Category: News Feeds

One
of
the
things
I
liked
most
about
working
at
a
Biglaw
firm
was
the
pro
bono
opportunities
attorneys
at
such
firms
typically
often
have. Many
Biglaw
firms
have
established
relationships
with
various
pro
bono
legal
organizations,
and
attorneys
at
the
Biglaw
shop
at
which
I
worked
assisted
domestic
violence
victims,
children
facing
deportation
proceedings,
and
pursued
other
pro
bono
matters. Since
starting
my
own
practice,
I
have
discovered
that
it
can
be
difficult
for
small
firm
lawyers
to
complete
pro
bono
work
in
a
similar
way
to
that
of
many
Biglaw
lawyers.

One
reason
why
pro
bono
work
is
more
difficult
for
small
firm
lawyers
is
that
time
is
typically
at
more
of
a
premium. 
Numerous
lawyers
who
work
at
a
small
firm
need
to
complete
administrative
and
marketing
tasks
that
attorneys
at
Biglaw
firms
often
do
not
have
to. In
addition,
the
amount
of
billable
hours
a
small
firm
lawyer
records
generally
has
a
direct
correlation
to
the
yearly
earnings
of
a
small
firm
lawyer.
If
a
small
firm
lawyer
spends
time
on
pro
bono
assignments,
this
can
take
time
away
from
billable
work,
which
can
lead
to
a
reduction
in
receipts.

Biglaw
lawyers
often
do
not
have
their
compensation
directly
correlated
to
spending
more
time
on
billable
work
than
pro
bono
assignments.
Indeed,
some
Biglaw
firms
only
permit
associates
to
be
eligible
for
bonuses
if
they
complete
a
set
number
of
pro
bono
assignments. Moreover,
since
Biglaw
shops
charge
more
money
for
billable
work,
there
is
generally
more
money
to
go
around
so
that
attorneys
can
work
on
pro
bono
assignments
if
they
wish.

Another
reason
why
pro
bono
work
is
more
prevalent
at
Biglaw
shops
is
that
pro
bono
work
is
usually
more
beneficial
for
Biglaw
shops
than
for
smaller
law
firms. Associates
at
large
law
firms
might
not
have
the
chance
to
earn
hands-on
practical
experience
since
clients
may
not
want
young
attorneys
to
appear
in
court
on
the
larger
matters
handled
by
such
firms. Indeed,
many
junior
associates
may
spend
the
bulk
of
their
time
simply
conducting
legal
research
and
drafting
memoranda
explaining
the
results
of
such
research.

Pro
bono
work
can
present
an
excellent
opportunity
for
young
lawyers
at
Biglaw
shops
to
gain
practical
experience. 
Supervisors
at
a
Biglaw
shop
might
have
to
answer
fewer
questions
if
they
send
a
junior
associate
to
court
on
a
pro
bono
matter
than
if
they
would
on
a
larger
billable
matter
for
their
regular
clients. In
addition,
during
slow
periods,
pro
bono
work
can
help
fill
the
time
and
give
associates
something
to
do
that
can
make
them
more
experienced
when
they
handle
similar
tasks
for
paying
clients.

In
addition,
Biglaw
firms
might
get
more
publicity
out
of
completing
pro
bono
work
than
smaller
law
firms
do. Biglaw
shops
usually
publicize
the
pro
bono
efforts
of
their
attorneys
in
order
to
generate
good
publicity. This
is
often
important
for
Biglaw
shops
in
order
to
counterbalance
some
of
the
less-appealing
work
they
complete
for
paying
clients. Smaller
law
firms
do
not
have
the
same
publicity
infrastructure
that
Biglaw
shops
have,
so
there
is
less
of
an
incentive
to
do
good
work
in
order
to
earn
praise. This
can
lead
to
fewer
pro
bono
hours
completed
by
small
firm
lawyers.

