Category: News Feeds

Hundreds
Of
Law
Professors
File
Amicus
Brief:
See
if
your
school
is
represented!
Didn’t
Expect
To
See
That
Name
So
Soon:
The
prosecution
wants
a
second
bite
at
Jeffrey
Williams.
A
Decision
Meant
To
Last:
Cheers
to
18
years
of
sobriety!
Are
You
Caught
Up
On
The
Fealty
List?:
Start
with
Milbank
and
go
in
reverse
order.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Vault’s
2025
Best
Law
Firms
ranking,
which
Biglaw
firm
score
best
for
associate/partner
relations?

Hint:
The
international
firm
has
been
around
185
years
—
and
counting.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

If
someone
offers
a
solution
to
the
access-to-justice
crisis,
you
generally
should
say
yes.
The
legal
needs
of
millions
currently
receive
the
attention
of
a
handful
of
attorneys
and
beyond
the
profession’s
long,
abysmal
record
of
meeting
the
needs
of
low-income
folks,
middle
class
families
increasingly
find
themselves
priced
out
of
legal
help.
Or,
just
as
damaging,
they

feel
so
priced
out
that
they
don’t
even
bother
to
figure
out
if
they
need
legal
help
and
just
mainline
existential
dread
over
their
troubles.

Since
a
long
overdue
influx
of
resources
into
legal
aid
is
not
on
the
DOGE
agenda,
the
legal
tech
community
has
set
its
eyes
on
generative
AI
as
a
potential
vector
for
delivering
needed
legal
services.
That
is,
if
the
AI
is
carefully
and
competently
designed
to
provide
accurate
legal
help
and
not

a
psychadelic
journey
to
the
heart
of
the
Montreal
Convention.

But
what
if
the

better
the
AI
tool,
the
more

dangerous
it
becomes?

That
uneasy
question
lingered
after
this
morning’s
ABA
TECHSHOW
panel
where
Kara
Peterson,
co-founder
of
justice
tech
startup

descrybe.ai
and
Jessica
Bednarz,
Director
of
Legal
Services
and
the
Profession
at
the

Institute
for
the
Advancement
of
the
American
Legal
System,
led
a
lively
discussion
on
the
promises
and
perils
of
AI
in
the
justice
gap
arena.

One
of
the
potential
benefits
of
AI
Peterson
identified
is
“simplified
and/or
translated
explanations
of
legal
concepts
and
directions.”
The
first
step
to
solving
a
legal
problem
is
knowing
you
have
a
legal
problem.
Bednarz
noted
that
research
from
2021
revealed
that
most
people
seeking
legal
help
went
to
internet
search.
But
today,
this
is
shifting
toward
GenAI
as
ChatGPT
takes
over
the
public
imagination.

Still,
Peterson
pointed
out
that
most
people
don’t
exactly
have
a
sixth
sense
for
spotting
“good”
vs.
“bad”
AI
advice.
Given
how
often

lawyers
screw
this
up,
calling
this
a
challenge
feels
like
an
understatement.

If
folks
in
need
of
legal
help
flock
to
big
name,
consumer-facing
AI
tools,
the
legal
advice
they
get
can
range
from
hilarious
to
disastrous.
Which
is
where
the
designers
of
bespoke
legal
tools
come
in.
Legal
professionals
understand
what
people
might
actually

need
from
an
AI
legal
information
product.
An

idiot
man-child
feeding
his
AI
“all
court
cases”
does
not.
But
the
next
challenge
is
finding
a
way
to
connect
these
non-lawyers
with
the
good
tools.
Because
right
now,
the
average
person
is
more
likely
to
consult
HallucinabotGPT
than
find
a
tailor-made
access-to-justice
tool
buried
deep
in
a
conference
vendor
list.

At
a
gathering
of
experts
intended
to
open
the
conversation
about
this
and
the
regulatory
environment
generally,
Bednarz
reported
that
the
group
settled
on
a
phased
approach
beginning
with
a
“soft
power”
campaign
based
in
guidance,
sandboxes,
and
spreading
the
message
that
AI
is
not
(necessarily)
the
unlicensed
practice
of
law.
A
full
report
on
the
group’s
conclusions
will
be
coming
in
a
few
months.

