preparation time — which is the bulk of law school. I couldn’t sit there almost all day, every day, with my head in my books or my eyes glued to the computer — that would have been a shriveling experience.

I wanted to use my time as wisely as possible and work smarter, so I recorded my notes and listened to them while exercising, cleaning, commuting — you name it. I felt like most outlines were too long and didn’t lend themselves well to memorization. So, I would condense my own outlines and trim away all of the fat. I found that a distilled, hour-long audio outline for each subject was just about right.

I’ve been borderline obsessed with efficiency and creating new processes for addressing old problems.

When it came time to study for the bar exam, I used a similar method. One day, I had a buddy come up to me and say, “Hey, I heard you made your own audio outlines for bar prep. Can I buy those from you? I’ll give you $50 for each subject. I just want to golf today and not feel guilty.” That’s when I realized there could be a real market for this sort of thing.

SZ: What has been most fulfilling about starting an education company?

AB: Seeing Crushendo help students and grads with a wide variety of backgrounds and challenges, especially those with disabilities, like blindness and dyslexia.

SZ: What do you think differentiates Crushendo from the rest of the competition?

AB: Mnemonics, memory palaces, brevity, affordability, illustrations, access length, and of course, our audio outlines and audio flashcards. There are so many more things you can do with audio learning instead of constantly having your nose in a book. You can have fun and learn what you need to know, all at the same time. You can play basketball, you can go for a run, you can go for a hike, you can go to the beach — and you can prep for the bar exam at the same time.

I wanted to create a commercial product that was so memorable, engaging, and efficient that it would be better memorization-wise than the valuable-but-labor-intensive process of creating your own outlines. My goal is to have this be the very best bar prep product, period, no questions asked, and the most affordable, which is a crazy goal.

Sometimes people ask, because they’re concerned about the cost of Crushendo, why is it so cheap? If it’s so affordable, it can’t be that good, right? They think to themselves, “I want to get the best for myself, so I’ll drop $3,000 on BARBRI because I don’t want to roll the dice when it comes to this big exam.” But like I said, I’m passionate about efficiency, so if there’s a cheaper or more affordable way for us to do something as a company, we’re going do it — and we’re going to pass savings on to our users.

SZ: Why do you think people will benefit from doing bar prep in this way if they’re not used to learning in this way? For example, say someone is a very visual learner. What would they gain from listening to audio lectures?

AB: Everything that we have in audio form, we have in written form as well, along with cool illustrations. So, regardless of whether you’re into the audio approach, we have something for you. I do think that people who haven’t traditionally used audio should at least give it a try because the payoff can be so great.

It can be more efficient and memorable if you can take the leap of faith and train your brain to engage with audio.

There are some people who are going to be more excited about our product than others. For example, podcast listeners are going to be stoked and it’s not going to be a steep learning curve for them. But we recognize we’re asking most people to study differently than how they have in the past. To change study techniques at the finish line — before the most important exam of their life — can be intimidating, terrifying, and maybe even paralyzing. To ease the anxiety of trying something new, we have a 30-day, money-back satisfaction guarantee. In fact, if you want to experiment with Crushendo without paying a dollar, you can reach out and we’ll give you access to one of our outlines for free.

SZ: How far off do you think Crushendo is from being the very best bar prep company?

AB: It’s audacious to say, but I believe that we’re already there. That said, we haven’t convinced the entire world yet. Most of the legal community hasn’t even heard of Crushendo. So, we have plenty of work to do. And even if we think our stuff is the best, we want to make it even better. We’re constantly striving to outperform ourselves.

***

You can see evidence of that effort in Crushendo’s recent video update:

True to form, the video shows Crushendo’s CEO standing on a ballfield, just like old times.

On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, we’d like to congratulate Adam Balinski on creating the innovative bar review program that is Crushendo. If your goal is crushing the bar exam, then this may be the bar prep program for you.

(Disclosure: Crushendo is an Above the Law advertiser.)

