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.
“Republican
states
can
move
ahead
with
abortion
pill
lawsuit
in
Texas”: Brendan
Pierson
and
Nate
Raymond
of
Reuters
have this
report.
“Biden
administration
will
leave
it
to
Trump
to
implement
TikTok
ban;
The
ban
goes
into
effect
on
Sunday
unless
the
Supreme
Court
intervenes”: Elizabeth
Schulze,
Devin
Dwyer,
and
Steven
Portnoy
of
ABC
News
have this
report.
“A.G.
Garland
withdraws
federal
execution
drug
protocol
following
review;
‘[T]here
is
significant
uncertainty
about
whether
the
use
of
pentobarbital
as
a
single-drug
lethal
injection
for
execution
treats
individuals
humanely,’
Garland
wrote”: Chris
Geidner
has this
post at
his
Substack
site.
“Riggs,
Griffin
spar
over
proper
forum
for
NC
Supreme
Court
election
dispute”: The
Carolina
Journal
has this
report.
“Arkansas
Supreme
Court
administrator
asks
chief
justice
to
stay
away,
pending
disciplinary
review;
Request
is
latest
stumble
in
rocky
start
for
Chief
Justice
Karen
Baker”: Sonny
Albarado
of
Arkansas
Advocate
has this
report.
“Cookies,
Cocktails
and
Mushrooms
on
the
Menu
as
Justices
Hear
Bank
Fraud
Case;
In
trying
to
find
the
line
between
false
statements
and
misleading
ones
in
the
case
of
a
Chicago
politician,
members
of
the
Supreme
Court
posed
colorful
questions”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
Several
years
ago,
I
wrote
an
article
arguing
that
law
schools
should
have
more
adjunct
professors
so
that
law
students
can
learn
legal
subjects
from
professors
who
actively
practice
law.
As
a
law
student,
I
had
excellent
adjunct
professors,
and
law
schools
might
even
save
money
if
they
rely
more
on
part-time
professors
rather
than
hire
additional
full-time
educators.
Recently,
I
was
speaking
with
a
colleague
about
our
favorite
law
school
professors,
and
this
colleague
conveyed
that
adjunct
professors
often
had
significant
limitations.
This
reminded
me
of
my
own
experiences
with
law
school
adjunct
professors,
and
law
schools
likely
cannot
rely
intensely
on
adjuncts
in
order
to
fill
their
professor
ranks.
Nearly
all
of
the
adjunct
professors
I
know
have
full-time
jobs
elsewhere.
It
is
well-known
that
adjunct
professors
earn
low
compensation
from
their
teaching,
and
most
of
their
income
comes
from
their
full-time
jobs.
As
a
result,
adjunct
professors
often
do
not
prioritize
teaching
over
other
career
obligations.
This
is
especially
true
when
an
adjunct
professor
runs
into
conflicts
that
make
it
difficult
to
complete
tasks
associated
with
being
an
adjunct
and
a
practicing
lawyer
at
the
same
time.
For
instance,
while
I
was
in
law
school,
I
had
an
adjunct
professor
who
was
a
partner
at
a
top
law
firm.
During
the
class,
the
adjunct
professor
told
us
that
he
had
to
begin
a
trial
and
that
his
attention
would
be
focused
more
on
the
trial
until
the
matter
resolved.
During
that
time,
the
professor
was
much
harder
to
reach,
and
a
few
times,
classes
needed
to
be
rescheduled
to
accommodate
his
trial
schedule.
The
case
eventually
resolved,
and
the
adjunct
was
much
more
present
thereafter,
but
our
learning
experience
was
impacted
for
weeks
while
he
juggled
his
responsibilities
as
trial
counsel
with
his
responsibilities
as
an
adjunct
professor.
Adjunct
professors
might
also
be
more
difficult
to
reach
for
office
hours
or
other
outside-the-classroom
reasons.
This
might
be
due
to
the
fact
that
adjunct
professors
do
not
always
have
offices
on
campus
like
other
professors
and
may
not
be
required
to
keep
regular
office
hours
as
is
often
the
policy
of
full-time
professors.
Adjunct
law
professors
might
also
simply
just
have
less
free
time
to
interact
with
students
since
they
need
to
handle
work
responsibilities
as
well
as
teaching
duties.
When
I
was
a
law
student,
one
of
my
favorite
adjunct
professors
lived
in
a
different
city
and
commuted
once
a
week
to
the
law
school
to
teach
our
class.
The
professor
did
a
great
job
teaching,
but
due
to
the
distance
the
professor
traveled
to
get
to
class,
I
rarely
interacted
with
this
professor
outside
of
class
as
I
commonly
did
with
full-time
professors.