Damien
Riehl
of
vLex
took
the
unlicensed
practice
of
law
issue
further
and
questioned
whether
these
regulatory
regimes
amount
to
a
case
of
the
emperor’s
new
clothes.
State
regulators
aren’t
going
to
sue
OpenAI
even
though
ChatGPT
is
the
one
delivering
shitty
legal
advice
at
scale
to
the
have-nots.
But
when
a
specially
designed
legal
AI
tool
emerges,
suddenly
the
regulators
are
quick
to
fire
off
complaints.

But
one
questioner
flagged
a
downside.
Non-lawyers
know
to
take
Google
with
a
grain
of
salt.
But
once
an
AI
can
posture
itself
as
a
more
authoritative,
legally
vetted
product,
along
with
its
improved
accuracy
and
value
is
an
imprimatur
of
trust
that
would
make
the
impact
of
a
mistake
more
pronounced.

There’s
a
paradox
at
play.
Riehl
describes
a
spectrum
from
no
legal
services
to
hiring
counsel.
Essentially
along
the
way
there’s
Google,
which
is
worse
than
consumer
AI,
which
is
worse
than
legal
AI,
which
is
worse
than
legal
AI
complemented
by
a
human
lawyer.
But
what
if
worse
is
better
in
some
contexts?

If
one
of
the
most
important
contributions
to
solving
access
to
justice
is
helping
people

realize
when
they
have
a
legal
problem
in
the
first
place,
to
what
extent
do
better
tools
erroneously
convince
them
that
they
have
problems
they
can
handle
themselves.
Maybe
a
clunky,
obviously
flawed
tool
is
less
dangerous
than
one
that
seems
polished
and
confident
(and
correct…
if
you
have
the
training
to
understand
the
nuance)
enough
to
inspire
false
confidence.

Consider
the
medical
profession,
where
arming
patients
with
more
“little
bits
of
knowledge”
spawned
a
population
of
morons

convinced
that
they
can
solve
measles
with
good
nutrition
because
they
conflate
the
fact
that
Vitamin
A
is
a
treatment
for
measles
with
the
idea
that
it’s
some
kind
of
vaccine
for
measles.

More
information
—
even
on
its
face
good
information
—
can
usher
in
the
maelstrom
of
misinformation
in
the
wrong
hands.

Though
the
damage
may
already
be
done
by
the
range
of
consumer
AI
products.
Google
gave
people
options
to
consider…
AI
gives
them
an
“answer.”
And
the
thing
about
consumer
AI
is
that
it’s
going
to
ACT
like
it
knows
what
it’s
doing.
We
don’t
call
it
Mansplaining
As
A
Service
for
nothing.
If
the
cat’s
out
of
the
bag,
the
only
benefit
of
cracking
down
on
artisanal
legal
AI
for
clients
is
leaving
them
at
the
mercy
of
the
loudest,
drunkest
large
language
model
at
the
bar.

In
other
words,
maybe
selling
contact
voltage
detectors
at
Lowe’s
increases
the
risk
of
ill-considered
home
electrical
projects,
but
since
many
more
folks
were
going
to
do
try
it
anyway
and
I’d
rather
they
have
voltage
testers
when
they
do.
Home
insurance
carriers
agree.

All
of
which
is
to
say
that
the
ethical
issues
surrounding
AI’s
role
in
bridging
the
access
to
justice
gap
remain
thorny.
On
balance,
society
is
probably
better
off
with
a
regulatory
environment
that
encourages
more
legal-need-specific
AI
products
than
not.
But
developers
should
be
mindful
of
the
risks
involved
when
handing
legal
help
to
non-lawyers
and
spend
at
least
as
much
time
pondering
how
the
tech
can
be
misapplied
as
they
do
thinking
about
how
much
it
can
help.

---

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.

Ed
note: This
is
the
eighth
in
a
series.
Read
the previous
installment
here.

