The law firm of choice for internationally focused companies

+263 242 744 677

admin@tsazim.com

4 Gunhill Avenue,

Harare, Zimbabwe

Category: News Feeds

Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign

Charlie Adelson Pushes For Resentencing On Two Counts In Dan Markel Murder Case – Above the Law

After
Dan
Markel
was
murdered
in
2014,
the
legal
battle
to
bring
his
killers
and
their
accomplices
to
justice
has
been
long
fought.
In

2023
,
Charlie
Adelson
was
found
guilty
in
the
first
degree
for
murder,
conspiracy
to
commit
first
degree
murder,
and
solicitation
to
commit
first
degree
murder.
According
to
Adelson’s
lawyer,
Michael
Ufferman,
there’s
a
problem
with
his
client’s
sentencing
on
the
latter
two
counts:
the
numbers
don’t
seem
to
add
up.

Tallahassee

has
coverage:

Charlie
Adelson,
who’s
serving
a
life
sentence
in
the
murder-for-hire
of
Dan
Markel,
is
asking
to
be
resentenced
on
two
of
three
counts
against
him,
citing
an
alleged
error
in
the
sentencing
scoresheet.

“I
believe
the
scoresheet
error
regarding
the
improper
scoring
of
victim
injury
points
warrants
correction
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
law,” 
Ufferman
said
in
a
text
to
the
Democrat.
“As
explained
in
the
motion
filed,
a
defendant
has
a
fundamental
right
to
be
sentenced
under
a
correctly
calculated
scoresheet.”

As
it
stands,
Adelson’s
sentencing
scoresheet
totaled
258
points;
his
lawyer
is
disputing
120
of
them.
Due
process
is
a
vital
component
to
achieving
the
rule
of
law.
If
the
tally
is
reduced
accordingly,
Adelson’s
resentencing
could
result
in
a
shorter
amount
of
time
to
be
served.


Charlie
Adelson
Lawyer
Seeks
Resentencing
On
Two
Counts
In
Dan
Markel
Murder
Case

[Tallahassee]


Earlier
:

Lawyer
Conflicts
Create
More
Delay
In
Murdered
Law
Professor
Case



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.

Snow-Related Court Delays Are No Match For Lawyers Who Worked During COVID – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Al
Drago/Getty
Images)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


My
general
reaction
is
that
in
the
post-COVID
world,
courts
and
lawyers
handle
delays
and
closures
pretty
well.





Michael
Sklaire
,
co-managing
shareholder
of
Greenberg
Traurig’s
Northern
Virginia
office,
in
comments
given
to
the

National
Law
Journal
,
ahead
of
the
winter
storm
that
prompted
the
closure
of
state
and
federal
courts
across
multiple
states,
including
Illinois,
Ohio,
Maryland,
and
Virginia.
Sklaire
continued,
noting
that
D.C.
litigators
would
handle
matters
appropriately,
“[w]hether
through
remote
testimony
or
extended
days.”
He
concluded,
saying,
“[E]veryone
knows
that
January
in
D.C.
brings
challenges
and
prepare
for
that.”



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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

DOJ Adds New Plaintiffs In Antitrust Suit Accusing Landlords Of Price Fixing Rent – Above the Law

Once
upon
a
time,
complaints
about
the
cost
of
living
were
met
with
snarky
responses
about
leisure
spending.
“Can’t
buy
a
house?
Stop
eating
avocado
toast,
dumb-dumb!”
As
much
as
I
wish
that
was
a
clever
absurdism
I
came
up
with,

that
was
an
actual
response
to
millennials
not
being
able
to
buy
homes
.
The
excuses
change
a
bit
over
time
but
excuses
they
remain

the
more
recent
explanation
they
want
people
to
believe
is
that
people
aren’t
buying
homes
because
they
simply
would
rather
not:

Not
only
has
rent
been
too
damn
high,
the
DOJ
is
accusing
landlords
of
concerted
efforts
to
keep
it
that
way!