When
law
students
do
not
have
the
ability
to
interact
with
professors
outside
of
the
classroom,
it
is
more
difficult
to
seek
out
letters
of
recommendation,
career
advice,
or
leads
on
job
opportunities.
Don’t
get
me
wrong,
I
also
had
adjunct
professors
that
did
such
a
good
job
you
would
never
believe
they
had
a
full-time
job
outside
of
teaching.
For
instance,
I
had
one
adjunct
law
professor
who
spent
as
much
time
as
possible
on
campus,
responded
to
student
inquiries
in
a
timely
fashion,
and
graded
final
exams
before
even
my
full-time
professors
had
the
chance
to
upload
their
grades.
However,
adjunct
professors
might
not
be
able
to
provide
the
same
level
of
attention
as
full-time
professors
can.
As
a
result,
law
schools
need
to
have
a
balanced
roster
and
vet
adjunct
professors
to
ensure
that
they
have
the
least
chance
possible
of
letting
their
full-time
pursuits
interfere
with
their
teaching
duties.
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].
Where
does
one
turn
if
you’re
a
prominent
defendant
who
allegedly
lost
massive
amounts
of
money
on
poorly
conceived
bets,
engaged
in
false
bookkeeping,
misled
lending
banks,
while
paying
off
the
multiple
women
he
had
affairs
with?
The
correct
answer
is
Donald
Trump’s
defense
team,
whose
client
managed
to
embody
ALL
of
that
criminal
activity
(and
more!)
and
slide
right
out
of
it
unscathed.
And
sucking
up
to
lawyers
with
the
president’s
ear
when
it
comes
time
to
beg
for
a
pardon
is
at
least
as
useful
as
writing
an
obsequious
essay
in
the
New
York
Times
about
winning
Wisconsin
being
basically
the
same
as
an
acquittal.
Supreme
Court
litigator
and
SCOTUSblog
co-founder
Tom
Goldstein
found
himself
on
the
wrong
end
of
a
harsh
criminal
indictment
yesterday.
The
allegations
of
high
stakes
gambling,
$15+
million
in
personal
debts,
and
paying
four
mistresses
from
the
firm
coffers
approached
“Wayne
Brady
on
Chappelle’s
Show”
levels
of
surprising
pimp
turns.
Josh
Blackman
has
a
piece
in
the
Volokh
Conspiracy
today
comparing
Goldstein’s
oral
arguments
before
the
Supreme
Court
with
the
timeline
of
the
indictment
and
suggests
that
he
was
losing
millions
and
then
turning
around
and
arguing
twice
before
the
Supreme
Court
in
the
course
of
a
month
all
while
juggling
multiple
relationships
and,
folks,
this
is
what
peak
performance
looks
like.
Facing
all
these
charges,
the
self-professed
Democrat
—
as
of
his
NYT
essay
arguing
that
the
criminal
justice
system
should
yield
to
the
electoral
college
—
ran
right
to
Trump’s
team.
Lauro
and
Kise,
probably
the
only
personal
Trump
lawyers
who
aren’t
expected
to
take
over
the
Justice
Department,
successfully
ran
out
the
clock
on
Trump’s
various
criminal
cases.
While
Kise stumbled
in
the
New
York
hush
money
case,
it
didn’t
matter
when
the
court
sentenced
Trump
to
the
criminal
justice
equivalent
of
a
divorced
dad
handing
his
kid
two
bottles
of
Jack
and
the
keys
to
his
car.
Meanwhile,
in
the
D.C.
interference
case,
the
Supreme
Court
delivered
a
solid
for
the
team
in
rewriting
the
Constitution
to
retroactively
legalize
coups
and
in
the
Florida
classified
documents
case
Aileen
Cannon
did
Aileen
Cannon
stuff.
All
in
all,
a
pretty
successful
run.
Which
is
not
necessarily
a
knock
on
their
lawyering
skills
in
a
straight
up
litigation
—
it’s
comically
clear
Kise
wasn’t
in
full
control
of
the
New
York
case
—
but
as
they
say,
good
lawyers
know
the
law
and
great
lawyers
know
someone
with
federal
pardon
power.
Making
this
—
if
the
indictment
is
to
be
believed
—
the
best
bet
Goldstein’s
made
in
awhile.
(Photo
by
Collection
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
via
Getty
Images)
Nǐ
Hǎo
folks,
it’s
time
to
learn
Mandarin!
