Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
(Photo
by
Smith
Collection/Gado/Getty
Images)
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
a
recently
filed
proxy
statement,
how
much
did
Apple’s
General
Counsel,
Kate
Adams,
make
in
total
compensation
last
year?
Hint:
Over
the
last
four
years,
Adams
has
sold
off
$140
million
in
company
stock.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
(Photo
by
David
Becker/Getty
Images)
Everybody
who
has
real
power
is
capitulating.
Jeff
Bezos,
the
second-richest
guy
in
the
world,
who’s
worth
about
$250
billion,
gave
up.
He
owns
the
Washington
Post,
of
course,
but
he
didn’t
let
that
newspaper
endorse
Kamala
Harris.
By
nixing
the
endorsement,
Bezos
outraged
his
editorial
board,
caused
talented
reporters
to
quit,
and
cost
the
Post about
200,000
digital
subscribers.
Why
did
Bezos
do
this?
Not
because
Bezos
owns
the Post,
but
because
Bezos
owns
Blue
Origin,
a
space
exploration
firm
that
depends
on
the
federal
government
for
its
future.
With
Donald
Trump
at
the
helm,
the
federal
government
could
destroy
Blue
Origin,
so
Bezos
had
to
capitulate.
For
good
measure,
Bezos
recently
agreed
to
pay
$40
million
to
license
the
rights
to
a
documentary
about
Melania
Trump.
He’s
not
taking
any
chances.
Bezos
is
too
rich,
so
he
has
no
power.
Same
with
Mark
Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg,
the
fourth-richest
guy
in
the
world,
who’s
worth
about
$200
billion,
gave
up.
He
donated
a
million
bucks
to
Trump’s
inauguration,
replaced
Nick
Clegg
(the
prominent
British
politician)
with
Joel
Kaplan
(a
longtime
buddy
of
Trump’s)
as
Facebook’s
head
of
public
policy,
moved
Facebook’s
content
moderation
team
from
blue
California
to
red
Texas,
and
appointed
Dana
White
(the
head
of
the
Ultimate
Fighting
Championship,
who
spoke
at
the
Republican
National
Convention)
to
Facebook’s
board
of
directors.
Why
did
Zuckerberg
do
this?
Because
the
federal
government,
with
Trump
at
the
helm,
can
destroy
Facebook,
so
Zuckerberg
had
to
capitulate.
He’s
too
rich,
so
he
has
no
power.
So,
too,
with
Patrick
Soon-Shiong.
He’s
worth
a
mere
five
or
six
billion,
so
he’s
hardly
worth
talking
about.
Soon-Shiong
owns
the
Los
Angeles
Times.
Like
Bezos
at
the
Post,
Soon-Shiong
forbade
his
newspaper
from
endorsing
Kamala
Harris.
Soon-Shiong
also
announced
plans
to
avoid
having
his
paper
become
a
liberal
echo
chamber
and
to
balance
the
paper’s
editorial
board
with
more
conservative
voices.
Why?
Because
Soon-Shiong
has
business
interests
in
health
care
technology
and
biotechnology,
which
depend
on
the
federal
government
(such
as
the
FDA)
to
survive.
The
federal
government,
with
Trump
at
the
helm,
can
destroy
Soon-Shiong,
so
he
had
to
capitulate.
He’s
too
rich,
so
he
has
no
power.
Bob
Iger’s
basically
a
nobody.
He’s
worth
a
mere
$700
million,
and
he’s
the
CEO
of
the
Walt
Disney
Company.
There
was
no
reason
at
all
for
ABC
News
to
settle
the
defamation
case
that
Trump
brought
against
it.
Trump
insisted
that
George
Stephanopoulos
defamed
him
by
calling
Trump
a
rapist
on
the
air.
But
a
New
York
federal
judge
had
said
that
Trump’s
conduct,
as
found
by
a
jury,
constituted
rape
in
the
usual
sense
of
the
word.
And,
in
any
event,
the
jury
certainly
found
that
Trump
at
least
digitally
penetrated
E.
