Joe Biden Behind The Wheel Of New Electric Ford F-150 Is Watershed Moment For Electrified Future

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

On May 18, President Joe Biden toured a Michigan Ford plant as part of his efforts to promote his proposed infrastructure package. Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan includes $174 billion to help facilitate the development and adoption of American-made electric vehicles.

“The future of the auto industry is electric,” said Biden as part of his remarks inside the plant. “There’s no turning back.”

The fun part came later though, when the president was given the chance to actually get behind the wheel of the new all-electric F-150 Lightning. Biden made an unscheduled stop at a Ford driving course, where he was seen tooling around in one of the new Ford electric pickup trucks.

“This sucker’s quick,” a visibly delighted Biden said through his rolled-down window after pulling up to a waiting pod of reporters. He answered a few questions before easing forward … and then flooring it. The F-150 streaked ahead.

Tesla has done such a good job of mainstreaming electric vehicles that it is hard to see this for what it is: a watershed moment that quite easily could have never happened. It was only in 2008 that Tesla Motors released its first car, the all-electric Roadster. The doubters were many. Profitably producing an electric vehicle was thought to be impossible, and Tesla stock has repeatedly been the most shorted equity on Wall Street even after the company began posting profits.

But Tesla kept right on making new vehicles, and making money for its shareholders, until competitors couldn’t help but take notice. Chevy, Hyundai, Nissan, BMW, and even Jaguar all came out with their own electric models for the U.S. market. A number of electric pickup trucks are currently in development, including the Tesla Cybertruck from the company that started it all.

But the rollout of the electric F-150 Lightning is something particularly special. The Ford F-150 light-duty full-size truck is the best-selling pickup in America, and has been for more than four decades. Electric vehicles are not just for the eccentric, they are not just for the wealthy, at least not anymore. If the F-150 is going electric, there really is no turning back.

Ford did not release the specifications for the F-150 Lightning during Biden’s visit, but the president did let it slip that the truck can accelerate from zero to 60 in about 4.4 seconds. Ford is set to release the full specs for the F-150 Lightning late in the day this Wednesday. Based solely on the amount of fun the president seemed to be having while driving it, the numbers for the new F-150 Lightning are probably going to be impressive.

Suddenly an America that doesn’t contribute far more than its fair share of greenhouse gas emissions seems within reach. Maybe even an America in which 107,000 people don’t die prematurely every year from the health effects of air pollution. And it might not even take dramatic sacrifices and changes to our way of life. Hell, maybe we can even have fun doing it, driving around in zippier vehicles that create good-paying jobs right here at home.

Electric vehicles are not a silver bullet. EVs are not going to take over the roads in an instant, and we face many environmental challenges beyond those that have to do with vehicle emissions. Still, because it took so much work, so much genius, so much slow and steady progress to get to this point, it can be easy to overlook the significance of a given moment. I guarantee though that if you could go back 20 years and tell someone that the president of the United States was going to be driving around in an electric F-150 in 2021, it would have been almost unbelievable news. That we are here, now, is something worth taking a few minutes to reflect upon, and celebrate.


Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author of Your Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Nunes Family Sues For Defamation, Shocked To Find That Discovery Comes Before KA-CHING

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It should probably have occurred to Rep. Devin Nunes’s family that this might happen.

When the congressman’s father and brother sued reporter Ryan Lizza for implying that NuStar Farms, the family dairy, hired undocumented workers, they should probably have anticipated that they’d have to prove that their employees were all legal. And certainly their lawyer should have told them that they’d have to surrender employment records and sit for depositions if they were foolish enough to file such a suit. 

But the Nunes family is represented by sparklemagic libelslander lawyer Steven Biss, a one-man casebook on slapstick SLAPP suits. And so we find ourselves trying to piece together a heavily redacted motion from lawyers for Hearst Magazines, Lizza’s previous employer, which appears to allege a shocking variety of misconduct by the infamous defamation lawyer.

In an apparent attempt to bollix up depositions of NuStar employees, Biss first asserted that it was illegal to depose them, then claimed to represent the witnesses as employees of the dairy and agreed to accept service of process. At the deposition itself, he decided he did not represent them after all, but then disrupted the proceeding in some fashion so shocking that it is being blacked out of the court filing.