Globest

has
coverage:

[T]he
U.S.
Department
of
Justice
has
added
six
major
apartment
landlords
as
defendants,
alleging
their
involvement
in
a
widespread
scheme
to
artificially
inflate
rents
across
the
nation.

The
amended
civil
complaint,
filed
on
Tuesday,
accuses
these
firms
of
using
RealPage’s
rent-pricing
algorithm
to
engage
in
illegal
price
fixing,
potentially
affecting
millions
of
renters
across
the
United
States.

The
newly
named
defendants
include
the
country’s
largest
apartment
owners:
Greystar
Real
Estate
Partners,
Blackstone’s
LivCor,
Willow
Bridge
Property
Company,
Camden
Property
Trust,
Pinnacle
(and
its
parent
company
Cushman
&
Wakefield),
and
Cortland.

This
small
group
of
firms
controls
over
1.3
million
units
across
the
country.
Buying
homes
en
masse
and
colluding
to
keep
rental
costs
high
probably
has
more
to
do
with
today’s
high
cost
of
entry
housing
market
than
a
penchant
for
fancy
toast
or
preferring
to
pay
rent.
A
2019
estimate
of
how
much
monopolies
cost
the
average
American
family
put
the
number

at
about
$300
per
month
.
I
shudder
to
think
about
what
an
up-to-date
assessment
of
the
same
would
be
valued
at.


DOJ
Expands
Antitrust
Lawsuit,
Targets
Major
Landlords
in
Rent-Fixing
Scheme

[Globest]



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.

Donald Trump Demands SCOTUS Do Him A Favor Though – Above the Law

(Photographer:
Jabin
Botsford/The
Washington
Post/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)

The
once
and
future
president
is
breaking
shit
in
all
the
courts
at
once.
He’s
hoping
to
get
SCOTUS
to
nix
his
sentencing
in
New
York,
even
as
he
tries
to
persuade
the
Eleventh
Circuit
to
bottle
up
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith’s
report
long
enough
for
incoming
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
to
burn
every
copy.

In
New
York,
Trump
demands
that
his
sentencing
be
adjourned
so
he
can
pursue
an
interlocutory
appeal
of
the
denial
of
his
motion
to
dismiss
on
immunity
grounds.
He
insists
that
the
conviction
for
creating
false
business
records
to
cover
up
a
hush
money
payment
rests
on
official
acts
evidence,
and
thus
he
is
entitled
to
an
automatic
stay
until
2029
(or
preferably
never).
Alternatively,
his
lawyers
John
Sauer
and
Todd
Blanche
have
invented
a
theory
of
president-elect
immunity
that
they
can

just
about

argue
with
a
straight
face.

So
far,
they’re
not
getting
any
takers.
Justice
Merchan
just
rolled
his
eyes,
after
which
Trump
filed
an
filed
an

emergency
petition

with
the
New
York’s
Appellate
Division,
which
was summarily
rejected

by
Associate
Justice
Ellen
Gesmer
after
a
brief
hearing
on
Tuesday.
Trump
then
made
a
token
feint
in
the
direction
of
the
New
York
Court
of
Appeals
before
racing
to
SCOTUS
and

demanding

that
it
enjoin
his
sentencing,
which
is
currently
scheduled
for
Friday
morning.

“Forcing
President
Trump
to
defend
a
criminal
case
and
appear
for
a
criminal
sentencing
hearing
at
the
apex
of
the
Presidential
transition
creates
a
constitutionally
intolerable
risk
of
disruption
to
national
security
and
America’s
vital
interests,”
vamped
future
Deputy
AG
Blanche
and
future
solicitor
general
Sauer.
“By
contrast,
the
State
of
New
York’s
asserted
interest
in
proceeding
with
the
criminal
sentencing
of
the
President-Elect
of
the
United
States
on
politically
motivated
charges
at
breakneck
speed
at
the
apex
of
a
Presidential
transition
should
be
accorded
no
weight.”