Picture
yourself
as
a
chef
in
the
grand
kitchen
of
networking.
The
conference
has
ended,
but
the
ingredients
you’ve
gathered
—
the
contacts,
the
conversations
—
are
fresh
and
ready
to
be
transformed
into
something
delectable.

Like
a
culinary
artist,
your
task
is
to
take
these
raw
interactions
and
craft
them
into
memorable,
long-lasting
relationships

By
avoiding
these
culinary-inspired
catastrophes,
you
ensure
your
post-conference
follow-ups
are
as
delectable
as
a
signature
dish.

1. 
   The
   Overcooked
   Email:
   Flooding
   their
   inbox
   with
   lengthy,
   rambling
   messages.
   Think
   less
   is
   more;
   your
   email
   isn’t
   a
   novel.
2. 
   The
   Underseasoned
   Approach:
   Sending
   generic,
   uninspired
   follow-ups.
   “Dear
   Sir/Madam”
   belongs
   in
   the
   trash
   can
   of
   networking.
3. 
   The
   Burnt
   Bridge:
   Arguing
   or
   being
   confrontational
   in
   follow-up
   interactions.
   Keep
   the
   heat
   for
   the
   kitchen,
   not
   your
   emails.
4. 
   The
   Forgotten
   Ingredient:
   Not
   remembering
   key
   details
   about
   the
   person
   or
   conversation.
   Imagine
   serving
   a
   peanut
   butter
   sandwich
   without
   the
   peanut
   butter.
5. 
   The
   Half-Baked
   Promise:
   Offering
   help
   or
   resources
   and
   not
   following
   through.
   It’s
   like
   promising
   a
   gourmet
   meal
   and
   delivering
   fast
   food.
6. 
   The
   Recipe
   Thief:
   Taking
   credit
   for
   others’
   ideas
   or
   insights
   shared
   in
   confidence.
   Respect
   is
   key.
7. 
   The
   Excessive
   Garnish:
   Overwhelming
   with
   too
   much
   flattery
   or
   unnecessary
   compliments.
   A
   sprinkle
   of
   praise
   is
   good,
   a
   bucketful
   is
   overkill.

By
embracing
the
role
of
a
Networking
Chef
in
the
post-conference
phase,
you
turn
simple
contacts
into
rich,
fulfilling
professional
relationships,
much
like
turning
basic
ingredients
into
a
gourmet
meal.

The
key
is
in
how
you
mix,
marinate,
and
present
your
follow-up
efforts.
So,
tie
your
apron,
sharpen
your
knives,
and
let’s
cook
up
some
unforgettable
networking
dishes!

The
Recipe
for
Disaster:
What
Not
to
Do

✔️ Sending
overwhelming,
generic,
or
confrontational
follow-ups.
✔️ Forgetting
key
details
and
failing
to
follow
through
on
promises.
✔️ Ending
conversations
negatively.
✔️ Engaging
in
excessive
flattery.

---

Sejal
Patel
is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
dedicated
to
helping
attorneys
turn
relationships
into
clients.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
strategically
analyzes
attorneys’
networks
to
uncover
revenue
and
relationship
opportunities,
crafting
individualized
approaches
that
align
with
their
unique
strengths
and
styles.
Learn
more
at www.sageivyconsulting.com.  

Many
profitable
and
well-run
law
firms
have
separate
legal
technology
systems
for
separate
tasks. 

But
could
these
firms
save
some
cash
and
become
more
efficient
if
they
were
to
consolidate
these
tools? 

Would
doing
so
provide
competitive
advantages
in
the
future? 

How
difficult
of
a
process
—
really
—
is
it
to
consolidate
separate
systems
and
the
data
they
contain? 

In
the
latest
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech”
podcast,
host
Jared
Correia
is
joined
by
Dr.
Cain
Elliott
and
Keegan
Chapman
of
Filevine
to
explore
these
questions. 

The
Hidden
Perils

Consider
the
video
consumers
who
got
rid
of
basic
cable
for
a
mashup
of
streaming
apps.
For
many,
what
at
first
blush
seems
like
a
savvy
approach
can
end
up
being
more
costly. 