All
told,
many
lawyers
who
work
at
smaller
law
firms
would
probably
work
on
pro
bono
matters
if
it
did
not
hurt
their
bottom
lines
and
if
incentives
were
aligned
to
prompt
pro
bono
work. If
a
lawyer
is
the
type
of
person
who
likes
to
complete
pro
bono
matters,
they
should
keep
in
mind
that
pro
bono
work
is
oftent
more
difficult
to
complete
as
a
small
firm
lawyer.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at




[email protected].

The
Biglaw
firm
Dechert
recently
filed
a
New
York
state
lawsuit
against
a
former
senior
project
attorney,
Kathleen
Fay,
over
$132,000+
in
compensation
the
firm
says
it
mistakenly
paid.
Fay
worked
for
Dechert
in
various
capacities
between
2018
and
2024.
She
was
initially
hired
on
a
year-long
contract
that
was
later
extended,
but,
based
on
client
and
business
needs,
transitioned
to
a
temporary
employee.
That
employment
contract
specified
she
would
only
be
paid
on
an
hourly
basis
for
work
specifically
assigned.

But
that
led
to
a
whoopsie,
which,
according
to
Dechert,
led
to
the
overpayment.
Per
the
complaint,
“Upon
learning
of
the
administrative
error
in
mid-May
2024,
Plaintiff
demanded
that
Defendant
repay
the
erroneous
payments
for
unearned
wages,
but
Defendant
has
refused
to
comply.”

Fay
hit
back
at
the
allegations
against
her,
as

reported
by
Law.com:

Fay,
who
works
at
Fordham
University
School
of
Law,
hit
back
at
the
suit,
saying
in
an
email
that
“Dechert’s
accusations
are
baseless
and
its
actions
are
unethical.”

“I
do
not
believe
Dechert
would
have
tried
to
recoup
money
had
I
not
found
a
new
job
just
when
work
started
to
pick
up
again
at
the
firm,”
she
added,
while
highlighting
Am
Law
100
reporting
that
indicated
the
firm
earned
over
$1.29
billion
in
revenue
in
2024,
with
equity
partners
earning
over
$3.5
million
per
year.

“I
worked
for
Mark
Cheffo
and
Sheila
Birnbaum’s
product
liability
team
for
over
a
decade,
and
am
now
a
law
librarian
earning
less
than
a
paralegal.
It
is
unfortunate
that
Dechert
has
chosen
to
remove
my
vested
funds
from
my
401K
account
and
to
bully
me
in
public.
However,
the
equities
and
the
law
favor
me
and
I
look
forward
to
vindicating
my
rights
and
reputation
in
court.”

The
complaint
alleges
conversion
and
unjust
enrichment,
and
seeks
the
return
of
the
overpayment
along
with
fees
and
legal
costs.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

If
you’re
planning
to
take
the
upcoming
California
bar
exam,
congratulations!
You’re
part
of
a
grand
tradition
of
applicants
thrown
into
chaos
by
that
state’s
unique
blend
of
poor
planning,
bureaucratic
dithering,
and
a
near-mystical
ability
to
make
a
bad
situation
worse.

On
that
last
count,
remember
that
the
upcoming,
outside
administered
test
is
the
product
of
the
California
bar
exam
hemorrhaging
money
like
a
midlevel
associate
buying
rounds
at
a
summer
event.
With
this
crackerjack
budgeting,
the
bar
examiners
managed
—
surprisingly
but
somehow
also
predictably
—
to
drive
the
program
bankrupt.
Rather
than
immediately
seek
a
solution,
they

waited
until

close
to
the
last
minute,
only
to
have
state
bar
authorities
and
the
California
Supreme
Court
dither
long
enough
that
it

crossed

well
beyond
the
last
minute
to
produce
the
chaotic
mess
we’re
in
now.