They
blame
the
trial
court
for
the
last-minute
filing,
omitting
to
mention
that
Trump
himself
demanded
three
delays
of
sentencing,
which
was
originally
scheduled
for
July,
and
then
waited
three
weeks
after
Justice
Merchan
rejected
his
immunity
claims
to
assert
said
“automatic”
stay:
“Because
it
is
highly
questionable
whether
the
New
York
Court
of
Appeals
will
act
in
the
next
48
hours,
filing
applications
in
both
courts
appears
to
be
the
only
viable
option.”

Justice
Sotomayor,
who
fields
emergency
requests
from
New
York,
has
given
District
Attorney
Alvin
Bragg
until
10
a.m.
Thursday
to
respond.
Then
we’ll
find
out
if
the
Supreme
Court’s
six
conservatives
want
to
hang

Trump
v.
People
of
New
York

next
to

Trump
v.
US

on
its
wall
of
shame
before
the
outrages
of
the
next
four
years
even
get
underway.

Meanwhile
in
Florida,
Judge
Aileen
Cannon

purported

to
stay
the
release
of
the
special
counsel
report,
despite
apparently
lacking
jurisdiction
over
the
documents
case.
Trump’s
dimwit
henchmen,
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira,
simultaneously
filed
in
the
Eleventh
Circuit,
where
they
bizarrely
asserted
rights
under
the
Presidential
Transition
Act
and
the
Executive
Vesting
Clause.
This
may
have
something
to
do
with
the
fact
that
at
least
one
lawyer
representing
them,
Stan
Woodward,
is
headed
to
a
job
in
the
upcoming
Trump
administration.

The
Eleventh
Circuit,
which
does
have
jurisdiction,
gave
the
DOJ
until
this
morning
to
respond.
And
so
today
the
government

warranted

that
it
will
not
be
publicly
releasing
Volume
2
of
the
Special
Counsel
report
detailing
Trump’s
efforts
to
steal
government
records
and
hide
them
in
his
pool
locker
until
such
time
as
the
pending
case
against
the
dimwit
henchmen
is
resolved.

“The
essential
premise
of
defendants’
emergency
motion—that,
absent
this
Court’s
intervention,
‘Attorney
General
Garland
is
certain
to
make
[the
Final
Report]
immediately
public’
and
thereby
cause
irreparable
prejudice
to
defendants’
criminal
proceedings
(Mot.
1)—is
thus
mistaken,”
the
prosecutors
write,
adding
that
“Defendants
Nauta
and
De
Oliveira
have
no
cognizable
interest
in
that
volume
of
the
Final
Report,
however,
nor
any
plausible
theory
of
Article
III
standing
that
would
justify
their
asking
this
Court
to
grant
relief
with
respect
to
it.”

This
highlights
the
absolute
insanity
of
allowing
a
trial
judge
who
dismissed
the
case
to
order
the
DOJ
to
do anything
at
all
,
much
less
retain
jurisdiction
over
the
Justice
Department
for
three
days
after
the
Eleventh
Circuit’s
disposition
of
the
emergency
motion.

“To
avoid
the
potential
need
for
further
emergency
litigation
in
this
Court,
the
United
States
respectfully
requests
that
this
Court
make
clear
in
denying
the
motion
that
its
resolution
of
this
question
should
be
the
last
word
(absent
review
by
the
en
banc
court
or
the
Supreme
Court),”
the
DOJ
notes
pointedly.
“The
United
States
respectfully
requests
that,
if
this
Court
agrees
that
no
injunction
against
the
Attorney
General
is
warranted,
the
Court
should
say
so
in
an
order
binding
on
the
district
court
and
vacate
the
district
court’s
temporary
injunction.”

Nauta
and
De
Oliveira
offered
to
respond
to
the
DOJ’s
motion
by
10
a.m.
tomorrow,
only
to
be
told
that
they
can
get
their
homework
in
by
5
today.
Will
they
be
asserting
henchmen-to-the-president-elect
privilege?


Probably!