Jean
Carroll;
how
was
Trump
damaged
by
Stephanopoulos
saying
that
Trump
had
“raped”
E.
Jean
Carroll
rather
than
more
accurately
saying
that
he
“jammed
his
fingers
inside
E.
Jean
Carroll
without
her
consent”?
ABC
News
might
have
fought
this
ridiculous
lawsuit.
But
the
Walt
Disney
Co.
owns
ABC
News.
The
federal
government,
with
Trump
at
the
helm,
can
destroy
the
Walt
Disney
Co.,
so
Iger
had
to
capitulate
and
pay
$15
million
to
a
presidential
foundation
and
museum
to
be
established
by
Trump.
Iger
has
too
many
business
interests,
so
he
has
no
power.
Who’s
left
to
speak
the
truth?
Perhaps
a
few
courageous,
and
independent,
media
outlets.
But
nobody
big
and
important.
They’re
all
too
rich,
so
they
have
to
capitulate.
I’m
afraid
that
only
schlubs
like
me
can
speak
the
truth.
For
what
Above
the
Law
pays
me
for
writing
these
columns,
I’d
be
better
off
if
they
fired
me.
I’m
otherwise
retired,
so
I
don’t
have
to
worry
about
an
employer
canning
me.
My
vast
corporate
empire
is
still
a
few
pennies
short
of
being
worth
a
billion
bucks,
so
I
don’t
have
business
interests
that
Trump
can
punish.
Isn’t
it
funny?
The
meek
have
inherited
the
earth.
Those
of
us
who
don’t
matter
are
more
able
to
speak
truth
to
power
than
those
who
appear
to
be
rich
and
powerful.
This
is
a
dreadful
situation.
But
speak
up!
You’re
the
only
one
who
can.
And
please
do
send
me
a
toothbrush
next
month,
when
you’re
notified
that
I’ve
been
imprisoned.
Mark Herrmann
spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of
The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].
(Photo
by
JOSH
EDELSON/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
It’s
an
overwhelming
sense
of
loss.
People
want
to
do
something
to
help
and
the
reality
is,
I
don’t
know
what
that
is.
But
the
offers
are
there,
and
the
offers
are
tremendously
meaningful.
—
Judy
Keyes,
an
employment
partner
at
Davis
Wright
Tremaine,
in
comments
given
to
Law360,
concerning
the
destruction
of
her
home
due
to
the
raging
California
wildfires.
Keyes
had
been
staying
with
a
colleague
from
the
firm,
and
recently
moved
to
an
Airbnb
in
Santa
Barbara
with
her
daughter’s
family,
whose
home
was
also
destroyed
by
the
fires.
As
she
has
been
rendered
homeless,
DWT
is
allowing
Keyes
to
use
her
office
address
for
her
financial
accounts
and
to
have
packages
delivered.
Keyes
explained
that
soon,
she’d
go
back
to
her
home
to
dig
through
the
rubble
and
ash
to
search
for
anything
of
value.
“I
just
need
to
see
it
with
my
own
eyes,”
she
said.
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.
Aileen
Cannon
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
woke
up
this
morning
and
decided
that
she’d
be
only
half
lawless.
Which
is
an
improvement
on
her
prior
batting
average!
Instead
of
telling
the
DOJ
it
can’t
publish
the
entire
special
counsel
report
on
the
Trump
investigations,
she
only
purports
to
control
half
of
it.
See,
what
were
you
libs
whining
about?
It’s
just
a
federal
district
judge
policing
the
interactions
between
the
executive
and
legislative
branches,
no
biggie!
Judge
Cannon
was
confirmed
to
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
after
Trump
lost
the
2020
election,
and
she
rose
to
prominence
by
inventing
jurisdiction
to
allow
Trump
to
challenge
the
sufficiency
of
the
Mar-a-Lago
search
warrant.
When
the
case
was
eventually
assigned
to
her,
she
spent
a
year
abusing
the
special
counsel
and
then
dismissed
it
after
discovering
that
special
counsels
were
illegal.