In
a
vacuum,
the
decision
to
transition
to
a
test
produced
by
Kaplan
and
then
administered
by
Meazure
Learning
is
sound.
Kaplan
has
a
solid
track
record
in
bar
exam
prep
and
that
includes
writing
sample
questions
that
reliably
reflect
exam
success.
And
most
if
not
all
of
the
California
bar
exam’s
problems

could
be
traced
to
its
relationship
with
previous
bar
exam
author,
the
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners
—
a
non-profit
with
roughly $151
MILLION
in
net
assets.
Not
only
did
the
NCBE
charge
big
fees,
but
it
imposed
rules
upon
state
exams
that
stifled
remote
testing
locations
in
favor
of
massive
venues,
which
in
California
resulted
in
huge
rental
charges.
 

And
yet,
we
do
not
live
in
a
vacuum.
A
transition
of
this
magnitude
needed
a
year
(or
two)
lead
time.
Instead,
it
got
about
five
months.

Tipsters
report
remote
applicants
unable
to
successfully
take
mock
exams
and
left
with
no
sense
that
a
real
one
will
even
work.
Not
that
things
worked
much
better
for
the
in-person
examinees.
The
in-person
exam
portal
wasn’t
even
functioning
when
it
was
supposed
to
open.
Even
when
the
online
system
works,
there
are
accommodation
concerns,
as
users
can’t
adjust
font
sizes
for
the
essay
box.
So
far,
reports
suggest
the
California
bar
is
mostly
rejecting
those
requesting
paper
copies
of
the
exam
for
accommodation
reasons.

But
we
might
be
getting
ahead
of
ourselves…
one
applicant
wrote
ATL,
“we
don’t
yet
know
where
we
are
taking
the
exam.”
Why
worry
about
the
in-person
exam
portal
when
applicants
don’t
even
know
WHERE
they’re
taking
the
in-person
test?
A

Reddit
post
goes
further,
claiming
that
Meazure
“lied
about
having
several
locations
which
led
people
to
pick
in
person
because
they
thought
it
would
be
close
to
home.”

Another
notes,
“…it’s
entirely
unforeseeable
to
me
that
the
convention
center
is
the
only
option
when
Meazure
Learning
boasts
that
they
have
1000+
testing
locations….”

Getting
out
of
giant
convention
centers
was
one
of
the
primary
selling
points
of
this
plan!
Applicants
are
reporting
that
more
convenient
locations
like
Anaheim
and
Long
Beach
have
disappeared
since
they
first
chose
to
take
the
test
in-person.
Instead,
everyone
in
LA
has
to
go
to
Ontario,
which
is…
not
LA.
I’m
not
even
sure
LA
residents
consider
it
in
the
same
time
zone.

There
are
also
concerns
about
Meazure’s
proctoring,
with
complaints
that
applicants
were
unable
to
complete
the
exam
in
time
or
had
to
wait
hours
to
take
the
mock
exam
and
some
were
kicked
out
of
the
exam
randomly
with
no
explanation.
Meanwhile,
multiple
applicants
say
help
is
impossible
to
find
with
the
California
officials
directing
everyone
to
Meazure
Learning
and
Meazure
directing
everyone
to
California.

Thousands
of
applicants
took
part
in
a
recent
Q&A
session
with
bar
officials,
hoping
for
clarity.
They
do
not
seem
to
have
gotten
it.
Posts
complain
that
the
admins,
who
presumably
had

one
job
—
explain
how
this
test
will
work
—
couldn’t
even
answer
basic
questions
like
what
applicants
are
allowed
to
bring
to
the
exam.

One
tipster
delivered
an
understatement:

“Does
not
feel
well
thought
thru.”

All
of
this
frustration
is
justified,
but
this
rage
shouldn’t
be
limited
to
this
transition
effort…
it
always
sucks
like
this.

The
new
system
promised
more
flexibility
for
in-person
administration
and
seems
to
have,
so
far,
failed.
But
this
just
puts
them
right
back
where
they
would
be
if
they
hadn’t
made
any
changes
at
all.
And

examinees
would
be
suffering
through
freezing
conditions
because
no
one
figured
out
how
to
properly
heat
a
stadium.