US
v.
Trump
 [SDFL
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

US
v.
Trump
 [11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]





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

Biglaw Associate Files Discrimination Lawsuit Alleging He Was Fired Because He Doesn’t ‘Endorse The Same Leftist Worldview’ – Above the Law

Last
year,

news
broke

about
William
D.
Brown
Jr.,
a
former
associate
at
McCarter
&
English,
who,
in
the
wake
of
his
firing
from
Biglaw,
blamed
his
new
employment
status
on
a
“political
purge”
of
conservatives
and
a
LinkedIn
post
he
penned
about
“gangsta
rap”
and
violence
in
the
Muslim
world,
which
the
firm
contended
advanced
harmful
racial
stereotypes.
TBH,
in
the
11
months
since
I

first
wrote
about
Brown
,
I’d
forgotten
all
the
discrimination
he
claimed
to
experience
during
his
time
in
Biglaw,
and
I
can
only
assure
you
it’s
QUITE
THE
JOURNEY.

Well,
Brown
has
finally
filed

a
lawsuit

in
Essex
County
Superior
Court
in
New
Jersey
against
McCarter
&
English.
The
actual
filing
alleges
it
was
Brown’s
veteran
status
and
complaints
about
unequal
pay
were
the
*real*
reasons
for
his
dismissal
and
the
the
firm’s
concerns
about
the
controversial
“gangsta
rap”
social
media
post
were
merely
a
smokescreen
for
discriminatory
behavior.

According
to
the
complaint,
“No
other
protected
class
was
subjected
to
such
treatment
within
the
defendant’s
workplace,
which
was
replete
with
a
robust
DEI
and
Social
Justice
structure
which
wholly
neglected
the
tiny
minority
of
veterans
within
their
own
ranks
at
the
firm.”
As

reported
by

Law.com:

The
complaint
further
details
allegations
of
Brown
being
excluded
from
the
firm’s
annual
diversity
retreat
despite
his
veteran
status
throughout
his
time
at
the
firm,
as
well
as
being
“berated”
for
asking
why
the
firm’s
DEI
committee
failed
to
send
an
email
out
commemorating
the
terrorist
attacks
on
Sept.
11,
2001,
in
2022
and
for
making
a
LinkedIn
post
in
2023
observing
that
veterans
“are
paid
substantially
less
for
the
same
work
as
others
and
then
pressured
out
and
denied
opportunities
when
we
speak
up
for
ourselves.”

The
day
after
he
made
that
LinkedIn
post,
Brown
claims,
he
was
brought
into
a
conference
room
with
the
firm’s
managing
partner,
Joseph
Boccassini,
and
employment
equity
partner
Adam
Saravay
and
asked
“if
he
was
mentally
sound.”

“The
implication
of
violent
intent

plays
into
the
worst
media
stereotypes
of
veterans
as
mentally
damaged
and
dangerous,”
the
complaint
reads.

As
a
career
bankruptcy
associate,
Brown
made
less
than
newly
hired
associates.
The
complaint
also
points
to
his
efforts
“to
receive
fair
and
equal
pay
for
the
same
work,”
as
motivation
for
his
firing.
Additionally,
Brown
asserts
the
firm
assigned
him
sexual-abuse
defense
work
in
an
effort
to
push
him
out
of
McCarter.

Brown
also
sought
a
referral
for
a
fellow
veteran
facing
charges
related
to
the
January
6th
insurrection.
The
firm
did
not
provide
one,
and
that’s
another
complaint
Brown
lodges
about
his
time
at
the
firm.
“At
defendant
McCarter
there
were
clearly
separate
standards
of
acceptable
conduct
in
interaction
with
those
employees
who
adhered
to
political
left
orthodoxy,
and
those
who
committed
political
heresy
by
supporting
the
rights
of
the
accused
who
happened
to
not
endorse
the
same
leftist
worldview.”

A
spokesperson
for
McCarter
&
English
provided
the
following
statement:
“As
always
with
an
initial
complaint,
it
tells
one
side
of
the
story.
Once
the
full
history
is
brought
to
light,
we
are
confident
we
will
be
fully
vindicated.
We
intend
to
defend
this
case
against
the
firm
and
clear
the
names
of
those
individuals
referenced
within
the
complaint.”




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
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].

The Staggering Cost Of Law Firm Data Breaches: Protecting Your Firm – Above the Law

Ed.
note
:
This
is
the
latest
in
the
article
series,


Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches
,

by
our
friends
at

Sensei
Enterprises
,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.