That
dismissal
is
on
appeal
to
the
11th
Circuit,
but
the
DOJ
dropped
the
charges
against
Trump
when
he
won
the
election
in
2024,
leaving
his
henchmen
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
holding
the
bag.
The
pendency
of
the
appeal
gave
the
dipshit
henchmen
a
hook
to
challenge
the
report,
which
they
did
in
Judge
Cannon’s
courtroom
natch,
as
well
as
at
the
11th
Circuit.
Without
holding
a
hearing,
soliciting
a
response
from
the
government,
or
even
going
through
the
four-factor
test
for
injunctive
relief,
Judge
Cannon
enjoined
the
government
distributing
the
report.
And
to
top
it
off,
she
reserved
three
days
after
the
11th
Circuit
weighed
in
to
take
another
crack
at
it.
The
DOJ
informed
both
the
trial
judge
and
the
appellate
panel
that
the
report
was
divided
into
two
volumes:
Volume
1,
which
deals
with
the
election
interference
case
in
DC;
and
Volume
2,
which
deals
with
the
stolen
documents
case
in
Florida
dismissed
by
Cannon.
Volume
1
was
intended
for
public
release,
and
Volume
2
reserved
for
in
camera
review
by
the
heads
of
the
House
and
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
during
the
pendency
of
the
criminal
case.
On
Thursday
night,
the
11th
Circuit
denied
the
henchmen’s
motion
for
an
injunction,
but
refused
the
DOJ’s
request
to
order
Judge
Cannon
to
knock
it
off.
Instead
the
unnamed
panel
instructed
the
government
to
appeal
her
ruling,
which
they
did.
The
henchmen
have
taken
multiple
bizarre
—
not
to
say
dubiously
legal
—
positions
in
these
proceedings.
In
their
first
motion,
they
stated
as
fact
that
AG
Garland
would
release
the
entire
special
counsel
report
publicly,
violating
their
due
process
rights,
by
poisoning
the
jury
pool,
and
also
the
Presidential
Transition
Act
and
the
Executive
Vesting
Clause.
After
the
DOJ
informed
the
courts
that
it
only
intended
to
release
Volume
1
to
the
public, the
henchmen
switched
tactics.
They
adamantly
insisted
that
they
were
mentioned
in
Volume
1,
and
they
argued
that
their
cases
would
be
damaged
by
congressional
leaks
if
Volume
2
were
shared
with
anyone
outside
the
DOJ.
When
the
DOJ
responded
with
evidence
that
the
henchmen
were
not
mentioned
at
all
in
Volume
1,
they
pivoted
again
in
their
reply
brief.
This
time
they
argued
that
dirtying
up
Trump,
by
reminding
Americans
of
that
time
he
tried
to
overthrow
the
government,
was
unfair
to
his
prior
co-conspirators:
“The
protective
order
principle
applies
fully
where
the
government
seeks
to
‘try’
in
a
court
of
public
opinion
a
figure
it
identified
as
a
co-conspirator
in
this
case.”
And,
uhhh,
what
if
the
attorneys
reviewing
the
report
are
too
green
to
appreciate
that,
if
you
read
between
the
lines,
the
election
interference
case
is
actually
all
about
Trump’s
body
man
shifting
boxes
into
and
out
of
the
storage
locker
in
Mar-a-Lago
and
trying
to
delete
the
security
camera
footage
after
it
got
subpoenaed?
The
attorneys
asserting
no
connection
do
not
know
the
significance
of
certain
matters
addressed
in
the
Report;
they
do
not
adequately
understand
the
connections
between
the
two
cases
and
their
respective
investigations;
they
do
not
have
a
well-versed
understanding
of
the
evidence
and
the
potential
witnesses.
There
is
anticipated
to
be
overlap
between
the
witnesses
used
in
the
respective
cases.
The
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
respective
cases
are
inextricably
intertwined
insofar
as
the
conduct
targeted
in
both
investigations
was
occurring
around
the
same
time.
This
morning,
with
her
three-day
stay
set
to
expire,
Judge
Cannon
issued
her
ruling.