For
starters,
Congress
is
scrambling
now
that
they
TikTok
ban
is
upon
us
and
no
on
swooped
in
to
save
them
from
their
bold
posturing
about
the
social
media
platform
that
they’d
hoped
would
be
bought
by
a
company
who
could
spy
on
citizens
for
nice,
American
reasons
like
selling
vitamin
supplements
or
radicalizing
them
against
wokeness:
Congress
panics
realizing
no
one
is
going
to
buy
TikTok
before
the
ban
(a
problem
they
created!),
with
Sen.
Schumer
saying:
“ It’s
clear
that
more
time
is
needed
to
find
an
American
buyer
and
not
disrupt
the
lives
and
livelihoods
of
millions
of
Americans
of
so
many
influencers…
pic.twitter.com/Gy95xHoD9j
What
does
learning
Mandarin
have
to
do
with
any
of
this?
In
the
days
leading
up
to
the
TikTok
ban,
thousands
of
Americans
decided
to
jump
ship
rather
than
go
down
with
it.
So
many
people
migrated
to
the
Chinese
platform
Xiaohungshu
(Red
Note)
that
it
quickly
became
the
most
downloaded
app.
Congress
cloaked
their
speech
suppression
as
a
matter
of
national
security
and
preventing
data
collection,
but
if
that
was
the
goal
they’ve
failed
miserably.
So
much
data
is
being
collected
and
exchanged
that
decades
of
residual
Red
Scare
propaganda
is
being
undone
in
real
time.
America
positions
itself
as
a
veritable
land
of
milk
and
honey.
Military
budgets
are
cool
and
all,
but
significant
aspect
of
America’s
global
dominance
depends
on
it
being
a
cultural
hegemon
—
that’s
why
the
Pentagon
has
had
their
hand
in
the
Marvel
universe.
The
government’s
hard
earned
cultural
hegemony,
or
soft
power,
is
getting
positively
shattered
as
Americans
flock
to
XHS.
After
less
than
a
week
on
the
app,
day
to
day
life
is
looking
a
lot
less
like
“Land
of
the
Free”
and
more
like
the
land
of
“You
live
like
this?”:
it’s
so
dystopian
to
keep
being
like
“no
that
wasn’t
propaganda,
we
really
do
that,
and
it’s
actually
worse
than
you
thought”
Remember
how
Trump
ran
on
White
Supremacy
bringing
grocery
costs
down
and
proceeded
to
back
pedal
on
that
promise
as
soon
as
he
won?
You
know
who
is
doing
a
phenomenal
job
of
making
it
look
like
everyone
can
afford
to
eat
healthily
on
a
budget
in
China?
Random
Xiaohongshu
users:
$6.55
would
barely
cover
the
tip
if
you
got
lunch
at
a
sit-down
spot
in
Manhattan!
It
would
be
one
thing
if
2025’s
cross
cultural
experience
only
cut
through
the
propaganda
Netizens
have
been
given
about
America,
but
the
exposure
is
cutting
through
the
propaganda
we
give
ourselves.
Remember
the
days
when
Fox
could
bring
up
boogeymen
like
the
Chinese
“social
credit
score”
and
normalization
of
child
labor
to
scare
their
listers
in
to
submission?
That’s
going
to
be
a
little
harder
to
do
when
you
hear
that
that’s
fake
straight
from
the
horse’s
mouth:
And
the
kicker?
Americans
are
the
ones
with
social
credit
scores
—
we
call
it
a
credit
score.
Try
getting
a
mortgage
without
one.
And
child
labor?
At
least
two
sitting
justices
would
be
totally
okay
with
getting
rid
of
child
labor
laws.
For
many,
this
has
been
an
eye
opening
“Are
we
the
bad
guys?”
moment.
Congress’
decision
to
ban
TikTok
is
cascading
so
poorly
that
an
act
to
extend
the
January
19th
deadline
out
by
270
days
to
flatten
the
curve
has
already
been
introduced.
But
the
damage
has
already
been
done.
Even
if
they
lift
the
ban
entirely,
some
Americans
will
still
platform
jump
out
of
spite.
Ban
whatever
international
app
Americans
jump
to
next
and
they
risk
even
more
discontent
at
a
time
where
all
of
the
branches
have
low
approval
ratings.
We’re
living
in
interesting
times,
things
will
eventually
have
to
come
to
a
head.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Kendrick
Lamar.
Universal
Music
Group.
Drake.
His
defamation
lawsuit
has
some
big
names,
big
accusations,
and
big
money
in
the
balance.
With
things
this
heavy,
it
may
help
to
take
a
moment
to
step
back
and
appreciate
all
of
the
posturing
going
on.
