Category: News Feeds

Things have, shall we say, deteriorated quickly for Leon Black. The story of the Apollo Global Management co-founder’s unfortunate relationship with the execrable Jeffrey Epstein has gone from “nothing to see here” to “alright so maybe there are 75 million things to see that these goddamned yellow journalists insist on continuing to bring up but no one cares, really” to “OK so maybe people do care but we’re looking into it (again)” to “if you’re gonna stop investing with people who hung out with a known pedophile you’re gonna have a hard time finding anyone to take your money” to The Wall Street Journal literally looking right past him in a matter of weeks.

Loyal readers know that this column has closely followed the multiple shocking immigration cases where children born to American same-sex couples were nevertheless denied U.S. citizenship. For at least four families that brought suit against the government — represented by the nonprofit legal group Immigration Equality, as well as Lambda Legal and other pro bono counsel — the government has insisted on applying the section of the immigration code applicable to “unwed” parents, despite the parents being legally wed. What was the difference between these couples and others that had no issues? Only that these couples were gay and used assisted reproductive technology.

In each case, the government advanced the argument that the “wed” section of the immigration code applies only when both parents are genetically related to the child, which, with current technology, is difficult for same-sex couple parents. And of course, that underlying biological fact causes immigration officials to scrutinize more closely gay couples than they do straight ones, meaning that a straight couple using assisted reproductive technology to grow their family often won’t face the same issues as a same-sex couple.

In good news, the couples facing discrimination based on the government’s interpretation have won resounding victory after victory in U.S. courts. First was the Dvash-Banks case, where two dads won a victory for one of their twin sons, and then recently had the ruling affirmed on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Kivitis, too, won in Maryland, and the Gregg-Mize family impressively won in the Deep South, where a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump in Georgia held that the government’s interpretation of the immigration code raised serious constitutional concerns. Given that the government was initially appealing each of these losses, it looked like the fight would continue. But that all changed last week.

In double good news, the government opted not to appeal the Gregg-Mize decision, and dropped the Kiviti appeal. Double yay!

How Good Is The Good News?

It’s not clear how far of a reach the government’s possible reversal on the immigration code’s application to same-sex couples will be. The government may yet appeal the Ninth Circuit level loss in the Dvash-Banks to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, in the meantime, a similar case with the Zaccari-Blixt family, is still at the trial level, and it seems like the government may try to litigate the same issue there. But let’s hope that last week’s news indicates an impending complete reversal — no more appeals for Dvash-Banks or similar families, a road to recognition for Zaccari-Blixt, and future children of U.S. citizen same-sex married couples being fairly and squarely under the “wed” section of the immigration code.

Despite the good news, there are at least three red flags for LGBTQ+ families. First, last month, in a case where the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to hear an appeal of the Kim Davis case — the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito merely concurred in the denial of certiorari. In the concurrence, they took the opportunity to describe the 2015 Obergefell decision–which gave same-sex couples the right to marry throughout the country — as having “ruinous consequences” for religious liberty. They asserted that the Obergefell decision “created a problem that only [the Supreme Court] can fix.” Key the ominous music.

The second flag is the Supreme Court’s newest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett. While Justice Barrett hasn’t yet had occasion to rule directly on these issues, there is evidence that her views — including her prior support of an anti-IVF organization before she was a judge — are unlikely to lead to judicial decisions in favor of the LGBTQ+ community.

Flag three is related to the second, and involves the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending ruling in the Fulton v. Philadelphia case. The case is scheduled for oral argument November 4. In that case, Catholic Social Services is claiming that it has a constitutional right not to be required to follow state anti-discrimination laws with respect to LGBGQ+ couples. The City of Philadelphia, on the other hand, is arguing that it is perfectly constitutional to require its contractors to abide by nondiscrimination laws, whether or not the contractors are religious organizations.

If the Court rules in favor of Catholic Social Services — and in particular, if they reach such a ruling by reading the Constitution to require broad exemptions to anti-discrimination laws — it could have serious consequences for LGBTQ+ individuals in other contexts, both inside and outside of the family formation context.

So where does that leave LGBTQ+ individuals right now? Well, obviously with a string of historic victories vindicating equal rights and equal benefits, but with an uncertain horizon ahead. And if there’s one lesson that we’ve learned over the last generation, it’s to always keep fighting the next battle for equality.

---

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.

You’re probably trying to avoid stressing yourself out over the election, the results, and the games that will be played in court between the political football teams. It’s a big day today. BIG! HUGE! AIIIIIGH!!!!

I’m not going to talk about that here.