One thing that I did feel in law school was that if I flubbed, that I would be bringing down my entire sex. That you weren’t just failing for yourself, but people would say, “Well, I did expect it of a woman.” It’s like they would say about a woman driver. So I was determined not to leave that impression.

— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, discussing her time at Harvard Law School almost 65 years ago, in a wide-ranging interview with Dahlia Lithwick about her life and what she remembers about her nine female classmates. Click here to check out the transcript.

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

I mean, I’m not surprised. Are you? The Republican party has long taken American Exceptionalism off of the international stage and applied it to their own political whims, with the only consistency being that they’ll twist principles to suit whatever is the political objective of the moment.

Anyway, Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently announced that she’s undergoing treatment for cancer, so naturally the GOP is wishcasting what it would be like to get a third nominee by Donald Trump on the Supreme Court. “But,” you say, “it’s an election year. Didn’t the GOP squash the nomination of Merrick Garland under the flimsy excuse that it was an election year?” Yes, yes they did. But the rules are different when the GOP has an opportunity to stack the Court with jurists of their own political persuasion.

And CNN has catalogued it:

“We will,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Republican leader, when asked if the Senate would fill a vacancy, even during the lame-duck session after the presidential election. “That would be part of this year. We would move on it.”

Compare and contrast with Thune’s comments from 2016:

“The American people deserve to have their voices heard on the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice, who could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation,” Thune said in a statement in March 2016. “Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Hmmm, I wonder what could possibly be different?

At least (seriously, this is the bare minimum) some Republicans aren’t quite so craven.

Asked about his past opposition to moving a nominee in a presidential election year after the primary season, [Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham] said: “After Kavanaugh, I have a different view of judges,” referencing the brutal 2018 confirmation process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“I’d like to fill a vacancy. But we’d have to see. I don’t know how practical that would be,” Graham told CNN Monday. “Let’s see what the market would bear.”

Which, to be clear, does not mean that Graham would stand in the way of a hypocritical SCOTUS nominee that would likely permanently hurt the legitimacy of the Court. Just that he’s unwilling to admit that to a news outlet… at this time.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he would be “shocked” if Trump didn’t try to fill a SCOTUS vacancy no matter when it came up. Hawley at least tried to create a distinction between 2016 and 2020:

“I think we have a different set of circumstances. We have a President who is very actively running for reelection,” Hawley said. “He’s going to be on the ballot. People are going to be able to render a verdict on him like they couldn’t on Obama. My guess is he would absolutely nominate somebody. I would be shocked if he didn’t.”

Of course Hawley’s logic quickly falls apart. Because if the American people say to Trump, “You’re fired,” well, he’ll still have a placed his pick on the Supreme Court. This is the epitome of a distinction without a difference only designed to make Hawley seem like he is not being blatantly hypocritical when, you know, he is.

Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa also got in on the hypocrite train:

“(If) it is a lame-duck session, I would support going ahead with any hearings that we might have,” she said. “And if it comes to an appointment prior to the end of the year, I would be supportive of that.”

It’s telling that the most sane statements collected by CNN are from North Carolina senator Thom Tillis, which the publication tellingly describes as “vulnerable” in his reelection campaign, “I am praying for Justice Ginsburg’s health. That’s all I’m really focused on right now.”

And Tillis knows the chance of a vacancy caused by a retirement is pretty unlikely:

“I don’t think there are many indications that there are. Normally those moves are made back in June over the session. I don’t see any real possibility that there will be one,” Tillis said.

For the rest of the country, let’s just hold on to the fact that Trump filling another Supreme Court vacancy this year is pretty unlikely and hope like hell 2020 doesn’t have another unwelcome surprise waiting for us.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

The era of Zoom has opened up new horizons as courts rapidly modernize and attorneys scramble to define the remote working model. But it’s also opened up some new professional and ethical challenges from “wi-fi indictments” to “no shirt, no shoes, no justice.” The latest ethical conundrum comes from Missouri, where a judge used the mute button on an attorney and now he says she’s violated the defendant’s right to counsel and due process.