The employees’ testimony as to why they showed up for the deposition without the subpoenaed documents is redacted, but it immediately proceeds a section captioned “The Court Should Direct Plaintiffs’ Counsel to Abide by Federal and Ethics Rules.”

It appears that something outrageous or possibly outright criminal happened at that deposition, justifying imposition of an extreme remedy by the court.

“Under the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not proffer false testimony or allow a client to testify falsely in a deposition; nor can a lawyer allow false testimony in a deposition to stand on the record after counsel becomes aware that it is false,” the Defendants remind the court. “In other words, a lawyer ‘must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.’”

Biss also appears to have made an unsubtle threat to opposing counsel, writing in a May 6 email, “Finally, your ex-Marshall continue to sniff around Sibley.  Please remind them that we are watching everything.”

Hearst is asking the court for a remedy so extraordinary that the remedy itself is redacted.

What’s behind those bars? Is it “Appoint Counsel For Witnesses To Remind Them That Perjury Is a Crime?” Could it be “Bar Mr. Biss From Attending Said Deposition And Force Local Counsel To Cover It?” Or perhaps “Duct Tape Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Mouth Shut For Duration Of The Case?”

Whatever’s behind there, it’s not good. Well, not good for Biss and his clients. For us watching this demented fireball of incompetence, it’s amazing.

Nunes v. Lizza [Docket via Court Listener]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Lawyer Hopes To Convert 15 Minutes Of Wingnut Fame Into Senate Seat

Screenshot via Twitter

Why spend years building a sound record of public service and developing a coherent legislative vision when you can get elected with a viral video?

When Mark McCloskey saw protesters marching past his house on their way to City Hall, he went out on his lawn barefoot in a fetching pink polo with his AR-15 to wave menacingly at people in the street.

Totally not insane behavior.

His antics earned him a felony charge because even on one’s own property, aiming guns at people on the street is not, in fact, legal. But more importantly for McCloskey, it earned him a promised state pardon, a guest spot on Tucker Carlson, and a stilted appearance at the GOP Convention. Flush with this level of unearned fame, McCloskey’s taking the next logical step — at least in 2021 logic — and running for office.

It was only yesterday, after his old lawyer makes news for another controversial outburst, that we thought, “Oh, right, those jackholes with the guns in St. Louis… I wonder what they’re up to now?” And for my sins, I now have an answer.

Other than the protesters neither marching to destroy his home nor kill his family, he’s really on to something here! Can you imagine how long two civilians with a peashooter and a (presumably not fully automatic) assault rifle would last if a mob actually intended to do them harm? I’m setting the line at around 15 seconds.

In any sane world, voters would roundly reject this country club commando for trying to con the public into accepting armed paranoia as a substitute for legislative acumen. But since his primary competition is a guy who resigned office after being indicted, McCloskey might have a better shot than he really should.

From the NY Post:

“What I’ve learned is that people out there in this country are just sick and tired of cancel culture, and the poison of critical race theory and the big lie of systemic racism, all backed up by the threat of mob violence,” McCloskey told host Tucker Carlson. “People are just sick of it. They don’t want any more poseurs and egotists and career politicians going to DC. All we hear is talk, and nothing ever changes.”

“Poseurs and egotists,” says the yuppie lawyer fronting like Rambo. There’s enough projection in here to bring back America’s movie theater sector. Alas, he’s got all the right intellectually vapid buzzwords for his campaign and that might be enough. After all, no one can possibly know more about the “big lie of systemic racism” than a guy who’s going to be pardoned for waving an assault rifle at a crowd walking by his house while Tamir Rice was killed for holding a toy gun two seconds after police showed up.

Remember how in the immediate aftermath of the event, the McCloskeys told the press through their attorney that they “want to make it really clear that they believe the Black Lives Matter message is important“? That seems to have morphed into “the poison of critical race theory” real quick once the accolades from people with screen names like SSPatriot69 started to roll in.

This is where the country is now. The Republican Party has more or less ceded building credible political leadership in favor of gimmick candidates. The path from Bedtime for Bonzo to Celebrity Apprentice littered the political landscape. Alabama put its bad former college football coach in the Senate. Caitlyn Jenner is running a campaign focused on making South Park’s characterization a lot less of a cheap shot than it seemed at the time. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s relative competence stands out as an exception proving the rule in this mess.