When
it
comes
to
business
risk,
however,
there’s
an
added
pitfall:
The
more
tools
you
have,
the
more
hidden
features
can
emerge.
Here,
the
panelists
discuss
hidden
risks
in
technology
tools.

Mailboxes
and
Doc
Management

Is
using
your
email
as
a
document
repository
an
effective
system?
Here,
the
panel
shares
an
analogy
from
the
physical
world.

Consider
the
Roomba

Using
a
general
AI
app
for
legal
work
can
be
like
letting
a
Roomba
run
wild
outside.
Here,
the
panelists
explain
why. 

Digging
Deeper

Curious
to
hear
the
full
episode?
Listen
here. 

Two
leading
international
legal
transformation
think
tanks,

Digital
Legal
Exchange
(DLEx)
and

Liquid
Legal
Institute
(LLI),
are
joining
forces
effective
April
1.
The
strategic
union
brings
together
more
than
1,500
members
representing
more
than
140
multinational
corporations,
organizations,
institutions
and
agencies
across
more
than
20
countries,
creating
what
the
organizations
describe
as
a
formidable
global
forum
for
legal
transformation.

Going
forward,
DLEx
will
operate
within
LLI
as
a
curated
legal
executive
forum
called
the
Digital
Leaders
Exchange
@
Liquid
Legal
Institute
(DLE@LLI),
to
be
led
by
the
cofounders
of
DLEx,
Chairman

William
“Bill”
Deckelman
and
Chairman
Emeritus

Mark
A.
Cohen.

The
union
aims
to
create
the
world’s
leading
think
tank
for
legal
transformation
under
the
motto,
“Together
we
design
the
future
of
legal.”

“Welcoming
the
distinct
DLEx
community
will
strengthen
LLI’s
vision
of
serving
as
an
international,
diverse
think
tank
focused
on
innovation
and
transformation
in
law,
embracing
all
parts
and
all
levels
of
the
organization,”
said

Dr.
Dierk
Schindler,
co-founder
and
co-CEO
of
LLI,
along
with

Kai
Jacob.

Deckelman,
who
is
currently
chief
legal
officer
at
Anderson
and
who
has
held
that
role
at
several
major
corporations,
added:
“The
opportunity
to
formalize
the
close
working
relationship
DLEx
has
had
with
LLI
is
very
exciting
and
will
create
a
powerful
capability
to
collaboratively
address
the
significant
challenges
facing
corporate
legal
organizations
in
the
AI
era.”

Complementary
Organizations

The
merger
reflects
the
two
organization’s
complementary
strengths
and
approaches.
Both
have
collaborated
in
the
past
and
even
share
some
overlapping
members.
Both
focus
on
applied
research,
community
building,
and
practice
solutions.
And
both
are
navigating
the
same
terrain
of
enhancing
the
legal
function.

In
an
interview
for
my

LawNext
podcast
that
will
air
tomorrow
with
Schindler
and
Cohen,
Schindler
explained
that,
while
LLI
started
as
an
association
for
the
“doers
and
shakers”
in
legal
organizations,
eventually
bringing
in
more
managing
partners,
general
counsel,
and
senior
business
leaders,
DLEx
began
from
the
outset
with
a
focus
general
counsels
and
senior
leaders.

With
this
union,
and
the
creation
of
DLE@LLI,
there
is
still
a
space
for
general
counsel
to
continue
to
have
an
exchange
in
the
spirit
fostered
by
DLEx,
while
also
opening
the
door
for
them
to
bring
in
more
of
their
teams
to
engage
in
projects,
initiatives,
roundtables,
and
the
like.

In
addition,
Schindler
said,
the
union
broadens
the
organization’s
geographic
scope.
Because
LLI
was
founded
in
Germany,
its
membership
is
strongest
in
Europe.
By
contrast,
the
bulk
of
the
membership
of
DLEx
is
in
the
United
States
and
the
United
Kingdom.