Proctoring
issues?
Remember
when
they
ran
an
online
exam
during
COVID
and

decided
to
arbitrarily
flag

one-third
of
applicants
for
cheating?
The
facial
recognition
software
used
by
the
bar
seemed
to
think
“suspicious
behavior”
meant

being
a
human
person
sitting
for
a
test.
Some
applicants
were
flagged
for
looking
away
from
the
screen,
others
for
being
too
quiet
—
which
is
an
odd
standard
to
apply
when
the
exam
instructions
explicitly
tell
you

not
to
make
noise.
And
what
did
the
bar
do?
Rather
than
investigating
the
false
positives
themselves,
they
threw
the
burden
on
the
applicants
to
“prove”
they
weren’t
cheating.

While
saving
money
was
the
impetus
for
the
bar
examiners
making
the
change,
we
welcomed
the
move
it
because
the
previous
system
was
so
thoroughly
broken.
The
issues
might
have
been
slightly
different,
but
the
impact
on
applicants
was
nonetheless
inhumane.
That
doesn’t
justify
what’s
happening
to
the
current
test-takers
but
when
angry
applicants
post
demands
to
undo
the
transition,
bear
in
mind
that
the
prior
system
wasn’t
great
either.

Instead
of
blasting
the
new
guard
and
implicitly
pining
for
the
past,
the
pressure
needs
to
be
on
the
California
authorities
who
allowed
it
to
get
to
this
point.
Why
was
this
done
in
less
than
half
a
year?
Why
didn’t
state
authorities
or
the
courts
either
think
ahead
or
develop
a
contingency
for
being
late?
Once
this
got
pushed
to
the
wall,
why
wasn’t
there
an
emergency
appropriation
to
let
the
test
continue
running
in
the
red
while
the
transition
got
smoothed
out?

This
whole
mess
could
have
been
avoided
if
the
bar
had
planned
ahead
instead
of
waiting
until
financial
ruin
forced
their
hand.
If
they’d
transitioned
to
new
providers
over

years
instead
of

months,
they
might
have
actually
pulled
this
off.
Frankly,
while
it’s
cold
comfort
to
the
current
applicants,
the
new
providers
still
might
successfully
pull
this
off…

Next
February.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

We
have
some
incredibly
unfortunate
news
to
report
out
of
the
Washington,
D.C.,
legal
community,
where
a
two
boutique
law
firm
associates
and
a
law
school
professor
recently
passed
away. 

According
to
news
reports,

Sarah
Lee
Best,
33,
and

Elizabeth
Keys,
33,
both
associates
of
Wilkinson
Stekloff,
and

Kiah
Duggins,
30,
an
aspiring
professor
at
Howard
University
School
of
Law,
are
among
the
victims
of
the
American
Airlines
flight
that
collided
midair
with
an
Army
helicopter
in
Washington,
D.C.,
on
Wednesday
evening.

Best
and
Keys
were
returning
home
from
a
work
trip.
Best,
a

summa
cum
laude
graduate
of
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
Law
School,
clerked
for
three
federal
judges
(Judge
Eugene
E.
Siler
Jr.
on
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Sixth
Circuit;
U.S.
District
Judge
Paul
S.
Diamond
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania;
and
U.S.
District
Judge
John
P.
Cronan
of
the
Southern
District
of
New
York)
prior
to
joining
Wilkinson
Stekloff.
Keys,
a
graduate
of
the
Georgetown
University
Law
Center,
clerked
for
one
federal
judge
(U.S.
District
Judge
Amy
Berman
Jackson
of
the
District
of
Columbia)
before
joining
Wilkinson
Stekloff.
Keys
tragically
died
on
her
birthday.