As
we
begin
2025,
attorneys
hope
the
new
year
brings
them
happiness,
health,
and
prosperity.
One
situation
every
law
firm
wants
to
avoid
this
upcoming
year
is
a
cyber
incident
or,
worse,
a
data
breach.
Not
all
cyber
incidents
are
data
breaches,
but
cybersecurity
protections
should
be
implemented
to
protect
your
firm’s
information
and
confidential
files.

Keeping
attackers
out
of
your
information
systems
has
become
more
challenging
than
ever.
Cyber
threats
have
become
more
sophisticated,
harder
to
detect,
and
much
more
expensive
to
recover
from.
According
to
Thomson
Reuters,
in
2024,
the
average
cost
of
a
data
breach
reached
$4.88
million.
That
cost
alone
may
sink
some
law
firms,
especially
those
which
are
under-insured.
Understanding
the
actual
cost
of
a
data
breach
will
only
help
firms
realize
the
critical
importance
of
maintaining
current
cybersecurity
measures.


Data
Breach
Defined

A
data
breach
is
a
security
incident
in
which
unauthorized
individuals
gain
access
to
sensitive
or
confidential
information,
like
personal
data
(Social
Security
numbers,
bank
details)
or
corporate
data
(customer
records,
intellectual
property),
due
to
a
lapse
in
security
measures,
often
through
hacking
or
human
error.
Essentially,
it’s
when
private
information
is
exposed
to
people
who
shouldn’t
have
access
to
it.

Data
breaches
can
occur
in
many
ways,
including
phishing
attacks,
malware,
ransomware,
and
insider
attacks.
They
can
result
in
identity
theft,
financial
fraud,
reputational
damage,
and
possibly
legal
action.
Class
action
lawsuits
are
proliferating
with
frightful
speed.

Phishing
attacks
are
more
sophisticated
than
ever,
and
when
combined
with
AI,
they
can
get
through
email
protection
filters
and
steal
users’
credentials
(these
are
called
Business
Email
Compromise
attacks).

Current
ransomware,
the
data
exfiltration
version,
continues
to
plague
law
firms
by
requesting
two
ransom
payments:
one
to
decrypt
and
another
to
return
“stolen”
data.

Exploiting
vulnerabilities
of
dated,
unpatched
systems
allows
attackers
to
access
the
infected
system
and
move
laterally
within
the
network,
evading
detection
by
common
standard
cybersecurity
measures.

Lastly,
the
disgruntled
former
employee
must
not
be
forgotten,
as
sometimes
they
can
cause
far
more
significant
damage
given
their
intimate
knowledge
of
the
firm’s
technology.


The
Financial
Impact:
It’s
Often
Brutal

There
are
some
obvious
costs
associated
with
data
breaches.
First,
there
is
the
immediate
reaction
and
incident
response.
You
may
have
expenses
with
information
technology
vendors,
cybersecurity
consultants,
and
digital
forensics
investigators
to
understand
what
happened,
the
scope
of
the
attack,
and
what
confidential
data
may
have
been
accessed
or
stolen.

Business
continuity
costs
are
the
expenses
relating
to
the
recovery
and
restoration
of
your
systems,
which
can
be
expensive,
depending
on
the
number
of
infected
endpoints
and
the
complexity
of
the
technical
environment.
Getting
your
business
back
up
and
operational
is
key
to
surviving
a
data
breach.
An
immutable
backup
(backups
that
cannot
be
changed
or
deleted
for
a
specified
period
of
time)
you
can
restore
from
is
the
#1
antidote
to
recovering
from
the
venom
of
a
cyber-attack
such
as
ransomware.

Depending
on
the
scope
and
severity,
law
firms
are
now
facing
regulatory
fines
for
violating
state
data
privacy
laws,
on
top
of
the
threat
of
a
class
action
lawsuit.
Retaining
legal
representation
to
defend
against
these
additional
actions
can
be
astronomical
and
is
another
cost
to
add
to
the
heaping
pile
of
expenses
due
to
a
data
breach.