But at least those gimmick candidates have some degree of legitimate celebrity. That’s the real risk with candidates like McCloskey: if someone can become a political force just by going viral for engaging in dangerous, almost certainly illegal acts it sets the incentive structure toward more and more bad behavior from wackos trying to earn their infamy on the road to power. The trend of encouraging bad conduct already dominates college and law school conservatives, but it used to be confined to writing white edgelord columns in school papers. Now getting noticed is going to require taking the aggression up a notch. We’re only a year or two away from some convicted Capitol rioter using a picture of them pissing on a Democratic office door to pick up a House seat in Tennessee.

Acknowledging literal viruses may be taboo in the modern conservative movement, but figurative virality is king.

Gun-toting St. Louis lawyer Mark McCloskey announces run for Senate [NY Post]

Earlier: Capitol Riot Attorney Zealously Defends, Insults His Client
AR-15 Couple Teach Us All About Adverse Possession!
St. Louis Lawyers Wave AR-15 At Protesters Like Totally Normal, Totally Not Bonkers People
Law School Students Just Saw A Radical Shift In The Pathway To Success


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter 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.

The New York Attorney General’s Office Is Coming For Trump

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature. We are now actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity, along with the Manhattan DA.

— Fabien Levy, a spokesman for New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office, commenting on the new criminal component of the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business, which had previously focused on civil fraud. Trump referred to the investigation as “a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of the United States,” further stating that “There is nothing more corrupt than an investigation that is in desperate search of a crime. But, make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening here.”


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Judge Accused Of Trying To Run Over Black Lives Matter Protesters

(photo by David Lat).

Judge John M. Tyson of the North Carolina Court of Appeals was ordered to answer a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. According to reports, protesters at a May 7th event said that a state-issued white SUV, allegedly driven by Tyson, nearly hit participants.

But Tyson’s attorney, David T. Courie Sr., has a different take:

“I will say I’ve reviewed the surveillance footage,” he said. “It will be labeled Defense Exhibit #1.”

The video shows an SUV driving in a lane that is closed to traffic and painted with a mural adorned with the words “Black Lives Do Matter” and “End Racism Now.” One of the protesters, Myah Warren, testified that Tyson was driving the SUV and that it almost hit her and others. The group organizing the protest, FAM: Fayetteville Activist Movement, noted:

This vehicle circled the market house twice and on the second time veered into activists at approximately 6:28pm!!!

He then JUMPED the curb and we approached to get ID info on the car.

Footage of the SUV running up on the sidewalk has not been released.

The Fayetteville Observer describes the footage that has been released:

One angle shows the SUV driving toward a camera in the inner lane for about five seconds before the vehicle appears to abruptly come to a near stop, then move forward. About four seconds later, the footage continues from an angle behind the vehicle as it approaches, then goes past three protesters. Two were standing on a curb and the other was a few feet into the lane as the SUV goes by.

Say what you will about the particulars of this case, but this never used to be an issue before Glenn Reynolds mouthed off.


headshotKathryn 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).

Does ‘Together Together’ Get Surrogacy Right, Legally Speaking?

(Image via Getty)

Movies and TV shows love to throw pregnancy and, even better, surrogacy into the mix for drama. But often they depict something nowhere near surrogacy in real life. Which, I guess, makes sense since real life can be pretty boring. However, despite my apprehension, I was excited to watch the new surrogacy-focused comedy “Together Together” starring Ed Helms, of “The Office” and “The Hangover” fame, and Patti Harrison.

Case, Er … Plot Summary

The premise of the movie is that a single man in his 40s (Matt) turns to surrogacy to have a child. Matt enters a surrogacy arrangement with a single woman (Anna) in her 20s. The arrangement has lots of awkward/funny moments, with the two ultimately developing a sweet friendship. Not a romance though, which I appreciated. Overall, it was enjoyable. Two thumbs up.

