John Oliver On How The Supreme Court Vacancy Lays Bare America’s Broken Democracy

John Oliver

John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight features are always informative and entertaining, but his forays into law and courts are consistently among his best. This week, he discusses the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and how the pick represents the culmination of a broken political system that won’t be repaired by any quick fixes, but through a long, nightmarish slog through hopelessness.

And that description doesn’t sound like comedy, but trust us, it is.

Pay particular attention to his description of naked yoga.

Get Notorious RBG’s Name Out Your Mouth

Fuck this shit.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t even FUCKING buried yet and the GOP is already stealing not just her seat on the Court, but her name. (Yes, I know that *technically* Neil Gorsuch’s seat is the stolen one, not the one Amy Coney Barrett is poised to take over, but as the GOP is reneging on the principle that made Gorsuch a justice in order to get Coney Barrett on the high court, you best believe it still applies. Also, it is well worth noting, the seat Coney Barrett sits on in the Seventh Circuit was, itself, stolen. As Leslie Proll notes, President Obama nominated Myra Selby to the seat in 2016, but Senators blocked that nomination.)

The powers that be at the National Republican Senate Committee are selling this fugly shirt that rips off RBG’s moniker (also, why isn’t there a period after the B? Do or do not on the punctuation, there is no in between):

Hard pass on that one.

Of course, there’s a WORLD of difference in a nickname that catches fire organically and one bestowed ham-handedly by politicos trying to sell merch ahead of what is sure to be a heated confirmation process. It comes off as a thirsty af move trying to glom some popularity from a recently passed icon.

For those who may not know, Notorious RBG came to life because of a law student. In 2013, Shana Knizhnik, then a 2L at NYU Law, was pissed after the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County (which, sames) and she created a Tumblr in tribute to Ginsburg’s dissent and coined the now-famous Notorious RBG name.

It’s obviously a play on Biggie Smalls’s own nickname — one the deceased rapper’s son approves of — and it took off. As Knizhnik says, “I was mostly thinking of the catchy nickname and how she was such a powerful force. Here you had this diminutive person, this tiny human, and nobody saw her as a badass. But when you see what she has done, over years, with such dignity and grace, it represented that.”

So, when you see some Republican try to trot out the name in reference to Amy Coney Barrett, but the only Big Poppa they know is their grandfather who sips sweet tea on the porch and crows, “The south will rise again!” know that’s some bullshit. Nicknames are earned and Coney Barrett hasn’t done much of anything noteworthy except have some backwards notions about reproductive freedom and be at the right place at the right time.

As for the Notorious RBG’s name, like Birdman says, put some respeck on it.


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).

Biglaw Staff Subject To Layoffs May Be SOL When It Comes To Finding New Jobs

During this time, if positions or jobs are being eliminated, I would not anticipate that there would be a complete recovery or restoration to what things were like pre-COVID. I think that it’s going to be very stiff competition in that realm of the job market. So, I would say their chances [at getting another job in the legal industry] are half now than they were before.

— Nakia Bradley-Lawson, president of legal professionals association NALS Inc. and director of operations and facilities at Gevurtz Menashe Larson & Howe PC, commenting on the post-layoff job prospects, or lack thereof, for Biglaw administrative staff whose furloughs later turned into permanent job losses thanks to the adoption of automation and outsourcing.


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.

Attention Donald Trump: If You Put Amy Coney Barrett On The Supreme Court, Republicans Will Turn On You Fast

(Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Assuming Donald Trump pulls off the incredible and easily wins this election, Republicans will certainly continue to dutifully stand by him. But taking a break from fairy tale land, Trump’s current bid for reelection seems to hinge on discrediting the electoral process and hoping the right-wing of the Supreme Court and Senate Republicans will bail him out somehow. Stop some ballot counts halfway through here, refuse to certify electoral college votes received there, and pretty soon an incumbent can cobble together a hacked election.

Far be it from me to offer Trump any sage advice, but seriously man, you’re getting played on this whole Supreme Court thing.

Right-wing media outlets are already running with the talking point that Amy Coney Barrett must be confirmed before the election in order to rule on the next Florida 2000 scenario (a case she worked on as a lawyer, of course!). This facially makes no sense since there’s already a conservative majority on the Court, thus making another confirmation irrelevant. However this isn’t about making sense, it’s just bait placed right where Trump can see it and parrot it on Twitter. Conservatives don’t want this confirmation done before the election because they think it helps him win, they want it done so they can stop having to deal with him.