Instead, I’m going to talk about something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. That is: I never had a blankie as a kid. Or a teddy bear. I had nothing to which I could attach some moment of safety. In a sense, I kind of think a lot of my childhood was to ready me for 2020.

I thought about how I was smarter as a kid than I am now. To escape, I’d ride my bike all day. Climb trees. See nature (to the extent it existed near me).  They were distractions perhaps, but also things that put me in touch with the larger world around me. They also made me more at peace. Safe zones, as it were.

It’s hard to live in a realm of constant drama. Minute by minute it changes, knocking you off your guard from achieving some moment of stability and clarity. It’s the reason that we are exhausted, can’t sleep, and increasingly unable to have normal communications with one another.

What makes it WORSE is if you’re one of the folks in isolation during the pandemic. You’re the one in the house watching all the others play while you’re grounded. The FOMO is real, as is the resentment. And it might even be that your worst appears and you wish ill upon others who are engaged in such behavior just to justify the precautions you’ve taken.

I think it is easy to become absorbed in the drama because we lack the distractions that we typically use. The drama is ever-present, and even moments of escapism can be reminders of what we’re avoiding. It’s like walking away from the pot you hope boils, and are disappointed every minute it isn’t.

And if you’re a law student, you’re doing this all wondering about your grades, your exams, whether or not the Bar will choose to torture you like it did this year’s candidates, whether there will be other challenges that add more straws to your camel’s back.

The solution, I think, is to find moments of joy each day. That’s right: You need moments where your exclusive focus is on something that is pleasurable. Get your mind out of the gutter, and read on.

Some use meditation to achieve that joy. They enter their mind and find some clarity and peace. I’ve meditated before and hope to return to it. Those were moments that brought me sheer peace, and made me think that I could withstand anything. Regardless, it was a moment where the world did not intrude on my best days of meditation and was only mildly annoying on my worst. But it’s hard for me to sit still for any period of time, so I get it if this isn’t your thing. It wasn’t mine at first, either.

Another way is to set some time each week/day to speak with a nontoxic friend. I don’t mean the person who causes your blood pressure to rise. Not the one that wants to talk smack. I mean the ones you genuinely enjoy speaking with about topics that are pleasurable. The friends that want you to win. This might be easier for people who are in healthy relationships. But sometimes it’s possible for people who are not in one to find those connections as well. Sometimes it is easier to keep the world out that way.

If it is impossible to create a safe zone by yourself or with a friend, then it might be possible to escape to a different world. That can be with a book (preferably one that doesn’t mirror current events) or something nonelectronic. A puzzle. Something that distracts the mind that isn’t focused on the screen, the world, the drama.

Some achieve that moment through intense exercise. I’ve tried this, too. And there is something to be said about not being able to catch my breath such that the world no longer feels as pressing as my desire for oxygen. Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration. But the point is, those moments can achieve the same result, if you enjoy it. If it is merely another task, then you’re missing the point. Exercise might achieve another goal (such as lowering anxiety), but it isn’t a moment of pleasure.

It isn’t enough to “take a break” from the drama. What’s required is that there be something valuable and joyful beyond the drama. What’s required is that we take those moments — that we make time for those moments. It’s easy to say that we lack time for it, but for some reason we have all the time in the world to dread.

Maybe steal from the time spent dreading and give those moments to seeking joy. It won’t make the world a better place — that requires compassion. But it can make the world a momentarily better for you.

---

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.

This week, I continue my written interview with David Nir, regarding his experiences as a former patent litigator turned political director of the extremely popular progressive website Daily Kos. Please see below for David’s answers to my second and third questions, focused on how his patent litigation experience has helped him in his current role, plus what he misses most from his legal practice.

As usual, I have added some brief commentary to David’s answers but have otherwise presented his answers as he provided them.

GK: What skill from your patent litigation days has proved most useful for you?

DN: Staying organized! When you’re involved in multiparty litigation that features millions of documents, frequent deadlines, and a whole lot of competing interests, you have to be obsessively organized, or you’ll regret it very quickly. That means updating lots of spreadsheets, calendars, and reminder apps, and just maintaining good data hygiene. Sometimes you walk into an attorney’s office, and it’s stacked with piles of paper everywhere. Maybe they have “a system,” but that always made me so anxious! Knowing where everything is and being able to access it at a moment’s notice was key for me as a lawyer and remains so now.

Litigation also taught me how to write very clearly, and in particular, not to overstate your case. Some people think that if they use a lot of adverbs to express how they feel, it makes their argument seem more passionate and effective. The opposite is true: Hyperbole diminishes your case. I wish more writers understood this.