Attorney Rob Eggert claims that Jefferson Circuit Judge Audra Ecklerle muted him “eight times during a 48-minute hearing, including once for five minutes and another time for seven minutes.” This selective muting had enhanced significance because Judge Ecklerle had allowed the prosecutor to attend the hearing in person but kept Eggert relegated to videoconferencing.

For her part, Judge Ecklerle says that Eggert was annoying and obstructionist and:

“Counsel must behave respectfully at all time, and those rules and etiquette do not change merely because the hearing occurred via telephone versus in person,” she said. “The court quite properly redirected counsel through the use of the mute button, as opposed to trying to yell over defense counsel’s screaming.”

Understanding overlapping Zoom conversations can get tricky so it wouldn’t seem to be a problem to use the mute button to enforce speaking times, giving each side an equal and uninterrupted opportunity to lay out their arguments. It would prevent both sides from lodging objections in real time, though without a jury the impact of that denial is negligible. Often the most obstreperous attorneys can offer clear and calm arguments when forced to wait their turn. Yet the petition doesn’t paint the picture of an even-handed use of the mute power.

There’s also no support for the contention that Eggert was “screaming” according to the Courier-Journal reporters who reviewed the tape. In the judge’s defense, who knows whether past behavior might have weighed on her decision-making. That said, Eggert’s petition suggests that Judge Ecklerle has a history of seeing improprieties that aren’t really there. He cites a contempt order she issued last year that sent the mother of a defendant to jail for 30 days claiming that she had “unleashed expletive-laded, abusive language to the court” and “incited riotous behavior from spectators in the courtroom and created a security issue.” The video of the event reveals the woman merely stood up and asked “How do you sleep at night?” before leaving the room. An appellate judge ordered the woman released upon seeing the video.

This all seems to add up to a judicial screw-up.

But putting aside Judge Ecklerle’s handling of this specific situation, the more interesting question is where judges draw the line. How much can a judge manipulate the technological levers of power in the interest of efficiency without crossing the line into prejudicing the whole hearing?

This isn’t likely to be the last challenge to a judge’s handling of a videoconference before this pandemic is over.

You’re muted: Judge electronically ‘muzzles’ defense lawyer during remote court hearing [Courier-Journal]

---

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 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 still hard to believe that there will actually be bar exams next week. But even in states with a basic respect for public health warnings, the exams are mostly just delayed, requiring applicants to keep ramping up for a test only to be forced to forget everything again when the next delay is announced. The only way to avoid this cycle is to adopt an emergency diploma process. This week, Joe chats with Dr. Pilar Escontrias, Donna Saadati-Soto, Efrain Hudnell, and Emily Croucher, co-founders of United for Diploma Privilege. Follow them @DiplomaPriv4All.

Eighteen states, plus Washington, D.C., have established laws that allow for legal, regulated sports-betting within their borders since SCOTUS overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which previously served to provide Nevada with a decades-long monopoly on sports wagering. The normal expectation would be that, in those states, illegal sports betting has been drastically reduced. The data paints a different picture.

The American Gaming Association, a national trade group representing the $261 billion U.S. casino industry, released a study that shows illegal offshore operators realized a 3% increase in activity in the past year within states with legal sports betting. The study, conducted by Heart + Mind Strategies, surveyed 3,451 American adults over the age of 21 from various subgroups.

While it is apparent and obvious that many consumers would shift their sports betting activity from illegal, offshore operators to domestic legal options such as DraftKings, FanDuel, PointsBet, or MGM, it is surprising that the amount of illegal activity has actually increased in those states that have taken the initiative to legalize sports wagering within their borders. Perhaps many states’ efforts have not gone far enough or states’ greed has gotten in the way of their success in converting illegal bettors to consumers placing their money with licensed and regulated operators.

The biggest problem remains a lack of options for the consumer. States that have proven unwilling to provide constituents the opportunity to bet through mobile devices will continue to find people opting for the ease and convenience of placing wagers with illegal, offshore options.