Rewire’s Imani Gandy put it exactly right on Twitter this morning: those thorns in Trump’s political side over at Project Lincoln are very quiet about this power grab because fundamentally Project Lincoln still revels in the idea of a right-wing, anti-majoritarian Court blocking popular calls for expanded rights and business regulation, they’re just fed up with Trump’s antics. And that’s a sliding scale that all Republicans are on, and in Amy Coney Barrett, many that still publicly side with him are seeing the end of the slide approaching rapidly.

Handing the Republicans a 6-3 majority for the foreseeable future with only two conservatives in their early 70s all but wraps up a job well done for Trump in their eyes. Why stick their necks out for a guy imperiling their national brand any longer if he’s already delivered everything they can possibly hope for? Especially if this results in Democrats pursuing a court expansion plan that can set the stage for the next Republican president to cement right-wing domination for a generation.

The smartest move Trump could’ve made is to say that Coney Barrett was who he will be sending to the Senate after the election and telling the Project Lincoln dissenters of the world to get back on the train or they’ll get nothing. Trump’s diminishing hopes of reelection rest on turning out the “independents” who are really Republicans that just won’t say it out loud and who have mostly grown disillusioned with Trump’s nonsense. In other words, the exact type of FedSoc conservative who just wants a more civilized assault on the Clean Air Act.

Given that audience, Trump should’ve taken a lesson from former Celebrity Apprentice Rod Blagojevich and realize that:

It’s a fucking valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.

Ah, the apprentice becomes the master.

Yet, this is apparently what Trump’s decided to do. Hence the marketing pitch on Fox trying to assure him indirectly that this is really not a no-strings gift to Republicans, but something he needs to do to win the election even though the Court already has a 5-3 conservative majority. And it seems to be working because Trump has opted for a strategy of “give them everything they ask for with no guaranteed return.” Not exactly something you’d expect from a guy with a book unironically titled The Art of the Deal.

On the other hand, it’s exactly what you’d expect from someone carrying over $400 million in debt.


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.

Bill Murray Responds To Demand Letter Like The Dalai Lama To A Caddy

(Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)

We had a lot of fun last week with the demand letter from the Doobie Brothers asking Bill Murray to stop using their music to promote golf shirts without paying for it. In the process, entertainment attorney Peter Paterno took us on a journey into the unknown limits of legal composition with an unorthodox yet intensely compelling letter.

Murray has now responded, courtesy of Alexander Yoffe of Yoffe & Cooper (again spotted quickly by Eriq Gardner). Befitting the response of a comedy legend to a humorous letter shared all over the internet, Yoffe brings a light-hearted approach to the dispute. But he doesn’t so much… answer the first letter.

After complimenting Paterno on the letter, Yoffe points out:

We would also like to confirm that both our firm, and the good folks at William Murray Golf, are indeed fans of the Doobie Brothers’ music, which is why we appreciate your firm’s choice of “Takin’ It to the Streets”, rather than to the courts, which are already overburdened “Minute by Minute” with real problems.

Oh, I see what you did there. Now, right after this paragraph is the part of most responses where the recipient says, “we apologize for having unintentionally used your clients’ intellectual property for commercial purposes and would love to enter a discussion about licensing it for future use.” That is… not what happens next:

I am sure that Howard King of your firm, who argued that the song “Blurred Lines” (Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I.) did not infringe on Marvin Gaye’s composition “Got To Give It Up”, would agree that your client was not harmed under these circumstances.

Except Marvin Gaye’s family won that case.

Lawyers say a lot of things while advocating for their clients, but when they lose they can’t be held to their past unsuccessful arguments. The “Blurred Lines” case was problematic in a lot of ways because it set a standard that arguably weaponized intellectual property against creative inspiration but that’s not really relevant here. That Paterno’s firm tried and failed to get a ruling that lifting a melody for a new song wasn’t infringement has little to do with whether or not artists should be paid when their copyrighted works are used in advertisements.

There may be a lot wrong with intellectual property law right now and it may have become the domain of trolls making a mockery of the spirit of this protection to harass good faith actors, but “using someone else’s music in an advertisement” is very much the core case for copyright protection.

As your client so aptly stated in this classic song in question, “What the people need is a way to make them smile”— which both Bill and the Doobies have been doing for decades, as world-class entertainers.

Please provide us with the shirt size for yourself, Tom Johnston, Patrick Simmons, Michael McDonald, and John McFee, along with which of our client’s shirts you find the least offensive, and we will happily upgrade your wardrobes and hopefully win each of you over as new fans of the brand.