GK: It may not be sexy, but organization is key to effective management of a patent case. In fact, lawyers or trial paralegals with the gift for keeping things organized are highly prized assets on IP litigation teams, for good reason. I can only imagine what David has to deal with, in terms of tracking elections nationwide, at all levels of government.

An attention to proper organization of information spills over into effective organization of thoughts for persuasive written advocacy. Good legal writing may not always be elegant, but it can be. What is essential, however, is that arguments are presented with an emphasis on clarity and a lack of hyperbole, as David correctly notes.

GK: Do you miss anything about high-stakes patent litigation?

DN: In my last year or two as an attorney before I left to join Daily Kos, I was completing the transition between being a junior associate and a mid-level associate, which meant less time doing document review and more time focused on strategy and writing. I hope it goes without saying that the latter is far more interesting than the former! It was at that point that I started to really feel, “So this is what lawyering is really about.” I can’t say of course where my career would have taken me had I stayed, but it was definitely tougher to leave at year five than it would have been at year two or three.

I also left right before the biggest case I’d worked on went to trial, which is a rare-enough experience in most areas of litigation. I would have liked to see that one through, but unfortunately, the timing did not work out. However, I was very pleased for my former client — and felt our strategy had been vindicated — when the patent we’d been accused of infringing was ultimately found to be invalid by the Federal Circuit.

GK: As someone who had the good fortune to have been involved in both the trial and the Federal Circuit appeal David references, I know firsthand how formative and rare such legal experiences can be for patent litigators. At the same time, I know how important it is for IP lawyers, no matter the stage of their professional lives they find themselves in, to seize opportunities that come their way. From the readers who interact with David’s work every day on Daily Kos, to the candidates whose campaigns his work supports, to us as American citizens who benefit from democracy in perpetual action, I can speak for many who are happy that David made the career choice he has. And that his IP background has made such a valuable contribution to his current role.

My thanks to David for the insights and cooperation, and I wish him the best of luck with processing and reporting on the election results and aftermath. It is always great to see former IP lawyers achieve success in other areas, while bringing to bear the skills and experiences they garnered as practicing lawyers. I am always open to conducting interviews of this type with other IP thought leaders, so feel free to reach out if you have a compelling perspective to offer.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

The president promised an army of poll watchers descending on Pennsylvania for election day, and it appears this is one promise he’s keeping. This morning a longshot Republican congressional candidate and a state elector filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to stop the Montgomery County Board of Elections from contacting voters to allow them to come in and “cure” defective mail-in ballots today.

Pundits have predicted problems with Pennsylvania’s ballots for weeks now due to persnickety signature requirements and a mandatory inner security envelope. Other states have longer experience with mail-in voting and allow election officials to begin counting ballots, or at least preparing them to be quickly counted on election day. But in Pennsylvania, officials aren’t even allowed to open the outer envelopes until the day of the election itself.

The Republican plaintiffs allege that the Montgomery County Board of Elections jumped the gun and started precanvassing ballots outside the presence of poll watchers and before 7 a.m., the statutory starting bell. It’s not entirely clear if they’re accusing the Board of actually slicing the envelopes open — simply weighing the unopened ballots would give officials a pretty good idea of which ones were missing the security envelope or signed declaration.

Worse still, at least in the opinion of the plaintiffs, this morning state officials called up voters who had botched their ballots and invited them to come in and correct the defects today. Which is not allowed, at least according to their complaint.

There’s no Pennsylvania statute that specifically bars voters from repairing defective ballots, so the plaintiffs rely on a single sentence from the recent Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision In re: November 3, 2020 General Election, No. 149 MM 2020, *12 (Pa. Oct., 23, 2020).

It reads: “Thus, unlike in-person voters, mail-in or absentee voters are not provided any opportunity to cure perceived defects in a timely manner.”

Taken out of context, as the plaintiffs were at pains to present it, this might suggest that the court had barred elections officials from allowing voters to repair their ballots. In fact, the court is paraphrasing U.S. District Judge Nicholas Ranjan’s opinion in Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar,  banning the use of signature analysis to invalidate mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania. And taken in context, Judge Ranjan was very clearly making a finding of fact based on the practical reality of getting voters in to cure defects in the few hours between opening their ballots and the close of polls.