New York is a perfect example. New York’s more than 8 million inhabitants cannot place a bet through their mobile phones. Amending its laws to allow online sports betting has been discussed, but was once again punted by the legislature on July 20. The measure apparently also lacks support from Governor Andrew M. Cuomo.

“Unfortunately online will never happen in NY,” states a tweet reply to the news that New York will delay debating online sports betting. “Guys like myself actually couldn’t care less. I still have multiple offshore accounts and a handful of locals I have used for 25+ years, knowing I will always get paid and never get capped with a limit.”

Therein lies the major problem for states that believe they are making progress by legalizing sports wagering within their borders, but refuse to take the extra necessary step of also providing consumers the opportunity to place wagers through their mobile devices. Alternatives exist that will lead to continued growth of illegal offshore operators within those very states that claim they are adding transparency and acting in a progressive manner. This is also recognized by American Gaming Association President and CEO Bill Miller.

“Giving consumers convenient alternatives to the illegal market, like regulated mobile offerings and competitive odds, is key for getting bettors to switch to legal channels,” Miller said.

Another problem identified by Miller is that more than half of consumers who placed most of their wagers with illegal operators over the past year did so while believing they were betting legally. As such, more needs to be done to educate consumers about the legal options within their states. If the data is to be taken seriously, then such a large number of people unknowingly wagering illegally is something that must be and can be corrected.

---

Darren Heitner is the founder of Heitner Legal. He is the author of How to Play the Game: What Every Sports Attorney Needs to Know, published by the American Bar Association, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. You can reach him by email at heitner@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @DarrenHeitner.

St. Louis prosecutors recently charged attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey with “unlawful use of a weapon” after their zany impromptu gun show a few weeks ago. Waving an AR-15 and a pistol at marchers passing by their house may confer hero status among the white grievance set, but in the real world it opens you up to felony charges. Luckily for them, Attorney General Eric Schmitt also gets his CLE credits from Tucker Carlson and he’s on a mission to end the politicization of the justice system by directly injecting himself into the process for purely political reasons.

From Ozarks First:

“Enough is enough,” said Eric Schmitt, Missouri attorney general. “As Missouri’s chief law enforcement officer, I simply will not stand by. That’s why I’m entering this case and seeking the dismissal of this case.”

The crux of Schmitt’s argument, outlined in a 12-page amicus brief, is that the Second Amendment protects every American’s right to brandish deadly weapons, the castle doctrine applied to the McCloskeys’ actions on their own property, and that any prosecution would chill others from trying to go Tony Montana on peaceful protestors. It’s a laughable jumble of words.

In the immediate wake of the incident, I wrote that the McCloskeys were probably within their rights because they stayed entirely on their property. Waving guns at people off your property shouldn’t be legal, but I assumed that Missouri was exactly the sort of state that would provide an absolute defense to doing whatever one wants on their own property. But it turns out this isn’t the case!

The operative statute, §571.030 makes it a felony to “Exhibit[], in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” The exceptions to this are laid out in §563.031:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

The McCloskeys have a whole lot of subjective belief, based on their claim that they thought the protestors were out to get them and were moments from storming the house, but translating that to “reasonable” — especially with the available footage — should prove an uphill climb with a jury. Even if the protestors unlawfully entered the gated subdivision, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the people on the receiving end of the McCloskey muzzles ever entered McCloskey property which is a big problem for this defense. The McCloskeys are big fans of adverse possession but even they can’t claim ownership of the street.

So, the statutes make it pretty clear that the McCloskeys could aim their guns at anyone who entered their property, but until someone did so they don’t have any right to aim at anyone.

To this, Schmitt responds quoting the deep history of constitutional law establishing an unencumbered right to keep firearms, which is to say he quotes the 12-year-old opinion that marked the very first time in American history that the law embraced that interpretation. Whenever I write about this case I get angry emails from people about the right to bear arms that seem to have no grasp for the fact that the conservative wing of the Supreme Court thought this was an utterly baseless proposition as recently as the late 80s. Honestly, the most effective “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia” of my lifetime has been the complete erasure of the history of the Second Amendment from 1791 to 2008.