At least that’s “what this fool believes”.

Oh, uh, there won’t be any money. But when the Doobies die, on their deathbeds, they will receive free William Murray golf shirts.

So they got that going for them… which is nice.

(Letter on the next page.)

Earlier: A Jungian Analysis Of Bill Murray Getting Absolutely Blown Up By A Lawyer


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 Black Legal Wellness Forum Tackles The Black Vote

2020 is the gift that keeps on giving. Except the gift is an actual plague, wrapped in a forest fire, hiding behind the collapse of democracy. There is a lot to be depressed about, so I try to spend my time focusing on things that make me feel hopeful. 

One of those things is the upcoming October edition of the Black Legal Wellness forum. I first covered the inaugural session of the Black Legal Wellness forum back in June, when founder Miriam Lacroix, Esq. started the event in the wake of George Floyd’s death to tackle issues of systemic racism. Miriam knew that police brutality is just one product of racism and that racism is a power dynamic that affects many aspects of Black lives, including their interactions with the law. That is why she decided to use her voice and experience as a lawyer to “[P]ut on a forum that addresses this and invites the community for a free discussion about how the Black community can better navigate legal issues across a variety of areas of law. This forum is for the Black community to better understand the ways in which the legal systems are not serving them, their rights under different areas of law, and the ways that they can better protect and advocate for themselves when interacting with the law.” 

The first Black Legal Wellness forum, which covered a variety of issues, including the criminal justice system, employment law, trademark law, and trusts and estates, was a huge success. As was the second session in August, which tackled in depth the intersection between immigration and race. 

The upcoming October forum will focus on “The Black Vote Matters Because …” where Miriam invites you to “[j]oin us in finishing this sentence. With the upcoming election, October’s forum will focus on the importance of voting. Systemic racism prevents Black people from casting their ballots. Voter suppression tactics and disenfranchisement of previously incarcerated people are strategies used to block the Black vote. The goal of limiting Black turnout is clear, but we don’t have to give in to it. Recognizing that there is a motive behind these tactics is the first step in understanding the importance of voting. They wouldn’t be trying so hard to stop us from voting if our vote didn’t matter. 

Voting becomes even more difficult when we feel like we have less than ideal choices, but the solution is not to give up and skip heading out to the polls on Election Day. The Black vote matters because this community can change the trajectory of this country even if it is one step at a time. 

Participants will leave this forum understanding how to be informed voters, as well as:

  • Hear from elected officials about their experiences with elections
  • Learn the truth about Black voter turnout and why the Black vote matters
  • Understand the barriers that keep the Black community from voting and how to overcome them
  • Discuss other considerations when voting. What, other than the presidency, is at stake?”

The event promises to be jam-packed with crucial information from well-informed sources, such as Westchester Deputy County Executive Ken Jenkins, New York State Senate Majority Leader Andrea-Stewart Cousins, Hudson Valley Organizing Director for Community Voices Heard Juanita Lewis, and Westchester County Legislator for the 16th District Christopher Johnson.

The event takes place on October 9 at 7 p.m. EST (virtually, of course). You can register at blacklegalwellness.com.


Kerriann Stout is a millennial law school professor and founder of Vinco (a bar exam coaching company) who is generationally trapped between her students and colleagues. Kerriann has helped hundreds of students survive law school and the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. She lives, works, and writes in the northeast. You can reach her by email at info@vincoprep.com.

Biglaw Associate Gets His Protest-Related Charges Dropped, Hopes His Case Will Help Other Peaceful Protesters

Justin Maffett (Photo by Avery J. Savage/Courtesy)

On June 5, Debevoise & Plimpton associate Justin Maffett was peacefully protesting racial injustice in the wake of the murder of George Floyd when he was arrested and charged with breaking New York City’s curfew. That curfew violation was a class B misdemeanor and carried with it not just a potential six-month prison sentence, but if found guilty, Maffett would have a criminal record.

More than a thousand others received summonses for curfew violations, and over 60 percent were issued to Black or Latinx people, including Maffett. But unlike many of those who were arrested, Maffett had some very powerful representation. Helen Cantwell, a white-collar partner at Debevoise and a former assistant U.S. attorney at the Southern District of New York, stepped up to serve as his defense lawyer, also offering her counsel to any other Debevoise employees arrested during the protests.