Avoiding Pitfalls

Issue-spotting pop culture for legal mistakes is a classic pastime of lawyers everywhere. But “Together Together” managed to avoid a number of the usual surrogacy tropes. Phoebe of “Friends,” for instance, is unlikely to have qualified as a surrogate, since one of the basic requirements is for the surrogate to have completed a healthy pregnancy of her own. Those states which have passed surrogacy-specific laws, such as Colorado recently, often codify this basic requirement into statute. But even when the having-your-own-baby-first requirement isn’t included in state law, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) includes it in its guidelines, which are followed by most fertility clinics. Sorry, Giovanni Ribisi and Debra Jo Rupp!

On the other hand, “Together Together” establishes that Anna got pregnant in high school and gave the baby up for adoption. So points for the surrogate having given birth before becoming a surrogate. Of course, the adoption part may have separately disqualified her if she had “unresolved issues with a negative reproductive event” (another ASRM guideline).

Another good point for “Together Together” is the discussion of the egg donor (although by reference to a donor number, which is a whole other issue on anonymity and donors), but the conversation clearly indicates that this is a gestational surrogacy. Too often media defaults to “traditional” or genetic surrogacy, where the surrogate is also genetically related to the child. In the real world, genetic surrogacy is statistically fairly rare these days, with most intended parents going the gestational surrogacy route — where the surrogate has no genetic connection to the embryo, created through IVF and transferred to her uterus.

Reading The Legal Contract With Their Counselor

Both Anna and Matt get an amazing amount of joint therapy and group support in the movie. Which is awesome. But not the norm.

Despite the context not totally making sense, I did enjoy the reading of part of the surrogacy contract. Anna and Matt argue about whether she is allowed to have sex during the pregnancy. The issue comes up during a counseling session (with comedian Tig Notaro as the therapist!), and results in the therapist pulling up the contract on a computer and reading parts aloud to them.

Furthermore the surrogate agrees not to engage in strenuous or high-risk activity including but not limited to skydiving, contact sports, horseback riding, skiing, scuba diving, weightlifting, rollerblading, roller skating, skateboarding, surfing, bungy jumping, bike riding, or riding in vehicles under 3,000 lbs., including, but not limited to motorcycles, vespas/scooters, dune buggies, jet skis, Segways, jeeps, or smart cars.

OK, lawyers, is sex allowed? And is that contract plainly absurd? Well, actually that part is totally legit. While often the surrogacy legal contract pretty much says the surrogate should do/not do whatever her doctor recommends, others have extensive lists that look and sound very much like the contract provision read in the movie. In fact, this list was likely pulled from an actual surrogacy contract.

Back To The Sex Question

Yeah, the movie likely got that wrong, essentially coming to the conclusion that it wasn’t on the list of prohibited strenuous activity and therefore might be fine, legally. However, back in the real world, the spouses and partners of surrogates also have to go through standard screening for sexually transmitted infections that could otherwise pose a danger to the surrogate or the baby. It’s highly unlikely that a contract would be silent on the issue of sex, much less allow a surrogate to hook up with a medically unscreened partner.

Overall, “Together Together” is a not-entirely-true depiction of the real world of surrogacy. But, like “My Cousin Vinny” for criminal law cases, the filmmakers did their homework (likely grabbing a copy of an actual contract and highlighting its real-life ridiculousness) and inching closer to a portrayal of the complicated and beautiful relationships forged in this world. Would recommend.


Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

Yes, You Still Need To Check Your Zoom Name Before Logging In

Joe and Kathryn discuss the latest legal Zoom fail as a defendant flirts with contempt after his sister changed his Zoom moniker to some sort of sci-fi sex machine. The pair also talk about Ropes & Gray’s decision to transition to a three-day office work week and the latest insulting, dubious rant from the National Conference of Bar Examiners declaring that poor test results for minority applicants is… probably because minorities aren’t cut out to be lawyers in the first place. Yikes!


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter 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.

Tax Partner [Sponsored]

Kinney Recruiting has been asked by a longstanding Manhattan law firm to conduct a confidential search for a Tax Partner with at least fifteen (15) years of law firm experience. The ideal candidate would have general corporate and transactional tax experience involving passthrough entities, mergers and acquisitions, cross-border structuring, and real estate transactions.  An LLM […]

How To Grow Your Contingency Fee Law Firm Post-Pandemic: What The Smart Money Law Firms Are Doing Now – That You Should Be Too

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced business leaders across all industries to rethink their operations and how they fund them. Contingency fee law firms were not spared and faced unique, serious challenges throughout the pandemic. However, we have also seen opportunities surface, allowing “Smart Money” self-financed law firms to grow exponentially post-pandemic.