He also lays out the statutory landscape in Missouri, but fails at any point to address that there’s not a castle doctrine defense when no one is in the castle. All he succeeds in doing with this brief is making it clear that the only defense the McCloskeys have to a felony charge rests on making the case that they had an objectively reasonable belief that a home invasion was happening… which is exactly the sort of fact question that requires a trial. So, yes, the AG makes the airtight argument for going forward with the case in his brief asking to dismiss the case.

This would be damning if this brief was even attempting to be a real legal document, but it’s not. This is just a quick blurb about the Second Amendment designed to give Schmitt some free publicity during an election year. He gets to tell his base that he won’t let a black woman like St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner tell white folks what to do. That should be good for some fundraising!

Unfortunately, it’s not good for public safety. Like a lot of states, Missouri’s chief law enforcement post is occupied by a stuffed shirt more interested in wasting state resources on abortion bans and trying to score cable news hits. But, the strategy has worked for the incumbent so far so it’s hard to imagine it’s going to change.

(Full brief on next page…)

Missouri attorney general entering the McCloskey case to fight for its dismissal [Ozarks First]

Earlier: St. Louis Lawyers Wave AR-15 At Protesters Like Totally Normal, Totally Not Bonkers People
Opening Up The Above The Law Mailbox… Of Hate Mail!
AR-15 Couple Teach Us All About Adverse Possession!

---

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 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.

Roy Den Hollander, 72, the “anti-feminist” lawyer named as a suspect in the fatal shooting at the home of Judge Esther Salas (District of New Jersey), left a long and disturbing paper trail in his wake — one filled with racist and misogynistic rhetoric that attacks the judge by name.

Den Hollander, who once worked as an associate at Cravath, stands accused in the violent shooting death of Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl, 20, as well as the wounding of her husband, criminal defense attorney Mark Anderl. The self-proclaimed Trump campaign volunteer was later found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

In his more than 10,000 pages of PDF screeds against women and people of color, Den Hollander referred to Salas as an “affirmative action” case and “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.” In 2019, Salas presided over a case filed by Den Hollander where he argued that barring women from the mandatory male draft was illegal. Apparently angered that Salas had allowed the Department of Justice to file a fourth motion to dismiss, he wrote that she “clearly wanted to further her career by moving up the judicial ladder to the Court of Appeals or maybe even the Supreme Court. After all, there was now a Latina seat in the form of Sotomayor on the Court.” The Atlantic has additional details on his writings:

“Female judges didn’t bother me as long as they were middle age or older black ladies,” he writes when discussing a lawsuit he filed that went before Judge Salas, the first Hispanic woman appointed a federal judge in New Jersey. “They seemed to have an understanding of how life worked and were not about to be conned by any foot dragging lawyer. Latinas, however, were usually a problem—driven by an inferiority complex.”

Along with the attacks on Salas, Den Hollander’s writings also go after President Barack Obama (who he said has an “obsession to turn America into a banana republic”), Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who he claimed was “angry that nobody had invited her to her high school senior prom”), Hillary Clinton (whose supporters were “teary-eyed, sad-sack, PC loonies watching their power of intolerance go down the drain”), and an Obama appointee (whom he describes as part of “that Orwellian party of feminists, ethnics, Muslims, illegals and queers who think they are superior to everyone else, especially white males.”)

Den Hollander, who was an active participant in anti-feminist and misogynist groups on Facebook, including Humanity Vs. Feminism and Men Going Their Own Way, self-published a 1,700-page autobiography this year where he switched gears often, at one point writing of Salas that he “wanted to ask the Judge out, but thought she might hold me in contempt.” According to NBC News, Den Hollander also repeatedly denigrated and railed against female judges, including “fantasizing about the rape of another judge who presided over his divorce case.”

In his writings, Den Hollander also revealed his terminal cancer diagnosis, and voting system researcher Mike Farb of Unhack the Vote thinks that, coupled with his hate for Salas, may have served as his “impetus for murder.”