As
noted
by
the

National
Law
Journal,
founder
Beth
Wilkinson
offered
a
statement
on
behalf
of
the
firm:

Duggins,
a
graduate
of
Harvard
Law
School,
worked
as
a
civil
rights
attorney
with
the
non-profit
Civil
Rights
Corps
where
she
challenged
unconstitutional
policing
and
bail
practices,
and
was
preparing
to
join
the
Howard
University
School
of
Law
in
the
fall
as
a
professor.
University
President
Ben
Vison
III
issued
a
statement
on
her
untimely
death,
per

CBS
News:

It
is
with
profound
sadness
that
the
Howard
University
community
and
the
Howard
University
School
of
Law
have
learned
of
the
passing
of
Professor
Kiah
Duggins,
who
was
among
those
lost
in
the
mid-air
plane
collision
at
Reagan
National
Airport.
We
ask
for
privacy
and
respect
for
Professor
Duggins’
family,
students,
and
colleagues
during
this
difficult
time.

We
here
at
Above
the
Law
would
like
to
extend
our
condolences
to
the
family,
friends,
and
colleagues
of
Sarah
Lee
Best,
Elizabeth
Keys,
and
Kiah
Duggins
during
this
incredibly
difficult
time.

Two
Wilkinson
Stekloff
Associates
Among
Victims
of
DC
Plane
Crash
[National
Law
Journal]

Howard
University
Law
professor
among
victims
of
D.C.
plane
crash
[CBS
News]

---

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

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

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Arkansas
Supreme
Court
chief
justice
says
dispute
over
her
authority
could
lead
to
litigation;
Baker
again
says
she
hopes
to
pick
new
Administrative
Office
of
the
Courts
director”: Tess
Vrbin
of
Arkansas
Advocate
has this
report.

“President
Trump
expects
to
end
birthright
citizenship
with
support
from
Supreme
Court”: Bart
Jansen
of
USA
Today
has this
report.

“Kim
Davis’
lawyer
eager
for
next
step
as
he
argues
same-sex
marriage
case
before
appeals
panel”: Sarah
Ladd
of
Kentucky
Lantern
has this
report.

“Donna
Adelson
gives
surprise
testimony
about
jailhouse
talk
and
family
‘blackmail’”: Jeff
Burlew
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report.

“Justice
Jackson
punches
out
her
frustrations
with
the
conservative
Supreme
Court
in
the
boxing
ring”: Mark
Sherman
and
Lindsay
Whitehurst
of
The
Associated
Press
have this
report.

“Atlanta
family
in
mistaken
FBI
raid
gets
case
before
U.S.
Supreme
Court;
Ruling
could
set
national
precedent
in
cases
against
the
federal
government
and
its
employees”: Rosie
Manins
of
The
Atlanta
Journal-Constitution
has this
report.

Ah,
Steve
King.
Not
the
famed
author
of
horror
fiction,
of
course.
I’m
talking
about
the
former
representative
from
Iowa
who
authored all
kinds
of
political
horror,
instead.
This
fucking
guy
was
perhaps
best
known
for
wanting
a
fence
on
our
southern
border
to
be
of the
electrified
variety,
for
keeping a
Confederate
flag
on
his
desk despite
Iowa
never
being
in
the
Confederacy,
and
for
all
of
the barely-veiled
racism and
anti-Muslim
bigotry
you
can
stomach.

He
also
committed
copyright
infringement,
according
to
the
courts.
Or,
rather,
his
campaign
did
when
it
put
out
a
Facebook
post
using
the
“Success
Kid”
meme
in
order
to
raise
funds,
promising
to
keep
the
memes
flowing
so
as
to
best
trigger
the
libs.

Now,
you
will
notice
that
the
post
makes
what
is
essentially
a non-transformative
use of
the
famous
“Success
Kid”
meme.
That
image
is
also
registered
for
copyright
by
the
mother
of
the
boy
in
the
image,
Laney
Griner.
Griner
threatened
to
sue
and
eventually
did
so,
ultimately
winning
in
court.