“It’s
a
win-win-win
all
around,”
Schindler
said.
“The
initial
feedback
that
we’ve
received,
both
from
the
Liquid
Legal
Institute
community,
but
also,
more
importantly,
from
the
DLEx
community,
is
super
positive
in
terms
of
seeing
that
added
value
and
additional
opportunity.”

One
Plus
One
Equals
11

Cohen,
an
internationally
known
legal
business
consultant
at

Legal
Mosaic
and
longtime

columnist
for
Forbes,
described
the
union
as
one
in
which
“one
and
one
adds
up
to
11,”
noting
that
both
organizations
share
common
goals
and
methods.

“For
a
long
time,
Bob,
my
view
is
that
our
industry
has
been
too
vulcanized,”
Cohen
said
in
our
podcast
interview.
Too
many
legal
associations,
he
said,
are
too
heavily
driven
by
concerns
about
dues
and
sponsorships.
In
contrast,
neither
LLI
nor
DLEx
are
sponsor
driven,
but
rather
are
independent
and
have
as
their
primary
goal
creating
community.

Founded
in
2018,
DLEx
has
functioned
as
a
global,
non-profit
membership
forum
for
general
counsels,
business
leaders,
and
select
external
advisors
focused
on
accelerating
digital
transformation
of
the
corporate
legal
function.
LLI,
also
founded
in
2018,
is
an
international
think
tank
devoted
to
legal
transformation
with
a
broader
membership
representing
the
entire
legal
sector.

The
integration
creates
expanded
opportunities
for
member
organizations.
Former
DLEx
members,
who
typically
engaged
as
individuals
or
with
a
deputy,
can
now
bring
entire
teams
(up
to
30
members)
into
LLI
activities.
Current
DLEx
members
will
automatically
become
LLI
members
through
2025.

Benefits
to
members
will
include
expanded
community,
scholarship,
and
live
and
virtual
events,
drawing
on
the
expertise
of
each
group’s
members.
DLEx
entity
members
can
now
engage
more
of
their
colleagues
in
a
wide
range
of
LLI
transformation
activities
appropriate
to
their
level
and
role.

DLE@LLI
will
continue
to
host
DLEx’s
signature
Salons
—
invitation-only
virtual
events
for
GCs
and
senior
innovation
leaders
to
engage
in
candid
and
robust
exchanges
on
timely
topics.

A
dedicated
DLE
Executive
Office,
led
by

Robert
Dilworth,
who
was
already
a
member
of
both
organizations,
will
ensure
a
smooth
transition
and
support
DLE
activities
within
the
broader
LLI
framework.

Joint
Events
Planned

A
series
of
initial
joint
projects
and
events
is
already
planned,
which
includes:

• The
  April
  12
  publication
  of
  the
  book,
  
  
  Liquid
  Legal
  —
  Sustaining
  the
  Rule
  of
  Law,
  which
  includes
  contributions
  from
  some
  30
  members
  of
  both
  LLI
  and
  DLEx.
• Featured
  content
  at
  
  Legal
  Tech
  Talk
  2025
  in
  London
  (June
  26-27)
  and
  LLI’s
  2025
  Summit
  in
  Düsseldorf
  (July
  7-8),
  including
  a
  private
  GC
  meeting
  and
  dinner
  associated
  with
  these
  events.
• Publication
  of
  a
  collaborative
  white
  paper
  on
  gen
  AI-era
  legal
  sector
  talent.

The
organizations
share
a
vision
of
transforming
the
legal
function
to
better
serve
business
needs
in
a
digital
world.
“Transformation
has
a
lot
to
do
with
mindset,
first
and
foremost,”
Schindler
explained
in
our
podcast
interview.
“This
is
not
a
project.
This
is
not
about
technology,
first
and
foremost.
This
is
about
people,
yes,
but
first
of
all,
it’s
a
mindset.”

Cohen
emphasized
the
importance
of
creativity
and
curiosity
in
modern
legal
practice:
“When
I
was
a
baby
lawyer
…
you
were
not
encouraged
to
be
creative.
You
were
not
particularly
encouraged
to
be
curious.
And
I’m
delighted
to
say
that
in
today’s
world,
I
think
that
has
become
a
real
requisite
for
lawyers.”