We will continue to follow this tragic case and provide updates should more information about Roy Den Hollander be revealed.

The New Jersey Shooting Suspect Left a Pro-Trump Paper Trail [The Atlantic]
Suspect in federal judge’s home ambush railed against her in misogynistic book [NBC News]

Earlier: Former Cravath Lawyer Named As Suspect In Fatal Shooting At Federal Judge’s Home
Shooting At Federal Judge’s Home Leaves One Dead, One Critically Injured

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Well that was weird, wasn’t it?

The Supreme Court Term that just concluded, October Term 2019, was one of the most unusual terms ever — and certainly the most unusual in the 15-plus years that I’ve been writing about the Court. I like how Professor Josh Blackman put it, speaking with David French and Sarah Isgur of the (excellent) Advisory Opinions podcast:

My friend Chris Walker is right [in describing OT 2020 as “such an unusual and important Term”]. This is a Term unlike any other. We had an impeachment, we had a COVID epidemic, and we had the Chief Justice rise to become the deciding factor.

The COVID-19 epidemic was especially consequential for the Court. As longtime watchers know, the Court is an institution committed to tradition — but COVID-19 caused the Court to, well, adopt new traditions. Most notably, the Court held remote oral arguments, conducted telephonically, and livestreamed the proceedings. I viewed the Court’s new approach to oral argument and livestreaming as quite successful (stray toilet flushes notwithstanding), and I hope SCOTUS preserves some elements of it in the post-pandemic era.

COVID-19 also changed the SCOTUS clerkship experience — and probably not for the better. As former Supreme Court clerk Tobi Young told Tony Mauro, in an interesting interview about her experience as the first Native American SCOTUS clerk:

I’ve tried to put myself in the shoes of this year’s clerks. I would not have enjoyed doing the work entirely remotely, never seeing my teammates and the justice and colleagues from other chambers. I bet most clerks willingly would have brought sleeping bags and quarantined at the court to preserve the unique experience and collaboration. Missing out on performing the ritual skit for the justices must be a lot like a high school senior missing prom! Yet the work must get done, and they’re getting it done, as the release of opinions illustrates each week.

It took a little longer to get the work done, with the term running past the July 4 holiday for the first time since 1986. But given the challenges of trying to go about their work remotely, in the midst of a global pandemic, I must commend the justices and the OT 2019 clerks for getting it all done in the end.

Clerking in the 2019-20 Term might have been more difficult and less fun than usual, at least in some respects. But SCOTUS clerkships, like diamonds, are forever — and so even if the clerkship experience wasn’t quite the same, the clerks will still enjoy the lifelong prestige of being members of The Elect (and those $400,000 signing bonuses).

Which brings us to what you’ve come here for: the complete roster of Supreme Court law clerks for October Term 2020. Although OT 2020 won’t officially start (presumably remotely) until the first Monday in October, the new clerks are already “arriving” and starting their work (also remotely).

Now, if you who follow @SCOTUSambitions on Twitter — originally the feed for my novel of the same name, now converted to a clearinghouse for SCOTUS clerk hiring news — you’ve already seen these hires. If you’re looking for SCOTUS clerk hiring news in real time (or at least something closer to real time — I tweet hires as soon as I learn about them, which is sometimes well after the fact, and after I’ve verified them) — please follow @SCOTUSambitions.

But it’s nice to have all the hires in one place. And at least for the October Term 2020 clerks, please note that this is the official roster, duly verified by the Court’s Public Information Office (for which I thank the PIO).

In a future post, which you can think of as a “Part II” for my report on the OT 2020 clerk class, I will provide my usual color commentary and demographic analysis. This will include analysis of top law schools for producing SCOTUS clerks, top feeder judges, and gender breakdown of the clerk class.

I will also offer a special profile of the last OT 2020 clerk whose hiring I heard about, Amy Upshaw (Chicago 2016/Sykes), Above the Law’s own version of Mr. Irrelevant. If you have fun tidbits to share about Amy, please reach out to me using the contact info provided below. (To get an idea of what I’m looking for — good clean fun, nothing scandalous — please see my last Mr. Irrelevant profile, starring Joe Masterman.)