Law firm financing comes into the discussion as contingency fee law firms continue to feel the effects of the stay-at-home orders that resulted in intakes being down, and cases taking longer to resolve due to court closures. The true impact of these events is expected to become even more prevalent for contingency fee firms in the next 6-12 months as they experience a resulting cash flow interruption.

In today’s economic environment, it is more critical than ever that law firms choose the right financial partner to facilitate smart business decisions. For trial lawyers, this can mean the difference between investing in catastrophic injury cases with higher revenue generating potential versus maintaining steady, lower financial investments in the higher-volume cases like automobile accident claims.

Having the financial flexibility to make the choice of where to deploy more or less case investment is a key driver for growth and expansion as it ultimately often leads to bigger settlements and verdicts – a win-win for both the law firm and their clients.

Self-financing traps working capital from growth initiatives

Contingency fee law firms have alternatives when it comes to paying for case costs. One approach is to pay for case costs out of the law firm’s revenue; a common strategy employed by self-financed law firms. While this approach saves the firm from taking on debt, it’s also limiting, as the number of new cases a firm can pursue is potentially restricted by the firm’s ability to pay for case costs. Additionally, self-financed law firms are essentially giving their clients interest-free loans.

To make matters worse, these firms are using their after-tax dollars to provide these interest free loans. This occurs when law firms earn their fees, pay their taxes and then use a portion of those after-tax dollars to pay for their clients’ case costs. This is not a business model that makes sound business sense, let alone in the current environment when liquidity is king and lending interest rates are highly competitive.

There are likely many better uses for a law firm’s after-tax dollars than sitting in their cases depreciating over time. Law firms that pay for case costs “out-of-pocket” are counsellors and creditors, lawyers and lenders to their clients. This can make for difficult, sometimes conflicting financial decisions when it comes to accepting new cases or hiring the team of experts that may be necessary to achieve to maximum and just compensation for your clients. Being stuck in a cycle of deciding on whether to invest in cases or the growth of your law firm is a pain point that many self-financed law firms face. This often leads to giving away revenue by referring on cases that could have been represented in house.

Traditional bank lending could limit growth opportunities

Another option available to contingency fee law firms is to obtain a loan or a line of credit from a traditional bank. However, the true assets of a contingency fee law firm are its cases and many of them are due to settle far into the future. Traditional banks struggle to appreciate this fact and are not equipped to value a law firm’s case inventory as collateral for lending purposes – ignoring the true value of the firm.

Traditional banks are more accustomed to traditional lending models that rely on accounts receivables or hard assets that can be recovered easily.

Additionally, traditional banks typically have annual clean-up provisions, restrictive lending requirements, and other constraints that might not sync well with a contingency firm’s cash flow needs.

Case-cost financing offers a win-win

Case cost financing can help law firms pay for their litigation expenses and preserve the precious capital they need to grow and invest in their business. Various case-cost financing solutions provide a range of options for law firms and their funding needs.

By offering a master line of credit specifically for case costs, and providing tools to monitor, track and manage the related financial accounting, all provided with single digit bank rates, case-cost financing from a bank provides a tremendous opportunity that derives benefits to law firms looking for staying power or accelerated growth.

Contingency fee law firms should never feel the need to settle for less or refer-out their cases due to capital constraints. Even if the firm has an abundance of cash on hand to cover their litigation costs, it doesn’t mean that it should.

In today’s competitive landscape and low interest rate environment, smart money law firms are taking a hard introspective look at their approach their law firm capitalization and seeking more tax efficient strategies to managing their case costs.

It is clear that seeking financing for case costs can act as a catalyst for accelerated growth coming out of the pandemic. Attorneys that run their law firms like a 21st century business are embracing the opportunity to finance their case costs as it provides a win-win solution for their business and their clients.

Learn more about case-cost financing at EsquireBank.com

For more expert insights on how to succeed in a post-pandemic legal landscape, register for our webinar, “Bold Moves: Driving Rapid Growth and Resilience Post-Pandemic,” on 21 June: Save your spot.