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

We
do
take
an
oath
to
uphold
the
Constitution
and
the
rule
of
law.
This
is
clearly
antithetical
to
that.
And
you
know
what
the
problem
is?
It’s
costly.
And
we’re
not
used
to
paying
a
price
for
our
freedom.
And
we’re
not
used
to
paying
the
price
for
constitutional
democracy.
And
we’ve
deferred
payment.

—
Professor

Bill
Henderson
of
Indiana
University
Maurer
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
on
the
cultural
costs
that
Biglaw
firms’
capitulation
to
Donald
Trump’s
threats
may
have
on
the
legal
profession.


Thus
far,

Paul
Weiss, Skadden,

Willkie,
and

Milbank
have
made
deals
with Trump
to
get
out
from
under
or
avoid
his
harmful
executive
orders,
while Perkins
Coie, Jenner
&
Block,
and WilmerHale have
filed
suit
to
defend
their
firms
and
the
rule
of
law.

---

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.

I
thought
that
we
were
done
with
this
episode!
Jeffery
Williams,
Barter
6
rapper
and
belt
holder
for
the
longest
trial
in
Georgia’s
history,
is
back
in
the
hot
seat.

It
took
a
lot
of
luck
and
chutzpah
for
Young
Thug
and
Brian
Steel
to
put
their
trust
in
the
judge’s
hands
for
sentencing,
but
they
hit
the
jackpot.
Instead
of
the
state’s
suggested
decades
of
imprisonment,

Judge
Whitaker
allowed
him
to
walk
with
15
years
of
probation.
If
violated,
the
cuffs
magically
manifest
and
he
has
to
serve
20
years.

Georgia
just
filed
a
motion
claiming
that
the
“if”
moment
already
happened.

Billboard
has
coverage:

[T]he
crux
of
the
filing
revolves
around
what
prosecutors
have
labelled
“escalating
threats
and
witness
intimidation.”
They
note
that
Fulton
County
Investigator
Marissa
Viverito
is
in
the
process
of
testifying
in
a
“multi-defendant
gang
murder
preliminary
hearing”
which
has
seen
the
Court
order
witnesses
not
to
be
shown
on
television
while
testifying.
However,
a
user
on
social
media
posted
an
image
of
Viverito
online
with
a
caption
stating,
“She
doesn’t
want
to
be
shown
on
screen?
Well,
here
she
is.”

On
Tuesday
(April
1),
Thug
is
alleged
to
have
shared
a
since-deleted
repost
the
image,
pairing
it
with
a
caption
claiming
“Marissa
Viverito
is
the
biggest
liar
in
the
DA’s
office.”
According
to
the
filing,
the
post
“quickly
went
viral,”
resulting
in
over
two
million
views,
and
resulting
in
“direct
threats
to
Investigator
Viverito
and
her
family.”

Now,
it
would
be
one
thing
if
this
was
limited
to
Thugger’s
decision
to
call
her
a
liar
as
a
matter
of
protected
speech.
Unfortunately,
the
waters
are
murkier.
After
he
shared
the
image
and
caption,
other
social
media
users
started
throwing
around
what
appear
to
be
threats
toward
Viverito,
her
mother,
and
Fani
Willis.
The
real
question
is
if
Jeffery
shared
something
and
other
people
got
out
of
hand,
or
if
he
pulled
a
“Will
no
one
rid
me
of
this
meddlesome
Investigator?”
As
you
could
imagine,
the
prosecution
is
arguing
the
latter.
Young
Thug
tweeted
this
in
response:

I
don’t
make
treats
to
people
I’m
a
good
person,
I
would
never
condone
anyone
threatening
anyone
or
definitely
participate
in
threatening
anyone.
I’m
all
about
peace
and
love

—
Young
Thug
ひ
(@youngthug)