Now,
we
cast
fairly
narrow
eyes
at
this
whole
thing.
Griner
was
very
public
that
she
took
action
against
King
not
primarily
out
of
respect
for
copyright
law,
but
because
she
rightly
found
King
to
be
an
abhorrent
person
and
didn’t
want
her
or
her
son
to
be
associated
with
his
campaign.
That
isn’t
a
great
look
in
general
for
the
way
copyright
law
is
supposed
to
work
(it’s
about
protecting
the
work,
not
suppressing
specific
types
of
speech,
even
abhorrent
speech)
but
it
does
help
to
explain
some
of
Griner’s
actions
during
the
court
proceedings.
In
particular,
while
she
sued
for
$50k,
King
offered
to
settle
for
$15k.
Griner refused
and
ultimately
instead
won
$750 in
damages.
No,
I’m
not
missing
a
“k”
in
there.
This
was
a
three-figure
outcome.

But
that
doesn’t
account
for
legal
fees,
which
both
sides
attempted
to
recover.
Both
were
rejected
by
the
court.
King
appealed
that
ruling,
with
the
appeal
making
all
kinds
of
claims
defending
his
use
of
the
meme
that
his
own
legal
team
had
already
conceded
in
court.
Then
King
attempted
to
cite Rule
68
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
That
failed
spectacularly
as
well.

Under
Rule
68,
if
one
party
declines
a
pre-trial
settlement
offer
and
later
receives
a
judgment
smaller
than
that
amount,
the
side
that
rejected
the
settlement
“must
pay
the
costs
incurred
after
the
offer
was
made.”
King
argued
on
appeal
that
attorney’s
fees
are
part
of
those
costs.
But
the
Eighth
Circuit
held
that
the
campaign
“cannot
recover
attorney’s
fees
because
it
is
not
a
prevailing
party.
Under
the
Copyright
Act,
only
prevailing
parties
may
be
awarded
a
reasonable
attorney’s
fee.”

Not
willing
to
take
no
for
an
answer,
but
apparently
very
willing
to
continue
to
pile
up
legal
fees,
King
then
petitioned
SCOTUS
to
hear
the
case
for
those
legal
fees.
He
chiefly
cited
Rule
68
again,
whereas
Griner’s
team
pointed
out
that
this
whole
thing
had
originally
been
decided
on
summary
judgment.
SCOTUS,
unsurprisingly,
declined
to
hear
the
case,
sending
King
packing.

In
comments
since
SCOTUS’
rejection,
King
demonstrates
that
he
hasn’t
changed
one
bit
since
leaving
Congress.

The
way
in
which
we
won
the
case
allowed
us
to
potentially
recover
our
attorneys’
fees
from
the
Plaintiffs.
Our
litigation
team
found
a
silver
bullet
for
lawfare,
but
the
trial
court
refused
to
implement
Rule
68,
under
the
opinion
that
it
could
not
do
so. 

This
is
a
shame
because
the
solution
to
lawfare
may
not
be
passing
new
laws,
but
rather
utilizing
relatively
unused
rules
already
in
existence.
 

In
summary,
the
picture
at
issue
had
been
used
billions
of
times.
I
was
targeted
by
Leftist
copyright
trolls
who
through
the
use
of
lawfare
sought
to
drain
me
of
my
life
savings,
time
and
credibility.
I
will
always
wonder
if
the
jury
award
would
have
been
$1.00
if
the
law
would
have
allowed
it. 

He didn’t win
the
case,
Rule
68
doesn’t
apply
because
copyright
law
says
so,
and
if
he
had
just
let
the
summary
judgment
stand,
this
case
would
have
been
far
less
expensive
for
him
than
it
ended
up
being.

In
other
words,
the
only
one
that
appears
to
want
to
drain
Kings’
life
saving
is
King.
Somehow
I
don’t
think
he’s
quite
reached
the
need
for
those
foodstamps
he
wanted
to
defund
just
yet.