Even
she
had
to
admit
Trump’s
cronies
hadn’t
come
up
with
a
single
marginally
pretextual
reason
to
bottle
up
Volume
1.
But
she
insists
that
Volume
2
“presents
contested
factual
and
legal
issues
that
must
be
resolved
in
an
orderly,
expedited
basis,
following
full
briefing
and
a
hearing,”
which
she
scheduled
for
this
Friday.
That
is,
in
effect,
an
order
quashing
the
release
of
report
to
Congress,
since
Trump
will
be
sworn
in
on
Monday,
and
he
will
instruct
the
DOJ
to
burn
the
thing.
Indeed,
he’s
already
weighed
in
with
amicus
briefs
at
both
the
District
and
Circuit
courts
claiming
that
the
reports
are
illegal
political
interference.
As
has
Jeff
“the
Oil
Spill”
Clark
who
busted
in
last
night
demanding
that
Judge
Cannon
enjoin
the
release
of
the
election
interference
report
because
it
might
prejudice him.
It’s
also
a
constitutional
crisis
to
have
a
wacked
out
trial
judge
in
Florida
telling
the
AG
that
he
can’t
share
the
conclusions
of
a
vital
national
security
investigation
with
Congress.
Particularly
since
that
report
documents
the
behavior
of
multiple
Trump
administration
nominees,
including
Kash
Patel,
his
pick
to
lead
the
FBI.
When
Patel
was
working
at
the
Epoch
Times,
a
Chinese
ex-pat
money
laundering
operation
attached
to
a
rightwing
media
company,
he
publicly
claimed
to
have
seen
Trump
declassify
the
documents
at
issue.
But
he
took
the
Fifth
before
the
grand
jury
investigating
this
case,
and
was
eventually
immunized
and
forced
to
testify
by
Judge
Beryl
Howell.
His
conduct
here
is
certainly
germane
to
the
confirmation
battle,
and
Congress
has
a
right
to
see
it.
The
11th
Circuit
has
shown
no
inclination
to
rouse
itself
for
this
task.
But
maybe
Trump
—
whoops,
I
mean
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
—
would
like
to
take
one
more
flyer
at
SCOTUS
to
see
if
they
can’t
peel
Justice
Barrett
off
to
block
release
of
Volume
1.
US
v.
Trump [SDFL
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
US
v.
Trump [11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]
The
2025
CES
trade
show
in
Las
Vegas.
(Photo
by
Zhang
Shuo/China
News
Service/VCG
via
Getty
Images)
Lies.
Scams.
Disinformation.
Misinformation.
Voice
cloning.
Likeness
cloning.
Manipulated
photographs.
Manipulated
videos.
AI
has
exploded
the
possibilities
of
all
these
things
to
the
point
that
it’s
almost
impossible
to
trust
anything.
Lack
of
trust
has
enormous
implications
for
lawyers,
judges,
and
the
way
we
resolve
disputes.
And
if
you
believe
a
Thursday
afternoon
CES
panel
presentation
entitled
Fighting
Deepfakes,
Disinformation
and
Misinformation,
it’s
likely
a
problem
that
will
only
get
worse
and
for
which
there
are
precious
few
solutions.
The
Bad
News
A
year
ago,
it
was
relatively
easy
to
tell
if
a
photograph
had
been
substantially
manipulated.
Today,
according
to
the
panelists,
it’s
next
to
impossible.
In
a
year,
the
same
will
be
true
of
manipulated
or
AI
generated
fictitious
video.
Right
now,
it
takes
the
bad
guys
about
6
seconds
of
audio
to
clone
a
voice
so
well
it’s
hard
to
tell
the
difference
—
and
that
time
will
get
less.
The
bad
guys
are
only
going
to
get
better.
Add
to
this
fact
that,
according
to
the
panel,
we
are
accustomed
to
assuming
that
a
photograph
or
video
or
even
audio
recording
is
what
it
purports
to
be.
Camera,
video,
and
audio
companies
have
spent
years
convincing
us
this
assumption
is
valid.