For
that,
let’s
take
a
quick
aside.
You
ever
see
kids
play
fight
until
it
becomes
an
actual
fight
because
a
crowd
shows
up?
One
kid
eggs
on
that
he
can
punch
harder
than
his
friend.
His
friend
defends
his
honor
and
tells
the
challenger
to
squabble
up.
They
go
at
it
for
a
bit
with
light
jabs.
The
kid
who
started
it
yells
out
“That’s
all
you
got?!”
and
laughs
with
the
crowd.
The
other
kid
lands
a
haymaker
—
first
kid
runs
off
and
grabs
an
adult.
Or,
put
differently:
Drake
on
“Taylor
Made
Freestyle”:
“I
know
you
in
that
NY
apartment
struggling
right
now
on
that
notepad
doing
lyrical
gymnastics…my
boy
you
better
have
a
quintuple
entendre
on
that
shit…
some
shit
I
don’t
even
understand…
we
waiting
on
you.”
Back
to
the
grownups
playing.
Kendrick
Lamar’s
number
of
tweets
during
and
after
the
beef
was
only
5-6
above
Pauline
Newman’s:
Links
to
finished
songs
and
that’s
it.
Drake’s
twitter
fingers
on
the
other
hand
were
full
blown
events
filled
with
surprise
snippets
of
songs,
some
fake,
inside
jokes,
and
threats
to
drop
the
one
track
that
would
end
the
entire
thing
jokingly
referred
to
as
the
“Red
Button”:
Clear
provocation,
but
it
goes
further:
Drake
went
out
of
his
way
to
tell
Kai
Cenat
—
one
of
the
most
popular
streamers
in
the
world
—
to
stay
online
so
that
his
track
Family
Matters
could
get
extra
coverage.
Now
that
the
rap
battle
didn’t
go
Drake’s
way,
Cenat’s
now
being
named
in
the
defamation
lawsuit:
Drake
texted
Kai
Cenat
during
the
beef
to
tell
him
to
“Stay
on
stream”
to
react
to
his
diss
to
Kendrick
Lamar
Now
he
includes
Kai
Cenat
in
Federal
Documents
complaining
about
Kai
reacting
to
a
diss
record.
And
he’s
not
just
stopping
there.
Several
huge
streamers
are
caught
up
in
the
blowback:
Drake’s
new
lawsuit
alleges
that
UMG
allowed
content
creators
such
as
Kai
Cenat,
NoLifeShaq,
RDC
Gaming,
Zias
and
CartierFamily
to
monetize
reaction
videos
to
“Not
Like
Us”
without
enforcing
copyright
claims.
pic.twitter.com/ZXcDqcJ2c9
Being
mad
at
UMG
for
not
enforcing
copyright
claims
after
Drake
wanted
them
to
post
reaction
videos
to
Family
Matters
to
help
his
numbers
is
the
adult
version
of
being
mad
at
the
teacher
for
not
stopping
the
fight
you
started.
One
of
the
interesting
this
about
this
particular
rap
beef
is
that
some
of
the
tracks
dropped
within
minutes
of
each
other.
That’s
why
RDC
are
wearing
the
same
clothes
in
this
video
when
they
reacted
to
Family
Matters
by
Drake
and
Meet
The
Grahams
by
Kendrick
Lamar:
Both
songs
functionally
got
the
same
amount
of
coverage:
This
is
what
happens
when
you
egg
on
Pulitzer
Prize
winners
in
a
word
fight
and
fail
to
factor
in
the
crowd
you
created.
Best
of
luck
to
whatever
is
left
of
Drake’s
career
after
this
suit.
Even
if
he
wins
the
suit,
the
RDC
skits
that
will
make
fun
of
him
running
to
the
courts
over
prose
will
be
legendary.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
It
is
long
past
time
to
recognize
the
will
of
the
American
people.
In
keeping
with
my
oath
and
duty
to
Constitution
and
country,
I
affirm
what
I
believe
and
what
three-fourths
of
the
states
have
ratified:
the
28th
Amendment
is
the
law
of
the
land,
guaranteeing
all
Americans
equal
rights
and
protections
under
the
law
regardless
of
their
sex.
—
Joe
Biden
said
in
a
statement
today
he
considers
the
Equal
Rights
Amendment
duly
ratified.
In
2020
Virginia
became
the
38th
(and
final
state
needed)
to
ratify
the
ERA.
However,
though
the
number
of
states
needed
for
ratification
has
been
met,
Congress
imposed
a
time
limit
on
states’
ratification,
meaning
there’s
still
an
ongoing
legal
question
on
whether
we
have
an
official
28th
Amendment.