Although Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance said his office would forgo the prosecution of low-level offenses related to the protests (e.g., unlawful assembly or disorderly conduct) the charges still remain for many, and those who were arrested for breaking the emergency curfew are still fighting their charges — but not Maffett. After a series of exchanges with the New York Office of Court Administration (OCA), his charges were dismissed.

“I can’t say whether I was treated differently. But I do acknowledge that not everyone has a former prosecutor like Helen in their corner or a billion-dollar law firm at their back. It isn’t lost on me that this played a role here,” he said in an interview with the American Lawyer, where he details his experience of being arrested while protesting. “But we didn’t advocate this just for myself, but for all of those charged, because we can do something there. And because we can, I believe strongly that we should.”

In an op-ed published in the New York Law Journal, Maffett argues that all curfew-related summonses levied against peaceful protesters should be dismissed. “It does not take a law degree” to see why it would be in the interest of justice, he writes.

Protesters should not face different legal consequences just because they were out protesting during the one week the curfew was in place. This is arbitrary and does not inspire confidence in our legal system.

For far too many New Yorkers, justice has been delayed and due process has almost come to a halt. If cases are not immediately dismissed, these arrests made by the NYPD in response to the protests will only serve to exacerbate this mounting crisis. Our court system should not be clogged with cases involving these nonviolent, low-level issues, nor should everyday New Yorkers be forced to continue to pay attorney fees, take days off work, or make arrangements for child care in order to defend themselves against such claims. The city should instead focus its limited resources toward more urgent needs.

Maffett’s court documents are currently under seal, but he has disclosed them to Above the Law, with his firm’s permission. He thinks their publication is in the public’s interest because it will provide a roadmap to other lawyers working on these curfew cases to make similar arguments. They are available on the next page.

“I believed then, and still believe today, that all of these charges should be dismissed in the interest of justice,” Maffett says. We hope that, armed with the arguments made in his own case, others will be able to get their charges dismissed as well.

After Getting His Protest-Related Charges Dropped, Debevoise Lawyer Hopes to Help Others [American Lawyer]
Debevoise Associate: NYC Should Dismiss Curfew Charges Against Peaceful Protesters Like Me [New York Law Journal]


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.

Fall Bonuses Are Great But Remember The Incoming Associates Struggling To Make It To Their Start Dates

(Image via Getty)

We’ve been treated to a string of good news from the biggest law firms in the world lately. Many have reversed the salary cutbacks instituted at the beginning of the COVID recession and several have brought joy to their associates with new Fall bonuses to sweeten the pot. Of course, not every firm is in the giving mood right now, but the clear momentum of the Biglaw universe is in favor of bonuses to reward attorneys who’ve managed to keep these firms profitable while the rest of society collapsed.

Lost in the autumn compensation news are the incoming first-year associates who have had their start dates put off as firms try to weather the storm. To some extent, this is a product of bar examiners continually pushing the exam farther into the future as disastrous wrinkles keep cropping up. But beyond the bar exam, firms just don’t want new associates joining up right now when they feel — rightly or wrongly — that they can’t properly train them remotely and worry that they don’t have enough work to get the recent grads engaged.

From the perspective of the firms, it’s not an absurd position. I entered as a first year while my firm huddled in borrowed office space after Cleary Gottlieb lost access to its offices being based next door to the World Trade Center and I never really felt like a functioning associate until we moved back into the real offices and I did actually have some semblance of in-person training. So I get why they don’t think adding people right now is feasible.

For the future associates themselves though, this is brutal. Some law firms are paying these folks who expected to start working, but many more are just offering salary advances… or nothing at all. While no one is complaining about having walking around money at this point, advances really just amount to asking associates to further borrow against their future interests, something they’ve functionally been doing for three years — if not seven — already. Deferring the hit they’re taking right now over the next few years is better than nothing, but amounts to yet another roadblock to getting started as financially independent beings.

Worse, law school health coverage is coming to an end for a lot of these graduates and some law firms aren’t stepping up to at the very least add incoming associates to the plan during a pandemic. This obviously isn’t true of all firms — checking the ATL tracker, it looks like Reed Smith and Troutman Pepper have enrollment options and Orrick is offering a health care stipend (perhaps others… this is a reminder for firms to let us know so we can highlight you) — but firms that haven’t offered this as a minimum have put grads in the position of trying to find health insurance, which can often still leave people uncovered with arbitrary beginning and end dates.