Finally,
as
we
begin
to
use
AI
generated
avatars,
digital
twins,
and
even
AI
agents
of
and
for
ourselves,
it
will
get
worse:
The
bad
guys
won’t
have
to
create
a
fake;
we
will
do
it
for
them.
What’s
to
Be
Done?
The
panel
talked
about
solutions,
none
of
which
struck
me
as
that
great.
First,
there
is
detection.
There
are
sophisticated
tools
and
analyses
that
can
be
done
to
attempt,
with
varying
success,
to
detect
deepfakes.
The
problem,
though,
is
similar
to
what
the
cybersecurity
world
faces:
The
bad
guys
can
figure
out
ways
to
avoid
detection
faster
than
we
can
figure
out
how
to
detect
the
fakes.
Yes,
tools
do
exist
to
detect
fakes.
But
the
tools
always
will
lag
behind
the
abilities
of
the
deepfake
producers
to
elude
detection.
In
addition,
forensic
tools
and
experts
are
expensive,
giving
the
bad
guys
more
opportunity.
And
there
are
a
lot
more
bad
guys
than
forensic
experts.
The
second
way
to
combat
the
problem
is
referred
to
as
provenance.
Provenance
is
a
way
to
determine
where
the
object
in
question
came
from
and
what
data
was
used
to
create
it.
It
informs
and/or
labels
any
object
that
may
have
been
manipulated.
Watermarks
are
perhaps
a
familiar
example.
The
idea
is
to
create
something
like
the
nutrition
labels
on
foods.
But
again,
the
panelists
noted
that
provenance
examination
and
labeling
don’t
always
work
since
the
bad
guys
will
always
be
a
step
ahead
of
the
game
and
can
erase
or
hide
the
information.
Provenance
doesn’t
completely
solve
the
problem
in
any
event,
particularly
when,
as
in
a
court
of
law,
accuracy
counts.
Provenance
may
tell
you
a
photo
may
have
been
manipulated,
but
it
won’t
necessarily
tell
you
whether
it
has
been
for
sure
and
how.
(Keep
in
mind
that
with
photos,
for
example,
some
level
of
manipulation
may
be
acceptable
or
even
expected.
The
issue
is
when
the
process
creates
an
altered
or
fictitious
image).
So
the
question
remains
subject
to
debate.
Where
did
the
panelists
come
down?
Detection
and
provenance
need
to
be
used
together
to
achieve
the
maximum
chances
of
success.
I
didn’t
get
a
warm
and
fuzzy
feel
from
this
solution,
though.
So
What
Are
Lawyers
to
Do?
Deepfakes
pose
tough
questions
for
lawyers,
judges,
and
juries.
For
lawyers
and
judges,
while
we
may
want
to
believe
what
we
are
seeing,
we
now
have
to
accept
that
we
can’t.
We
can
no
longer
assume
that
something
is
what
it
purports
to
be.
We
have
to
view
evidence
with
new,
more
critical
eyes.
We
have
to
be
prepared
to
ask
tougher
evidentiary
authentication
questions.
Authentication
can’t
be
assumed.
It
is
no
longer
the
tail
wagging
the
proverbial
dog.
It
may
be
the
dog.
One
thing
the
panelists
did
agree
on:
You
can’t
determine
if
something
is
fake
just
by
looking
at
it
or
listening
to
it.
So
we
have
to
ask
questions.
We
may
have
to
use
experts.
We
have
to
keep
abreast
of
the
tools
available
to
question
authenticity;
we
have
to
keep
abreast
of
tools
and
strategies
the
bad
guys
are
using.
The
panelists
offered
some
help
using
what
they
called
the
human
firewall
to
ferret
out
deepfakes.
We
need
to
ask
questions
like:
Where
did
the
object
come
from?
What
is
the
credibility
of
the
source?
What
is
the
motive
of
the
object
provider?
Does
the
object
depict
something
that
is
consistent
with
the
remaining
evidence,
or
is
it
in
stark
contrast?
Is
the
photograph
consistent
with
other
photographs
from
other
sources?