Indeed,
the
leader
of
the
National
Archives
confirmed
their
position
that
the
amendment
cannot
be
certified
because “the
underlying
legal
and
procedural
issues
have
not
changed.”And
a
Biden
administration
official
said
the
president
is
not
directing
the
National
Archive
to
certify
the
amendment.
US
President
Joe
Biden
delivers
a
prime-time address
to
the
nation
in
the
Oval
Office
of
the
White
House
in
Washington,
DC,
US,
on
Thursday,
Oct.
19,
2023.
Photographer:
Jonathan
Ernst/Reuters/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images
WASHINGTON
—
In
a
final
push
to
lay
a
strong
cybersecurity
foundation
for
the
incoming
administration,
President
Joe
Biden
approved
an
executive
order
early
today
that
addresses
lessons
learned
in
the
cyber
realm
over
the
past
four
years,
distinctly
calling
for
practices
that
would
protect
commercial
satellite
systems
against
cyber
attacks.
“The
goal
is
to
better
understand
how
to
better
protect
and
secure
these
systems
and
stay
ahead
of
new
threats,”
Anne
Neuberger,
outgoing
deputy
national
security
advisor
for
cybersecurity
and
emerging
tech,
told
reporters
in
a
call
prior
to
the
order’s
release.
The
executive
order
mandates
the
development
of
new
cyber
contract
requirements
for
“agency-procured”
space
systems,
which
include
the
protection
of
command
and
control
space
systems
and
the
use
of
“secure
hardware
and
software
development
practices.”
“Russia’s
attack
of
Ukraine’s
commercially
provided
military
satellite
communications
systems
the
evening
before
it
invaded
Ukraine
demonstrated
the
devastating
impacts
disruption
of
space
infrastructure
can
bring,”
a
fact
sheet
on
the
executive
order
sent
to
reporters
read.
“Cybersecurity
threats
to
space
systems
have
risen
dramatically,
threatening
global
critical
infrastructure
and
communications.”
Additionally,
Biden’s
order
calls
for
the
National
Cyber
Director
to
perform
inventory
on
space
ground
systems
and
give
recommendations
to
improve
cyber
defenses,
adding
that
the
disruption
of
such
systems
“can
bring
global
commerce
to
a
halt
and
seriously
impact
national
security.”
The
mandates
published
today
have
long
been
seen
as
necessary
by
the
cybersecurity
and
space
communities.
For
example,
just
last
month
the
head
of
the
Space
Force’s
Space
Development
Agency
Derek
Tournear
said
that
one
of
his
biggest
worries
is
ensuring
cybersecurity
across
interconnected
mesh
networks
made
up
of
large
numbers
of
small
satellites
—
such
as
the
agency’s
planned
data
transfer
layer
and
the
increasing
numbers
of
commercial
internet
mega-constellations
in
low
Earth
orbit.
Last
spring,
the
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency
(CISA)
published
a
white
paper
listing
several
recommendations
for
space
commercial
systems,
contending
that
there
is
an
increased
threat
to
such
systems
as
space
becomes
more
integrated
into
daily
life.
The
report
added
that
if
there
are
not
appropriate
cybersecurity
precautions
in
place,
“adversaries
can
access
vulnerabilities
within
connected
space
systems
to
degrade
our
critical
infrastructure
and
place
our
nation
at
risk.”
Some
recommendations
that
CISA
made
included:
protecting
payloads
using
network
segregation
and
segmentation
principles;
limiting
privileges
and
securely
authenticating
users
to
reduce
exposure
to
malware;
ensuring
that
appropriate
protections
and
controls
are
implemented
in
the
design,
operation
and
maintenance
of
ground
segments;
and
design
systems
with
“multiple
layers”
of
defense,
which
include
technical
capabilities
such
as
an
Intrusion
Detection
System.
In
the
event
that
a
commercial
space
system
belonging
to
the
federal
government
does
undergo
a
cyber
attack,
the
executive
order
calls
for
“centralized
visibility,”
meaning
that
CISA
has
the
ability
to
conduct
searches
on
all
federal
networks
to
ensure
the
attacker
is
not
living
on
any
other
systems.
“If
we
find
one
particular
technique
that
a
foreign
government
has
used
to
hack
one
particular
federal
agency,
this
now
tasks
CISA
and
gives
CISA
centralized
visibility
to
hunt
across
all
agency
systems
to
ensure
we’re
defending
against
this
attack
broadly,”
Neuberger
said
Wednesday.