SCOTUS
Tells
Steve
King
To
Go
Away
In
‘Success
Kid’
Case
Over
Legal
Fees

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

The
Trump
FCC
Makes
It
Easier
For
Your
Landlord
And
Your
ISP
To
Collude
To
Rip
You
Off

M.
Night
Shyamalan,
Apple
Evade
Copyright
Lawsuit
By
Filmmaker
For
The
Most
Obvious
Of
Reasons

Advertisers
Aren’t
Thrilled
With
Zuckerberg’s
Embrace
Of
Hate
Speech

*
DOJ
tells
all
US
Attorneys
to
identify
line
prosecutors
to
be
redeployed
to
the
Southern
border.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
ABA
ordered
to
stop
providing
legal
services
to
immigrants.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Fifth
Circuit
rules
that
law
against
selling
guns
to
children
is
unconstitutional.
Because
what
is
a
militia
without
child
soldiers?
[Reuters]

*
Reed
Smith
joins
the
Atlanta
market
after
poaching
from
two
firms.
[Law360]

*
Coldplay
halts
concert
to
read
cease
and
desist
letter.
[LawFuel]

*
Plan
to
expand
Gitmo
to
hold
immigrants
faces
massive
challenges.
[One
First]

* 
Wilkinson
Stekloff
associates
among
victims
in
D.C.
plane
crash.
[National
Law
Journal]

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
Associates
Are
Pissed
About
The
Firm
Picking
Up
Trump:
This
was
obviously
going
to
happen.
Bonus
News!:
Latham
&
Watkins
associates
are
in
for
a
treat!
Elon
May
SLAPP
Tim
Walz
Over
Bad
Mouthing
His
Unique
“Palm
To
Shoulder
Then
Sky
At
45
Degrees”
Gesture:
When
you’re
rich,
you
can
use
the
courts
to
bully
honest
people!
Love
Has
Its
Consequences:
Jackson
Walker
gets
hit
with
a
lawsuit.
Mind
The
Help:
Biglaw
firm
places
limits
on
pro-bono
hours
&
starts
a
wishy
washy
in-person
requirement.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
state’s
House
of
Representatives
voted
to
pass
a
resolution
expressing
their
“commitment
to
restoring
the
definition
of
marriage
as
a
union
between
one
man
and
one
woman,
urging
the
Supreme
Court
to
reconsider
the

Obergefell
v.
Hodges
decision
and
return
authority
over
marriage
laws
to
the
states
and
their
citizens”?

Hint:
The
resolution
continues,
“Obergefell
relies
on
the
dangerous
fiction
of
treating
the
Due
Process
Clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
to
the
Constitution
as
a
font
of
substantive
rights,
a
doctrine
that
strays
from
the
full
meaning
of
the
Constitution
and
exalts
judges
at
the
expense
of
the
people
from
whom
they
derive
their
authority.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

“This
is
going
to
be
a
big
year
for
redefining
our
relationships
with
governments,”
Facebook
Sith
Lord
Mark
Zuckerberg
told
investors
on
an
earnings
call
yesterday.
And
he
wasn’t
kidding!
Zuck
discovered
a
new
and
innovative
way
to
bribe
the
sitting
president. 

What
if
you
pretend
to
lose
a
lawsuit
you
already
won,
and
then
agree
to
fork
over
a
massive
settlement,
while
rolling
over
to
show
your
belly?
It
might
not
maximize
shareholder
value,
but
it
will
definitely
“redefine”
your
relationship
with
the
despot
who
only
recently
threatened
to
throw
you
in
jail.

The


Wall
Street
Journal’s
Annie
Linskey
and
Rebecca
Balhaus
were
first
to
report
details
of
the

settlement
between
the
social
media
company
and
President
Trump.
The
case
was
originally
filed
in
Florida
in
2021,
along
with

similar
complaints
against
Twitter
and
YouTube. 

Trump’s
theory
was
that
the
social
media
platforms
violated
his
First
Amendment
rights
by
tortiously
deplatforming
him
after
he
mounted
a
coup
to
stay
in
power
and
sent
his
goons
to
lay
siege
to
Congress.
Of
course,
only
the
government
can
violate
the
First
Amendment,
and,
according
to
linear
time
—
fake
news!
—
Trump
was
president
when
he
got
booted
on
January
7,
2021.
But
Trump
had
a
solution
for
that,
and
it
was
to
blame
Adam
Schiff.