In
short,
we
have
to
treat
those
attempting
to
authenticate
evidence
the
same
way
we
treat
substantive
witnesses.
Judges,
too,
have
a
significant
role.
They
need
to
understand
the
threat.
They
need
to
know
that
authenticity
can’t
be
assumed
and
is
important.
They,
too,
have
to
keep
abreast
of
what’s
happening
with
AI
and
deepfakes
and
what
the
threats
are
in
real
time.
They
need
to
know
that
“letting
the
jury
decide”
is
not
a
solution.
We
need
more
and
better
rules
for
assessing
evidentiary
credibility.
Just
as
Daubert
was
a
watershed
case
for
ensuring
the
credibility
of
expert
witnesses
and
evidence,
courts
need
some
definitive
guidance
in
the
rules
as
to
how
to
assess
deep
fake
issues.
The
public
from
which
juries
come
needs
to
be
constantly
educated
about
the
threat
so
they,
too,
can
take
with
a
grain
of
salt
evidence
that
comes
to
them
if
the
court
does
not
make
the
determination.
Is
This
Realistic?
Despite
these
potential
solutions,
it’s
hard
not
to
be
pessimistic.
Precious
few
resources
are
allocated
to
our
court
systems
already.
It’s
hard
to
see
legislatures
providing
the
funds
necessary
to
better
educate
judges
on
deepfake
issues.
The
expense
of
experts
and
forensic
analysis
will
place
less
well-heeled
litigants
at
a
disadvantage.
It
will
be
hard
to
convince
people
that
they
can’t
believe
what
they
see
when
they
have
been
conditioned
to
do
so.
And
with
today’s
polarization
of
political
beliefs
and
ideologies,
it
may
be
hard
to
convince
people
that
something
is
fake
if
they
want
to
believe
to
the
contrary.
As
lying
and
misinformation
become
more
prevalent,
litigants
and
even
lawyers
may
be
more
and
more
tempted
to
use
deepfakes
to
justify
what
they
believe
and
want.
Put
all
this
together,
and
I’m
fearful
of
what
technology
may
do
to
our
cherished
legal
institutions.
I’m
generally
an
evangelist
when
it
comes
to
technology.
Sometimes
though,
shiny
new
objects
turn
out
to
be
nothing
more
than
a
bucket
of
shit.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
Chief
Judge
R.
David
Proctor
of
the
Northern
District
of
Alabama,
go
ahead
and
take
your
victory
lap.
Frustrated
by
counsel’s
level
of
pettiness,
the
judge
ordered
the
lawyers
to
have
lunch
together
to
talk
about
how
they
were
going
to
behave
better
going
forward.
Plaintiff
counsel
would
cover
the
check,
defense
counsel
would
kick
in
the
tip,
and
they
would
jointly
report
back
to
the
court.
And
it
seems
as
though
it
worked
out:
On
December
16,
2024,
undersigned
counsel
met
for
lunch
at
Saw’s
BBQ
in
Hoover,
Alabama,
for
over
an
hour.
The
discussion
covered
the
practice
of
law,
families,
some
big-ticket
items
for
the
2024
holiday
season,
everyone’s
small
town
bona
fides,
and
the
plan
for
communication
going
forward
in
this
matter.
A
healthy
dialogue
regarding
professional
norms
ensued.
Honestly,
the
family
and
holiday
talk
feels
more
encouraging
than
the
professional
norms
conversation.
It’s
a
lot
harder
to
file
a
motion
to
strike
over
one
side
filing
15
minutes
late
—
the
precipitating
issue
in
this
case
—
when
you
care
about
what
they’re
getting
Johnny
for
Christmas.
Which,
to
the
judge’s
credit,
is
probably
why
they
were
ordered
to
have
lunch
as
opposed
to
a
meet
and
confer
to
discuss
norms
in
a
conference
room.
As
for
the
risk
of
shenanigans
when
the
bill
came
due…
Plaintiff’s
counsel
paid
the
$74.00
bill,
and
Defendants’
counsel
left
a
$74.00
tip.