Here’s the relevant passage:

Here, imposing a signature-comparison requirement as to mail-in and absentee ballots runs the risk of restricting voters’ rights. This is so because election officials, unstudied and untested in signature verification, would have to subjectively analyze and compare signatures, which as discussed in greater detail below, is potentially problematic.16 [ECF 549-2, p. 19, ¶ 68]; [ECF 549-9, p. 20, ¶ 64]. And perhaps more importantly, even assuming an adequate, universal standard is implemented, mail-in and absentee voters whose signatures were “rejected” would, unlike in-person voters, be unable to cure the purported error. See 25 P.S. § 3146.8(a) (stating that in-person and absentee ballots “shall [be safely kept] in sealed or locked containers until they are to be canvassed by the county board of elections,” which § 3146.8(g)(1.1)-(2) states is no earlier than election day); Boockvar, 2020 WL 5554644, at *20;

Although Judge Ranjan suggests that the Pennsylvania legislature would be wise to craft a remedy for ballots rejected for what amounts to user error, neither his opinion nor that of the state court is evidence that voters have surrendered their right to cure defective ballots in exchange for the convenience of being able to vote from the comfort of their own homes.

Perhaps sensing the weakness of the main argument, the plaintiffs lean hard into their secondary plank — if Montgomery County voters are allowed to fix their ballots, but other Pennsylvanians are not, then it violates the Equal Protection Clause. For which proposition they cite Bush v. Gore. Because of course they did!

And they threw in a bunch of ominous blather suggesting unspecified ballot irregularities.

So if Pennsylvania is close, tomorrow looks to be a fun, fun day, with dozens of these suits seeking to get ballots tossed.

Deep breaths, everyone. And don’t forget to drink a lot of water.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [Barnett v. Lawrence, Case 2:20-cv-05477-PBT (E. D. Pa., November 3, 2020)]
IN RE: NOVEMBER 3, 2020 GENERAL ELECTION, PETITION OF: KATHY BOOCKVAR, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Opinion [Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, Case 2:20-cv-00966-NR (W. D. Pa., (October 10, 2020)]

---

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

To the world, she was an icon, the Notorious RBG. But to me, she was Bubbie. Her final wish was that her seat on the Supreme Court not be filled until after the election. It’s up to us to make her voice heard at the ballot box, to keep fighting the battles she waged for women’s equality and justice for all. My grandmother changed the course of history. Now it’s our turn.

— Clara Spera, granddaughter of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a fellow at the ACLU’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg Liberty Center, calling voters to the ballot box for election 2020 in a new ad from political advocacy groups MoveOn and Demand Justice. “Make a plan,” she implores voters. “Vote by Tuesday.”

---

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.

Welcome back listeners to this exclusive Above the Law Lexis+ Special Report Podcast: Introducing a New Era in Legal Research, brought to you by LexisNexis. On this third episode of our 4-part series, we’re exploring key Lexis+ integrations and how to unlock powerful data-driven insights to dramatically improve your practice’s performance.

Listen in as LexisNexis Director of Product Management Lindsay Bringardner and Evolve the Law Contributing Editor Ian Connett (@QuantumJurist) break down just how Lexis+ empowers attorneys with data and delivers exceptional new age research products for both large and small law firms.

Looking to learn more about Lexis+? Tune in to our first episode with Chief Product Officer Jeff Pfeifer here for more.  We hope you enjoy this special report and stay tuned for the final episode next week.

---

Links and Resources from this Episode

Review and Subscribe

If you like what you hear please leave a review by clicking here

Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite player to get the latest episodes.

We’ve had an exciting general election season, haven’t we? Joe Biden opened up about a 7-point favorite and is closing as… about an 8-point favorite. And yet it wasn’t for lack of effort on the part of the world and the media. COVID transitioned slightly from a global pandemic to a uniquely American disaster in management, police forces launched a week of rioting, some people tried to kidnap a governor, a Supreme Court seat got filled, Roger Stone got pardoned, the president ALMOST DIED, and yet nothing really shook the landscape.

So, after some truly brutal debate drinking games, let’s give you one more for election night. Remember to feel free to change your drink based on the time of day you start. For example, if you’re starting on mimosas, first of all, my hat’s off to you, and second of all, make the shift to beer or hard liquor eventually or you’re going to completely erode your stomach lining.

As Rick Hasen has warned us since February, elections aren’t official on election night, and people should not expect complete results on election night, but you’re still going to watch so let’s make it interesting.

All events are sips unless otherwise noted. And keep checking back throughout the rest of the day in case we add to this….

Election Law Expert: Speaking of Rick Hasen, let’s drink whenever a lawyer shows up to opine on the election. This rule has the benefit of being a bellweather for your night, because the more they bring lawyers on to talk about lawsuits, the worse things are going for the country and the more likely you are to need a drink.

Jurisdictional Primer: If someone has to explain “standing” or a similar concept to a lay audience. Just take your drink until you can coherently explain the current state of the Roberts Court’s articulation of it — actually, no, don’t do that at all because you’ll never be able to stop.