See,
some
members
of
Congress,
most
notably
Senators
Josh
Hawley
and
Ted
Cruz
called
for
social
media
platforms
to
lose
their
immunity
under
Section
230
of
the
Communications
Decency
Act.
Trump
himself
actually
vetoed
the
defense
budget
in
2020
because
Congress
refused
to
include
a
repeal
of
Section
230.
But
then-Congressman
now-Senator
Schiff
also
made
noises
about
that
a
couple
times,
and
suggested
that
the
platforms
should
do
more
about
COVID
misinformation.
And

that
was
a
threat
that
turned
Facebook,
Twitter,
and
YouTube
into
government
agents,

ipso
fatso
…
First
Amendment
violation!

Perhaps
unsurprisingly,
courts
didn’t
see
it
that
way.
First,
the
cases
were
booted
to
California
consistent
with
the
websites’
terms
of
service.
And
then
Judge
James
Donato
nuked
the
Twitter
suit
in
2022
for
being

defective
in
more
or
less
every
way.
Trump

appealed,
and
the
Meta
and
YouTube
suits
were

put
on
hold
pending
review
by
the
Ninth
Circuit,
since
the
three
cases
were
functionally
identical.
That
case
has
been
languishing
forever,
as
the
parties
bat
around
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
batshit
decision
in

Missouri
v.
Murthy
(AKA
“the
jawboning
case”),
and
then
the
Supreme
Court’s

reversal
on
standing
grounds.
But
in
the
meantime,
Twitter
and
Facebook
(or
X
and
Meta,
if
you’re
opposed
to
deadnaming,
which
is
perfectly
fine
on
both
platforms)
appear
to
have
decided
that
it
would
be
better
to
lose
than
bother
litigating
against
the
mad
king.
And
so
Twitter
filed
a

notice
of
proposed
settlement
in
November,
presumably
because
Twitter
and
the
government
are
now
fused
in
the
imperial
singularity
of
Elon
Musk.
And
yesterday
Zuckerberg
got
out
Meta’s
checkbook
and
cut
a
check
for
$25
million
—
$22
million
for
Trump’s
presidential
library,
and
$3
million
for
legal
fees
and
the
other
plaintiffs,
including
Naomi
Wolf.

In
2020,
Zuckerberg’s
family
charity

funded
various
voting
access
initiatives
through
the
Center
for
Tech
and
Civic
Life.
Helping
Americans
to
vote.
Plus
Facebook
briefly
suppressed
the
virality
of
the
Hunter
Biden
Laptop
(From
Hell!)
story.
And
so
Zuck
became
an
enemy
of
the
right,
even
as
he
leaned
over
backward

not
to
apply
his
platform’s
rules
to
conservatives.
And
when
he
trooped
down
to
Mar-a-Lago
in
November,
Trump
“signaled
that
the
litigation
had
to
be
resolved
before
Zuckerberg
could
be
‘brought
into
the
tent,’”
according
to
the
WSJ. 

To
be
clear,
this
is

not
like
ABC
settling
the
trollsuit
over
the
Stephanopoulos
calling
Trump
and
“adjudicated
rapist”
— or
at
least,
not
exactly. 

That
was
a
credible
claim
that
might
well
have
survived
a
motion
to
dismiss.
This
is
Zuckerberg
writing
a
ten-figure
check
to
buy
off
the
Dear
Leader
and
ensure
that
there
will
be
no
further

antitrust
or
regulatory
actions,
much
less
threats
of
imprisonment.
Zuck
can
integrate
vertically,
horizontally,
or
whichever
way
he
pleases.
He
can

steal
to
feed
his
AI,
with
no
fear
of
prosecution.
And
all
it
takes
is
the
further
enshittification
of
his
platform
and
reckless
endangerment
of
minorities,
plus
the
change
he
dug
out
of
the
couch
in
the
Meta
breakroom.

Sure
it’s
a
bribe.
But
considering
what
he
got
for
it,
it’s
the
deal
of
the
century!

---

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