Lastly,
and
the
hardest
to
measure,
is
reputational
damage.
How
many
clients
were
lost
due
to
the
breach?
How
many
potential
clients
took
their
business
elsewhere?
How
many
employees
have
left
your
firm,
and
are
you
finding
replacing
them
with
good
talent
more
challenging?
These
are
all
data
points
that
we
hope
you
never
have
to
measure.

You
can
reduce
your
firm’s
risk
of
experiencing
data
breaches
in
several
ways.
While
no
combination
is
100%
effective,
every
little
bit
helps.
Mandatory
cybersecurity
awareness
training,
having
a
good
cybersecurity
posture,
risk
management
controls,
proactive
monitoring
for
cyber
incidents,
and
following
cybersecurity
best
practices
for
small
businesses
such
as
NIST
(https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1300.pdf)
or
CISA
(https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-guidance-small-businesses)
guidelines
are
great
ways
to
start
2025
on
the
right
path
toward
an
incident-free
year.




Michael
C.
Maschke
([email protected])
is
the
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
Mr.Maschke
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner
(EnCE),
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner
(ACE),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH), and
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP).
He
is
a
frequent
speaker
on
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
and
he
has
co-authored
14
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.



Sharon
D.
Nelson
([email protected])
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.



John
W.
Simek
([email protected])
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
is
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP),
a Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
nationally
known
digital
forensics
expert.
He
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.

Above The Law’s Official 2024 Lawyer Of The Year Brought Meaningful Change To Chambers For Law Clerks – Above the Law

Judicial
law
clerks
have
all
sorts
of
special
conditions
attached
to
their
continuing
employment
in
chambers,
and
it
seems
that
accepting
the
honorary
title
of
“Lawyer
of
the
Year”
falls
outside
of
those
eligibility
requirements.
We
were
recently
made
aware
that
Ryan
Protter,
the
clerk
who

took
home
the
most
votes

in
our
2024
contest,
will
be
declining
the
award.

That
said,
it
is
now
time
to
announce
the


brand
new

winner
of
Above
the
Law’s
annual

Lawyer
of
the
Year
 competition.

We
are
bestowing
that
honor
upon

Aliza
Shatzman
,
founder
and
president
of
the Legal
Accountability
Project
.
Shatzman
can
add
our
Lawyer
of
the
Year
title
to
her
collection
of
awards
from
various
legal
organizations
for
bringing
meaningful
change
to
chambers
for
law
clerks.

In
what
seemed
like
a
Hurculean
task,
she
made
a
great
deal
of
progress
for
federal
law
clerks
this
year.
After
what
required
a
lot
of
blood,
sweat,
and
tears,
Shatzman
launched
the

Centralized
Clerkships
Database
,
essentially
a
“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”
a
tool
meant
to
empower
clerkship
applicants
with
much-needed
transparency
and
inside
information
from
former
clerks
about
judicial
work
environments.
“I
strongly
endorse
Aliza,
as
her
work
on
the
Legal
Accountability
Project
has
been
immensely
valuable
and
she
is
more
than
deserving,”
Protter
told
Above
the
Law.
Click here
to
read
some
of
her
excellent
columns
on
this
topic.

Congratulations
to
Aliza
Shatzman

Above
the
Law’s


official

2024
Lawyer
of
the
Year

on
achieving
what
many
once
considered
to
be
nigh
impossible
for
federal
law
clerks
in
the
United
States.



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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Judges Decide Clarence Thomas Was Just Confused When He Didn’t Report All That Money – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Apparently,
Clarence
Thomas
just
didn’t
understand
how
to
read
the
nearly
50-year-old
statute
requiring
him
to
report
massively
expensive
gifts.
That’s
the
Judicial
Conference’s

official
take

in
a
new
letter
to
the
Senate
panel
looking
into
the
ethical
cesspool.
The
letter
becomes
public
just
as
Chief
Justice
Roberts
releases
his
annual
report
asserting
that
most
criticism
of
the
Court
should
be
seen
as

improper
intimidation
and
even
violence
.
Before
the
holidays,
we
discussed
Biglaw
firms
bucking
the
trend
and
not
paying
out
special
bonuses.
Happy
to
report
that

they’ve
reversed
course
.