So
they
made
it
a
very
happy
holiday
for
their
server
too.
Earlier:
Judge
Orders
Lawyers
To
Have
Lunch
To
Think
About
What
They
Did
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.
Back
in
2022,
general
counsel
of
the
far-right
militia
Oath
Keepers,
Kellye
SoRelle,
was
indicted
on
four
federal
counts
including
obstruction
of
an
official
proceeding,
conspiring
to
obstruct
that
proceeding,
entering
restricted
grounds,
and
obstruction
of
justice
for
activities
related
to
the
January
6th
coup
attempt.
SoRelle
pleaded
guilty
to
a
felony
charge
of
obstruction
of
justice
and
a
misdemeanor
charge
of
entering
and
remaining
in
a
restricted
building
or
grounds
in
August.
Though
SoRelle
did
not
enter
the
Capitol
building
on
January
6th,
prosecutors
say
she
encouraged
others
to
destroy
evidence
to
conceal
their
involvement.
In
a
new
sentencing
memo, prosecutors
are
seeking
16
months
in
jail
and
three
years
of
supervised
release
for
the
attorney,
noting,
“SoRelle’s
efforts
to
obstruct
the
investigation
into
the
attack
on
the
Capitol,
like
her
participation
in
the
attack
itself,
show
a
disdain
for
the
rule
of
law
that
merits
the
government’s
recommended
sentence.”
SoRelle
will
be
sentenced
January
17th,
just
before
Donald
Trump’s
pardon
power
kicks
back
in.
Trump
had
promised
to
pardon
those
convicted
of
January
6th-related
crimes.
But
J.D.
Vance
has
already
admitted
“there’s
a
little
bit
of
a
gray
area”
regarding
who
will
get
pardons.
SoRelle,
a
family
lawyer
and
failed
GOP
candidate
for
the
Texas
House
of
Representatives,
is
no
stranger
to
controversy.
She
also
announced
that,
in
addition
to
her
role
as
general
counsel
for
the
Oath
Keepers,
she
was
taking
over
acting
president
duties
when
leader
(and
Yale
Law
alum)
Stewart
Rhodes
was
sent
to
prison
for
18
years
for
his
own
January
6th
activities.
SoRelle
also
made
news
when
she,
along
with fired
associate
general
counsel
at
Goosehead
Insurance.
Paul
Davis, filed
a
lawsuit seeking
to
overturn
the
results
of
the
2020
presidential
election.
(That
lawsuit
garnered
a
lot
of
LOLs
in
legal
circles
when
they filed
an
amended
TRO
motion
using
the
completely
fictional
experiences
of
Gondor
—
as
in
The
Lord
of
the
Rings
—
as
precedent.
While
the
case
was
ultimately
dismissed,
there
was
apparently a
split
amongst
the
plaintiffs regarding
what
strategy
to
pursue.)
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].
(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images…
with
slight
edit)
The
black
robes
of
the
Supreme
Court
justices
have
a
lot
of
white
space.
If
only
their
uniform
borrowed
inspiration
from
NASCAR:
it
be
cooler
if
Alito’s
robe
had
fancy
pro-insurrection
patches
or
Clarence
had
Harlan
Crow’s
last
name
on
his
back
like
an
all-star
jersey
he
can
dunk
on
child
labor
laws
with.
Alas,
the
branding
is
as
empty
as
Chief
Justice
Roberts’s
boy
scout
promises
to
make
the
rest
of
his
colleagues
abide
by
the
law.
The
good
news?
We
don’t
have
to
rely
on
the
Supreme
Court
justices’
good
conscience
to
keep
them
honest!
The
journalists
at
ProPublica
created
a
database
that
allows
you
to
find
out
who
is
sponsoring
judges
with
ease:
The
People
are
enforcing
government
transparency
on
multiple
branches.
You
could
stop
at
the
judiciary,
but
why
wouldn’t
you
also
check
out
the
trades
your
representatives
in
Congress
are
making?