So, without further delay, here are the SCOTUS clerk lists for OT 2020 and OT 2021, plus a few hires for OT 2022 (not yet in list form, but I’ll put them in list form once I have a critical mass). As mentioned, the OT 2020 clerk roster has been officially confirmed by the Public Information Office, but the OT 2021 and OT 2022 hires have not been so verified.

I don’t report a hire until I have confirmed it on good authority, but occasionally I do make mistakes (e.g., a typo in a name, an incorrect graduation year, or the wrong feeder judge). So if you have any corrections to this information, or if you have any hiring news I have not yet reported, please reach out by email or text (917-397-2751). Please include the words “SCOTUS Clerk Hiring” in your email or text message, perhaps as the subject line of your email or the first words of your text, because that’s how I locate these tips in my overwhelmed inbox. Thanks!

P.S. Speaking of corrections — please note the correction to my last SCOTUS clerk hiring round-up regarding the first child of two SCOTUS clerks to become a SCOTUS clerk himself. As pointed out in this (fascinating) article by Tony Mauro, When Supreme Court Clerkships Become a Family Tradition, that honor appears to belong to Jonathan Meltzer (OT 2015/Kagan), son of the late Dan Meltzer (OT 1976/Stewart) and Ellen Semenoff (OT 1976/Marshall) — not Joshua Revesz (OT 2020/Kagan), son of Ricky Revesz (OT 1984/Marshall) and Vicki Been (OT 1984/Blackmun).

OCTOBER TERM 2020 SUPREME COURT CLERK HIRES (as of July 21, 2020)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
1. Leslie Arffa (Yale 2018/Livingston/Boasberg (D.D.C.))
2. Patrick Fuster (Chicago 2018/Watford/Chhabria (N.D. Cal.))
3. Benjamin Gifford (Harvard 2017/Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) /Katzmann)
4. Stephen Hammer (Harvard 2018/Sutton/Katsas)

Justice Clarence Thomas
1. Philip Cooper (Chicago 2017/W. Pryor/Stras)
2. Joshua Divine (Yale 2016/W. Pryor)
3. Jack Millman (NYU 2016/O’Scannlain/E. Carnes)
4. Amy Upshaw (Chicago 2016/Sykes)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1. Jack Boeglin (Yale 2016/Srinivasan/Calabresi)
2. Thaddeus Eagles (NYU 2015/Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.)/Katzmann)
3. Eliza Lehner (Yale 2017/Watford/Furman (S.D.N.Y.))
4. David Louk (Yale 2015/Boasberg (D.D.C.)/Katzmann)
5. Brittany Jones Record (Stanford 2016/Sutton/Millett)

Note: as I mentioned previously at @SCOTUSambitions, Thad Eagles was originally hired by Justice John Paul Stevens, before Justice Stevens passed away. But as is its custom when a justice passes, the Court has found a new chambers for Thad; he will be clerking for Justice Ginsburg (and is listed on the PIO’s official roster as a fifth Ginsburg clerk, not a Stevens clerk).

Justice Stephen G. Breyer
1. Emily Barnet (Yale 2015/Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.)/Katzmann)
2. Diana Li Kim (Yale 2017/Hall (D. Conn.)/Calabresi)
3. Arjun Ramamurti (Yale 2018/Garland/Pillard)
4. Daniel Richardson (UVA 2018/Wilkinson/Bristow)

Justice Samuel Alito
1. Taylor Hoogendorn (Yale 2018/Wilkinson/Katsas)
2. Mary Miller (U. Michigan 2016/Owen/Leon (D.D.C.))
3. Maria Monaghan (UVA 2017/Thapar/E. Carnes)
4. David Phillips (Harvard 2018/Colloton/Silberman)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor
1. Greg Cui (Yale 2017/Fletcher/Furman (S.D.N.Y.))
2. Kristen Loveland (NYU 2016/Furman (S.D.N.Y.)/Lohier)
3. Imelme Umana (Harvard 2018/Wilkins)
4. Sarah Weiner (Yale 2017/Tatel/Oetken (S.D.N.Y.))