Imagine sitting at the end of September with no job until at least January, going further in debt, without health insurance, and with bar examiners saying this seems like a perfectly reasonable time to take a slapdash test.

And then imagine hearing that your firm is handing everyone already over there a big bonus. This isn’t meant to begrudge the associates who’ve busted their asses to keep billing from home, but we should take a second or two to consider the impossible circumstances we’re foisting upon the class of 2020.


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.

Practicing Law During COVID-19: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

Most courts around the country have put criminal trials on hold since late March. That’s a long time to spend in jail waiting for your day in court, especially when there’s no clear notion on when that day might come.

New York City is slowly rolling out a program to “reopen” court, but as of now it’s fitful at best — only 10 cases a day in most court parts — as compared to as many as 150 before COVID-19.

Pilot programs are being considered on when and how to convene the first full-scale, post-COVID criminal trial with 12 jurors and several alternates. But as one judge told me last week, “The jurors sure won’t be sitting in the jury box cheek-to-cheek.” No, they’ll be scattered around the court room, separated by at least six feet, wearing masks and seated behind prosecution and defense. Not a great way to gauge their reactions.

The witnesses will be that much further from them, in the well next to the judge.  Acoustics are already poor in the cavernous courtrooms, but picture a spread-out jury trying to hear people behind plexiglass barriers, speaking behind masks. No lip reading possible. Seems like a situation ripe for reversable error.

I conducted my first post-COVID suppression hearing last week. It was pretty clear-cut. My client made a full confession but hadn’t been read his Miranda rights until after he was questioned. His rights were then read on camera at which time the confession was repeated.

The detective was the key and only witness. He walked into court wearing a Darth Vader-like clear face mask pulled over his face. It made him look more like a welder than a cop.

The court reporter sat nestled in her plexiglass booth and the judge behind enough layers of plexi to ward off a swarm of bees. I was separated from my client by at least six feet. Much of the proceeding was interrupted by interjections of, “I didn’t catch that word.” “Can the witness speak louder?” “Was that “detection” or “inspection?””

Thank God there was no interpreter. In another proceeding I handled recently, the interpreter had to stand six feet from the client who couldn’t hear a word she said. It worked as well as the Cone of Silence in “Get Smart.”  Ultimately, they both shouted into their cellphones to handle the interpreting.

What’s good about post-COVID court? Well, it felt great to get back to work, back on the horse, back inside a courthouse cross-examining witnesses and seeing a case go forward.

The judge ruled no differently than he would have in ordinary times. He denied suppression — a legal error in my mind, but one I won’t be able to contest until the case goes to trial and my client is likely convicted. (For some crazy reason I thought the post-COVID awakening to #BlackLivesMatter might nudge judges to view police more skeptically. But that hasn’t happened.)

Post-COVID court adds features to trial work both sides will have to contend with. Wearing masks, for example, has benefits and disadvantages. I like a jury to see my client full face. It humanizes him. God knows they’ll be seeing his mug shot introduced into evidence. Nice to have that countered with the face of a real person sitting in front of them.

But having a detective wear a silly-looking face covering isn’t great for the prosecution. It cuts back on his ability to be charming, convincing, and all-knowing — something always helpful to defense.

I like sitting next to my client and being able to whisper a word into his ear.  That’s a big loss if we can’t get more than six feet apart. But the good side is having him that far away curtails his ability to interrupt my focus, take notes, and solidify my cross. Every front has a back.

Whatever the obstacles and changes, trials have to get restarted. Until and unless judges are going to seriously reconsider setting lower bail or approve ankle bracelets over jail, it’s not fair to leave thousands of people behind bars promising that someday “soon” trials will restart.

The backlog of cases awaiting trial is already huge and only getting bigger.  None of the plans to restart trials may be ideal, but everyone’s going to have to get used to features they don’t like. (And I’m not even touching on the issue of how COVID-19 will likely impact the likelihood of a jury representative of the community.)

But something’s got to happen. Jailed defendants can’t sit in limbo forever.


Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Biglaw Firm’s Latest Racial Equality Work

In the initial aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, lots of Biglaw firms talked a good game about racial justice in this country. But now that a few months have gone by, we wonder, what have they actually done to work towards those lofty goals?

In the latest episode of The Jabot, I interview Arent Fox partner Eva J. Pulliam about the firm’s newly launched Center For Racial Equality. We chat about the creation of the Center and what motivated the firm to do so, what the firm’s role is in racial equality, and what are the goals of the center and the projects they’re initially focused on.

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

Happy listening!


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).