According
to
analysis
by
Law360
Pulse,
investors
significantly
upped
the
ante
in
legal
technology
last
year
with
record-setting
funding.
Legal
tech
companies
raised
a
total
of
nearly
$5
billion
($4.98
billion)
in
2024.
This
figure
represents
a
47%
increase
over
the
$3.37
billion
raised
in
2023
and
is
the
highest
recorded
since
Law360
began
tracking
such
investments
in
2021.
The
investment
community’s
increased
focus
on
the
legal
sector
is
likely
fueled
at
least
in
part
by
interest
in
the
potential
for
artificial
intelligence,
although
not
all
investments
were
focused
exclusively
on
AI-enabled
platforms.
The
area
that
received
the
biggest
influx
of
funds
is
legal
practice
management,
with
$1.4
billion,
the
bulk
of
which
went
to
Clio
($900
million)
in
the
largest
legal
tech
capital
raise
in
2024.
Other
areas
in
which
companies
received
significant
investments
include
information
services
($655
million);
governance,
risk
and
compliance
($411.3
million);
and
legal
document
software
($359.2
million).
There
have
been
very
few
times
I’ve
encountered
something
in
life
that
feels
like
it
was
absolutely
made
specifically
for
me.
The Deadpool movie
series
is
one
of
those
few
things.
For
my
sensibilities,
they’re
just
about
perfect.
And
one
of
my
favorite
aspects
of
the
films
is
the
fourth-wall-breaking
nature
of
the
main
character.
Deadpool
will
often
look
into
the
camera
and
talk
to
the
audience
in
a
way
that
acknowledges
that
he’s
in
a
movie.
Examples
of
this
are
legion:
Deadpool
referring
to
the
X-Men
house
smelling
like
Patrick
Stewart,
complaints
in
movie
about
licensing
restrictions
preventing
cool
cameos
by
other
Marvel
characters,
or
the
narration
in
the
2nd
film’s
opener
about
how
the
entire
movie
was
in
a
fact
a
“family
movie.”
The
point
here
is
that
cultural
references
that
would
normally
have
no
place
in
a
superhero
movie
abound.
Some
of
those
references
even
revolve
around
lead
actor
Ryan
Reynold’s
personal
life.
For
instance,
in Deadpool
&
Wolverine,
a
multiverse
version
of
Deadpool
that
is
female,
Ladypool,
was
played
by
Reynolds’
wife,
Blake
Lively. Lively
recently
sued a
director
and
co-star
of
a
film
she
was
in,
Justin
Baldoni,
and
while
Baldoni
had
threatened
to
sue
her
back,
instead
he… sued
the
NY
Times for reporting
on
Lively’s
accusations.
Lively
sued
over
accusations
of
some
very
gross
workplace
behavior,
among
other
things,
whereas
Baldoni
is
arguing,
um,
that
the
NY
Times
reporting
on
Lively’s
accusations
is
defamation
and…
fraud?
Those
accusations
included,
for
instance,
Baldoni
attempting
to
pressure
Lively
over
her
physique
in
the
movie
shortly
after
she
had
a
child,
sharing
inappropriate
content
with
castmembers,
and
talking
openly
about
sexual
topics.
Baldoni,
meanwhile,
has
been
quite
famous
for
portraying
himself
as
a
really
nice
guy
and
talking
openly
about
how
he’s
a
“feminist.”
What
does
any
of
this
have
to
do
with Deadpool?
Well,
another
multiverse
character
that
shows
up
is
Nicepool,
an
unmasked,
long-haired
version
of
the
titular
character.
And
fans
noticed
some
similarities
to
the
details
surrounding the
accusations
Lively
has
made
against
Baldoni.
The
particular
moments
in Deadpool
&
Wolverine that
echo
Lively’s
claims
against
Baldoni
include
Nicepool’s
lines
about
Ladypool
“snapping
back”
into
shape
after
having
a
baby
and
following
that
up
with
“It’s
okay,
I
identify
as
a
feminist”—since
Baldoni
touts
his
status
as
a
feminist
in
his
podcast.
A
deleted
scene
in Deadpool
&
Wolverine also
saw
Nicepool
making
reference
to
a
feminist
podcast;
that
latter
scene
in
particular
helped
the
“Baldoni
is
Nicepool?”
theory
go
viral.
And
viral
it
went,
indeed.
Major
entertainment
media
sources
even
picked
this
up
and
ran
with
it.
I
will
make
no
claims
as
to
the
veracity
of
Lively’s
claims
for
the
purposes
of
this
post.