If
you’re
ever
looking
for
a
shortened
version
of
“Eternal
vigilance
is
the
price
of
liberty,”
try
this
one
on
for
size:
Follow
the
money!
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.
(Photo
by
ROBYN
BECK/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
Southern
California
continues
to
be
ravaged
by
life-threatening
wildfires,
and
Biglaw
firms
across
the
region
are
banding
together
to
support
fellow
attorneys
and
staff
members
who
have
lost
everything,
as
well
as
members
of
their
local
communities
and
first
responders.
At
this
time,
more
than
12,000
homes
have
been
destroyed,
nearly
200,000
people
have
been
displaced,
and
the
death
toll
related
to
the
fires
has
risen
to
24.
Firms
within
the
Santa
Monica
evacuation
zone
have
closed
their
doors
—
including
Cooley,
Cozen
O’Connor,
Goodwin
Procter,
and
Orrick.
Michael
Heller,
executive
chairman
of
Cozen
O’Connor,
noted
in
a
statement
that
“several
…
colleagues
have
lost
their
homes,”
and
that
the
firm
is
“trying
to
work
out
the
best
ways
we
can
help
them.”
Firms
located
in
downtown
Los
Angeles,
Century
City,
and
eastern
Santa
Monica
have
remained
open
—
including
Latham
&
Watkins,
Paul
Hastings,
Sheppard
Mullin,
Sidley
Austin,
Morgan
Lewis
&
Bockius,
Manatt
Phelps
&
Phillips,
Greenberg
Traurig,
and
Gordon
Rees
—
allowing
for
remote
work
due
to
poor
air
quality.
According
to
The
Recorder,
Paul
Hastings
is
making
its
downtown
Los
Angeles
office
available
those
who
have
been
displaced
by
the
fires
and
suppling
essential
items.
The
firm
is
also
covering
expenses
for
evacuees,
and
offering
expanded
benefits,
including
childcare
coverage.
On
top
of
that,
a
spokesperson
says
that
firm
employees
in
Orange
County
and
San
Diego
have
“generously
offered
to
welcome
impacted
families
and/or
pets
into
their
homes
during
this
time
of
immediate
need.”
Munger
Tolles
has
provided
a
resource
list
to
employees,
as
well
as
family-sized
meals.
Other
firms
are
doing
the
best
they
can
to
assist
their
communities
during
this
unprecedented
natural
disaster.
From
The
Recorder:
Greenberg
Traurig
instructed
employees
to
limit
non-critical
travel
to
avoid
contributing
to
congestion
on
the
roadways,
a
spokesperson
said,
adding
that
the
firm
activated
an
employee
emergency
fund
to
assist
displaced
employees
and
began
soliciting
donations
for
local
organizations.
“We
are
collecting
and
delivering
children’s
clothes,
shoes,
toys,
books,
diapers,
and
other
supplies
to
assist
local
relief
efforts,”
the
spokesperson
said.
“In
addition,
the
firm
is
providing
meals
and
other
assistance
to
support
our
emergency
responders
who
continue
to
serve
our
community
heroically.”Jeff
Bjork,
the
managing
partner
of
Latham’s
Los
Angeles
offices,
expressed
the
firm’s
profound
gratitude
to
the
“brave
firefighters
and
emergency
responders
tirelessly
working
to
contain
the
fires,”
Bjork
said.
“We
are
humbled
by
the
incredible
resilience
being
shown
by
our
Los
Angeles
colleagues
in
the
face
of
such
destruction,
as
well
as
the
outpouring
of
compassion
and
support
from
the
Latham
community
worldwide.”
What
is
your
law
firm
doing
to
assist
those
in
need?
You
can
text
(646-820-8477)
or email
and
let
us
know.
We
here
at
Above
the
Law
extend
our
thoughts
to
all
law
firm
attorneys
and
staff
members
affected
by
the
raging
wildfires
in
California.
Please
be
safe.
Many
LA
County
Law
Firms
Remain
Open,
Mobilize
to
Support
Affected
Employees
Amid
Historic
Firestorm
[The
Recorder]
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.