Justice Elena Kagan
1. Peter Davis (Stanford 2017/Srinivasan/Boasberg (D.D.C.))
2. Madeleine Joseph (Harvard 2018/S. Lynch/Howell (D.D.C.))
3. Isaac Park (Harvard 2018/Srinivasan/Oetken (S.D.N.Y.)
4. Joshua Revesz (Yale 2017/Garland)

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
1. James Burnham (U. Chicago 2009/Kozinski)
2. Trevor Ezell (Stanford 2017/Sutton/Oldham)
3. Krista Perry (U. Chicago 2016/W. Pryor/Kennedy)
4. John Ramer (Michigan 2017/Kethledge/Bristow)

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
1. Harry Graver (Harvard 2019/Wilkinson)
2. Tyler Infinger (NYU 2016/Rao)
3. Zoe Jacoby (Yale 2019/Barrett)
4. Megan McGlynn (Yale 2017/W. Pryor/Friedrich (D.D.C.))

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (retired):
1. Ben Wallace (Yale 2016/Kethledge/Srinivasan)

Note: as reflected in the PIO’s official clerk roster, retired Justice David H. Souter did not hire a clerk for OT 2020 — and presumably won’t be hiring clerks for future terms as well.

OCTOBER TERM 2021 SUPREME COURT CLERK HIRES (as of July 21, 2020)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
1. Maxwell Gottschall (Harvard 2019/Srinivasan/Boasberg (D.D.C.))
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Clarence Thomas
1. Christopher Goodnow (Harvard 2017/Sykes/Katsas)
2. Manuel Valle (U. Chicago 2017/E. Jones/Larsen)
3. ?
4. ?

Hired by Justice Thomas for OT 2022: Bijan Aboutarabi (U. Chicago 2018/W. Pryor/Thapar).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Stephen G. Breyer
1. Elizabeth Deutsch (Yale 2016/Pillard/Oetken (S.D.N.Y.))
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Samuel Alito
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Elena Kagan
1. Andra Lim (Stanford 2019/Friedland)
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch

1. Stephanie Barclay (BYU 2011/N.R. Smith)
2. Louis Capozzi (Penn 2019/Scirica/Wilkinson)
3. Mark Storslee (Stanford 2015 / O’Scannlain)
4. ?

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh

1. Alexa Baltes (Notre Dame 2017/Gruender/Barrett)
2. Athie Livas (Yale 2019/Thapar/Friedrich (D.D.C.))
3. Jenna Pavelec (Yale 2017/Thapar/Kethledge)
4. Sarah Welch (Chicago 2019/Sutton/W. Pryor)

Hired by Justice Kavanaugh for October Term 2022: Thomas Hopson (Yale 2020/Katsas/Friedrich (D.D.C.)), Cameron Pritchett (Harvard 2018/Edwards/Gallager (D. Md.)), and David Steinbach (Stanford 2019/Boasberg (D.D.C.)/Srinivasan).

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (retired):
1. ?

Once again, do you know about a hire not previously reported, or do you have an addition or correction to any of this info? Please share what you know by email or text (917-397-2751). Please include the words “SCOTUS Clerk Hiring” in your email or text message, as the subject line of your email or the first words of your text, because that’s how I locate these tips in my inundated inbox. Thanks!

Earlier:

• Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: The Return Of The Tiger Cub
• Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Justice Kavanaugh’s History-Making Class Of Clerks
• Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: The Complete Clerk Roster For October Term 2018
  

  ---

  David Lat, the founding editor of Above the Law, is a writer, speaker, and legal recruiter at Lateral Link, where he is a managing director in the New York office. David’s book, Supreme Ambitions: A Novel (2014), was described by the New York Times as “the most buzzed-about novel of the year” among legal elites. David previously worked as a federal prosecutor, a litigation associate at Wachtell Lipton, and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@laterallink.com.