I
will
say
that
every
action
Baldoni
has
taken
since
appears
to
be
designed
to
keep
those
claims
in
the
headlines
for
as
long
and
as
loud
as
possible.
And
the
fact
that,
despite
suggesting
he
would
sue
Lively
directly,
he
hasn’t…
seems
telling.
Also,
suing
the
New
York
Times
for
reporting
on
all
of
this?
That
is
a
very
silly
gambit
unlikely
to
end
in
any
kind
of
victory
for
Baldoni
and
most
certainly
Streisanding
the
attention
on
the
accusations
against
him
through
the
proverbial
roof.
But
Baldoni
wasn’t
done
there.
Once
the
speculation
about
Nicepool
started,
he
fired
off
a
litigation
hold
to
Disney
and
Marvel,
once
again
propelling
all
of
this
back
into
the
news.
According
to Variety,
Baldoni’s
lawyers
are
using
the
accusation
as
grounds
for
issuing
a
litigation
hold
letter
which
calls
on
Disney
and
Marvel
Studios
to
retain
“documents
and
data”
in
regards
to
Baldoni
and
“Nicepool.”
The
litigation
letter
presented
by
Baldoni’s
team
asks
Marvel
and
Disney
to
preserve
“any
and
all
documents
relating
to
the
development
of
the
‘Nicepool’
character”
in
addition
to
“communications
relating
to
the
development,
writing,
and
filming
of
storylines
and
scenes
featuring
‘Nicepool’”
and
“all
documents
relating
to
or
reflecting
a
deliberate
attempt
to
mock,
harass,
ridicule,
intimidate,
or
bully
Baldoni
through
the
character
of
‘Nicepool.’”
It’s
hard
to
see
the
strategy
here.
I
suppose
that
perhaps
there
might
be
some
utility
in
building
towards
a
defamation
and/or
harassment
case
using
whatever
can
be
dug
up
from
Disney
and
Marvel.
But,
frankly,
I
doubt
it
will
be
much.
And
the
content
that
appears
in
the
movie
is
very
much
going
to
be
protected
speech
on
First
Amendment
grounds,
given
its
parody
nature
and
the
extremely
veiled
references
it
makes
(if
it’s
even
making
those
references
at
all).
Using
myself
as
a
convenient
test
case,
I
had
zero
idea
who
Baldoni
was
until
I
caught
wind
of
this
whole
mess
with
Lively,
his
suit
against
the
New
York
Times,
and
most
recently
this
legal
notice
sent
to
Disney
and
Marvel.
Now
I
don’t
know
that
I
could
forget
his
name,
his
image,
nor
the
accusations
leveled
against
him
even
if
I
tried.
So
if
the
impetus
for
all
this
action
by
Baldoni
was
over
anger
at
the
public
nature
of
these
accusations,
well,
it
seems
he
is
working
against
that
purpose
at
the
moment.
There
have
been
very
few
times
I’ve
encountered
something
in
life
that
feels
like
it
was
absolutely
made
specifically
for
me.
The Deadpool movie
series
is
one
of
those
few
things.
For
my
sensibilities,
they’re
just
about
perfect.
And
one
of
my
favorite
aspects
of
the
films
is
the
fourth-wall-breaking
nature
of
the
main
character.
Deadpool
will
often
look
into
the
camera
and
talk
to
the
audience
in
a
way
that
acknowledges
that
he’s
in
a
movie.
Examples
of
this
are
legion:
Deadpool
referring
to
the
X-Men
house
smelling
like
Patrick
Stewart,
complaints
in
movie
about
licensing
restrictions
preventing
cool
cameos
by
other
Marvel
characters,
or
the
narration
in
the
2nd
film’s
opener
about
how
the
entire
movie
was
in
a
fact
a
“family
movie.”
The
point
here
is
that
cultural
references
that
would
normally
have
no
place
in
a
superhero
movie
abound.
Some
of
those
references
even
revolve
around
lead
actor
Ryan
Reynold’s
personal
life.
For
instance,
in Deadpool
&
Wolverine,
a
multiverse
version
of
Deadpool
that
is
female,
Ladypool,
was
played
by
Reynolds’
wife,
Blake
Lively. Lively
recently
sued a
director
and
co-star
of
a
film
she
was
in,
Justin
Baldoni,
and
while
Baldoni
had
threatened
to
sue
her
back,
instead
he… sued
the
NY
Times for reporting
on
Lively’s
accusations.
Lively
sued
over
accusations
of
some
very
gross
workplace
behavior,
among
other
things,
whereas
Baldoni
is
arguing,
um,
that
the
NY
Times
reporting
on
Lively’s
accusations
is
defamation
and…
fraud?