How Are Legal Department Professionals Spending Their Time? – Above the Law


Whether
they’re
responding
to
basic
questions,
keeping
track
of
contract
deadlines,
or
simply
searching
their
own
email
archives,
in-house
lawyers
face
numerous
distractions
from
their
most
valuable
tasks.


Which
got
us
asking:
How
are
legal
departments
performing
when
it
comes
to
getting
high-level
legal
and
business
guidance
from
their
in-house
attorneys? 


Are
your
lawyers
buried
in
administrative
chaos,
or
are
they
operating
at
peak
efficiency? 


Please
share
your
thoughts
in
this
(always)
brief
and
anonymous
survey.
Respondents
will
receive
a
chance
to
win
a
$250
gift
card. 


button_take-the-survey

Republicans Say ABA’s Diversity Revision Doesn’t Go Far Enough – Above the Law

Pictured:
A
potential
lawsuit

The
ABA
has
been
struggling
with
diversity
on
several
fronts.
On
one
hand,

they’re
struggling
to
articulate
the
importance
of
diversity
in
a
post

SFFA
v.
Harvard

world
,
and
trying
not
to
set
requirements
that
will
put
law
schools
in
legal
trouble
on
the
other.
Since
the
decision,
they’ve
been
drafting
alternative
calls
to
action
that
range
from
schools
showing
that
they’re
actively
not
discriminating
against
applicants
to
no
call
at
all.
Whatever
wording
they
use
is
suspect
to
a
lot
of
prodding.

Reuters

has
coverage:

Attorneys
general
from
21
Republican-controlled
states
have
warned
the
American
Bar
Association
that
its
law
school
diversity
rule
is
unlawful.
The
coalition
of
state
lawyers
on
Monday
sent
a
letter
to
the
arm
of
the
ABA
that
accredits
law
schools
opposing
both
its
current
diversity
standard
and
a
proposed
revision
of
that
rule
under
consideration.

The
anti-racial-diversity
brigade
takes
issue
with
the
notion
that
schools
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
a
commitment
to
including
groups
that
have
been
systemically
excluded
from
the
profession
with
“concrete
action.”
Now
that
scrubbing
any
attempt
at
equity
toward
the
disenfranchised
is
on
the
table,
we
get
to
see
what
moving
with
all
deliberate
speed

actually
looks
like.

Given
the
Court’s
14th
Amendment
jurisprudence,
the
law
looks
to
be
on
the
AGs’
side.
They
argue
that
removing
any
reference
to
race
would
actually
benefit
the
schools
by
making
it
less
likely
that
they’d
be
sued
over
their
admissions
practices.
Nice
claim,
but
is
that
actually
true?
Non-racial
commitments
to
“diversity”
will
still
piss
them
off.
For
example,
one
of
the
lesser
discussed
avenues
of
being
a
diverse
candidate
is
having
served
in
the
military.
Facially,
admitting
a
student
because
of
their
military
service
doesn’t
seem
to
run
against
the
14th
Amendment.
But
once
you
factor
in
that

Black
Americans
are
over-represented
in
the
military

or
that

the
Army
is
seeing
a
sharp
decline
in
White
recruits
,
will
the
changing
demographics
of
the
people
serving
the
country
open
up
law
schools
to
accusations
of

privileging
race
by
proxy
?


Republican
State
AGs
Oppose
American
Bar
Association’s
Revised
Diversity
Rule

[ABA
Journal]


Earlier:


ABA
Committee
Decides
To
Diversify
Diversity.
It
Should
Come
With
A
Clear
Reason
For
Why
That’s
Important.


13
State
AGs
Band
Together
To
Focus
On
What
Really
Matters

Preventing
Affirmative
Action


The
Slippery
Slope
Of
Ending
Affirmative
Action
Has
Moved
On
To
Its
Next
Target:
Women
And
‘Proxies
For
Diversity’



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.