Republicans Urge “Counting Every Ballot” (put down your current drink and grab a completely different one for the rest of the night): People forget that George W. Bush planned to challenge the 2000 results on the grounds that he expected to lose the electoral college and win the popular vote. After weeks of bleating that the election must be finished on election night, if Republicans start saying, “well, wait a minute, maybe there are GOP absentees out there” laugh hysterically and then get that new drink.

Supreme Court: Whether it’s the impact of Trump’s strategically short-sighted move to place ACB on the Court or ominous warnings about the Supreme Court’s potential involvement in the election, take your sip. UNLESS…

Court-Packing: Just drink as many shots as justices they propose to add. And hope Elie Mystal isn’t on the screen.

An Opinion Is Issued During Coverage (finish your drink): No matter which court does it, if the anchors have to start walking us through an opinion just handed down, you’re going to need to grab another.

“Bush v. Gore” (only sip if it’s not in reference to Florida): While discussing Florida, networks are contractually obligated to mention the case every 30 seconds. But if it’s mentioned generically take a sip.

“Biden v. Trump” (have you considered Tide Pods as a mixer?): If anyone says this in the form of a prospective caption…

Kayleigh McEnany Shows Up: If the White House Press Secretary appears on TV, take a sip and just remember that she started out as an Above the Law columnist and realize we’re as upset about that as you are.

Second Gentleman: They’re dying to use this one. Finish your drink if they namecheck the firm.

Every Time A State Is Called: Worst case scenario you have 51 sips tonight because of DC counts even though it’s not a state… until next year.

Optional: If you have Grenadine and Blue Curacao around the house, make shots for Red and Blue.

269-269: In 538’s final projections there is a ONE tie. Start drinking whenever the topic of “how do we resolve a tie” comes up and then every single time the number “269” is uttered again.

Faithless Electors: We just had a Supreme Court case about it! But if it comes up tonight, that’s bad news for everyone. If it comes up during the 269-269 talk though you should finish your drink.

Texas Potentially Going Blue: The political media have been dreaming about this kind of a major sea change for years. If the conversation is raised, take a sip. If it happens, shotgun a Shiner Bock.

Susan Collins Declared The Loser (just say you’re concerned and troubled that you might have to drink and then don’t): This is a tight race, but she’s definitely the underdog.

A T14 Law School Is Mentioned: Be it as a qualification for a talking head or a polling location or Tiffany’s alma mater… whatever.

Syracuse Law School Is Mentioned (Take someone else’s drink and pretend it was yours): Your boos only give me more power!

Kanye: Hey, early results can be crazy. If Kanye registers on the screen at any point, go ahead and drink.

The Election Is Actually Over (get to bed and get ready for tomorrow): Don’t expect it, don’t necessarily hope for it, but if it happens take a moment to appreciate that you’ve got to go to work tomorrow now that there isn’t a full-scale civil war in the offing.

See you all on the other side, folks!

---

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.

Today’s a helluva day, isn’t it? As the eagerly anticipated election day unfolds, there’s a lot of anxiety floating around. Yes, the polls have consistently shown Joe Biden with ~8 point lead, but well, 2016 left a mark. People have a lot of feelings, I mean, I could cry hot tears of anger and frustration if I think about it too hard.

What I really need atm is some light, yet uplifting content to distract. With that in mind, let me direct you to a charming little interview DLA Piper partner (on a sabbatical) and wannabe Second Gentleman of the United States of America Doug Emhoff did with Fatherly. The conceit of the interview is that it’s questions asked by kids, as part of the parenting website’s Ask A Grownup series.

The interview gives you some insight into Emhoff’s culinary predilections (he’s totally right about the apple pie, btw), super hero thoughts, and what’s in his future if (hopefully) his wife becomes vice president.

Enjoy!

---

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).

Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has been having a hell of a busy 2020, is presiding over a lawsuit dealing with the U.S. Postal Service’s efforts to gum up delivery schedules across the country to prevent mail-in ballots — expected to favor Democrats — from potentially keeping Trump from prematurely declaring victory.

While the Post Office’s hack leadership argued that this wasn’t political, the case revealed that the hardest hit areas for mail delays are places like Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, South Florida, and all of Arizona. HMMMMMM!!!

To wit, Judge Sullivan just ordered postal inspectors to sweep facilities in these areas at 3 p.m. Eastern today to ensure that ballots are not languishing in back offices.

Just another totally normal thing we have to rely upon federal court orders to make a reality in 2020.

USPS Ordered to Sweep Swing-State Facilities for Ballots [Bloomberg]

---

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.