Those
accusations
included,
for
instance,
Baldoni
attempting
to
pressure
Lively
over
her
physique
in
the
movie
shortly
after
she
had
a
child,
sharing
inappropriate
content
with
castmembers,
and
talking
openly
about
sexual
topics.
Baldoni,
meanwhile,
has
been
quite
famous
for
portraying
himself
as
a
really
nice
guy
and
talking
openly
about
how
he’s
a
“feminist.”
What
does
any
of
this
have
to
do
with Deadpool?
Well,
another
multiverse
character
that
shows
up
is
Nicepool,
an
unmasked,
long-haired
version
of
the
titular
character.
And
fans
noticed
some
similarities
to
the
details
surrounding the
accusations
Lively
has
made
against
Baldoni.
The
particular
moments
in Deadpool
&
Wolverine that
echo
Lively’s
claims
against
Baldoni
include
Nicepool’s
lines
about
Ladypool
“snapping
back”
into
shape
after
having
a
baby
and
following
that
up
with
“It’s
okay,
I
identify
as
a
feminist”—since
Baldoni
touts
his
status
as
a
feminist
in
his
podcast.
A
deleted
scene
in Deadpool
&
Wolverine also
saw
Nicepool
making
reference
to
a
feminist
podcast;
that
latter
scene
in
particular
helped
the
“Baldoni
is
Nicepool?”
theory
go
viral.
And
viral
it
went,
indeed.
Major
entertainment
media
sources
even
picked
this
up
and
ran
with
it.
I
will
make
no
claims
as
to
the
veracity
of
Lively’s
claims
for
the
purposes
of
this
post.
I
will
say
that
every
action
Baldoni
has
taken
since
appears
to
be
designed
to
keep
those
claims
in
the
headlines
for
as
long
and
as
loud
as
possible.
And
the
fact
that,
despite
suggesting
he
would
sue
Lively
directly,
he
hasn’t…
seems
telling.
Also,
suing
the
New
York
Times
for
reporting
on
all
of
this?
That
is
a
very
silly
gambit
unlikely
to
end
in
any
kind
of
victory
for
Baldoni
and
most
certainly
Streisanding
the
attention
on
the
accusations
against
him
through
the
proverbial
roof.
But
Baldoni
wasn’t
done
there.
Once
the
speculation
about
Nicepool
started,
he
fired
off
a
litigation
hold
to
Disney
and
Marvel,
once
again
propelling
all
of
this
back
into
the
news.
According
to Variety,
Baldoni’s
lawyers
are
using
the
accusation
as
grounds
for
issuing
a
litigation
hold
letter
which
calls
on
Disney
and
Marvel
Studios
to
retain
“documents
and
data”
in
regards
to
Baldoni
and
“Nicepool.”
The
litigation
letter
presented
by
Baldoni’s
team
asks
Marvel
and
Disney
to
preserve
“any
and
all
documents
relating
to
the
development
of
the
‘Nicepool’
character”
in
addition
to
“communications
relating
to
the
development,
writing,
and
filming
of
storylines
and
scenes
featuring
‘Nicepool’”
and
“all
documents
relating
to
or
reflecting
a
deliberate
attempt
to
mock,
harass,
ridicule,
intimidate,
or
bully
Baldoni
through
the
character
of
‘Nicepool.’”
It’s
hard
to
see
the
strategy
here.
I
suppose
that
perhaps
there
might
be
some
utility
in
building
towards
a
defamation
and/or
harassment
case
using
whatever
can
be
dug
up
from
Disney
and
Marvel.
But,
frankly,
I
doubt
it
will
be
much.
And
the
content
that
appears
in
the
movie
is
very
much
going
to
be
protected
speech
on
First
Amendment
grounds,
given
its
parody
nature
and
the
extremely
veiled
references
it
makes
(if
it’s
even
making
those
references
at
all).
Using
myself
as
a
convenient
test
case,
I
had
zero
idea
who
Baldoni
was
until
I
caught
wind
of
this
whole
mess
with
Lively,
his
suit
against
the
New
York
Times,
and
most
recently
this
legal
notice
sent
to
Disney
and
Marvel.
Now
I
don’t
know
that
I
could
forget
his
name,
his
image,
nor
the
accusations
leveled
against
him
even
if
I
tried.
So
if
the
impetus
for
all
this
action
by
Baldoni
was
over
anger
at
the
public
nature
of
these
accusations,
well,
it
seems
he
is
working
against
that
purpose
at
the
moment.
Jordan
Chris