April
3,
2025

That’s
the
thing
about
plausible
deniability
and
stochastic
terrorism,
it
allows
you
to
make
treats
[sic]
without
ever

actually
having
to
make
them.
Now,
do
I
think
Young
Thug
did
this
by
sharing
an
image
and
should
be
sent
to
prison
for
20
years?
Hell
no
—
while
the
prosecution
might
have
a
colorable
argument,
it
is
quite
the
stretch.
Again,

he
didn’t
say
or
do
anything
threatening,
random
people
on
social
media
made
the
threats.
That
discontent
was
already
out
there.
Pinning
its
origin
to
a
Young
Thug
tweet
is

about
as
bad
psychology
as
trying
to
use
rap
lyrics
to
incriminate
him.
The
good
news
is
that
Thugger
won’t
have
to
rely
on
me
arguing
on
his
behalf;
Brian
Steel
is
probably
already
on
it.

Prosecutors
File
Motion
To
Revoke
Young
Thug’s
Probation
[Billboard]

Earlier:

The
YSL
RICO
Trial
Is
Finally
Done
With!

Desperate
For
Evidence,
Prosecutors
Will
Use
Young
Thug
Lyrics
In
Trial

---

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
is
learning
to
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.

The
Trump
administration’s
decision
to
retaliate
against
the
President’s
former
Biglaw
adversaries
is
unprecedented
in
American
history.
Most
of
the
focus
has
been
on
Trump’s
audacity
or
Biglaw’s
repeated
cowardice,
but
let’s
take
a
second
to
think
about
the
judges
who
have
to
deal
with
this
mess.
When
deciding
matters
of
first
impression,
you
really
want
to
make
sure
that
you’re
seeing
all
of
the
angles
as
clearly
as
you
can.
Deciding
the
matter
in
good
faith
may
require
re-reading
a
couple
of
cases
—
even
going
back
to
basics
and
dusting
off
some
Con
Law
readings
from
your
1L
years
is
fair
game.
But
you
know
what’s
better
than
consulting
the
textbook?
Whoever
wrote
the
book
you’re
consulting.
And
at
this
point,
that
might
apply
to

all
of
your
books.
Hundreds
of
law
professors
(363,
to
be
exact)
specializing
in
Constitutional
Law,
Legal
Ethics,
and
Legal
History
recently
submitted
an
amicus
brief
in
support
of
Perkins
Coie.
The
professors
aren’t
pulling
any
punches
either.
Here’s
a
snippet
of
the
summary
of
argument
from
the
brief:

The
President’s
Order
is
a
self-declared
act
of
retribution
that
targets
a
law
firm
for
representing
clients
and
causes
the
President
disfavors.
In
inflicting
this
retribution,
the
Order
contradicts
centuries
of
precedent
safeguarding
free
speech,
the
right
of
association,
and
the
right
to
petition.
These
precedents
establish
that
the
First
Amendment
“prohibits
government
officials
from
‘relying
on
the
threat
of
invoking
legal
sanctions
and
other
means
of
coercion
.
.
.
to
achieve
the
suppression’
of
disfavored
speech.”
Nat’l
Rifle
Ass’n
v.
Vullo,
602
U.S.
175,
176
(2024)
(quoting
Bantam
Books,
Inc.
v.
Sullivan,
372
U.S.
58,
67
(1963)).
Targeting
Perkins
Coie
for
representing
clients
and
espousing
views
the
President
dislikes
is
viewpoint
discrimination,
plain
and
simple.

It
goes
on
to
state
that
the
executive
order
targeting
Perkins
Coie
violates
the
5th
Amendment,
the
6th
Amendment,
and
threatens
the
rule
of
law.
Beyond
being
an
interesting
read
outright,
it
is
so
clearly
expressed
that
it
is,
unsurprisingly,
a
teaching
exercise.
It
is
ready
made
for
anyone
who
needs
to
brush
up
on
their
Con
Law
because
of
time
constraints,
be
it
because
they
are
presiding
over
a
declining
country’s
rapid
departure
from
the
rule
of
law
or
because
they
need
to
cram
for
an
upcoming
law
exam.
You
can
read
the
motion
for
leave
to
file
and
the
brief
proper
on
the
following
pages.

Earlier:

The
American
Constitution
Society
Calls
On
Quiet
Law
School
Deans
To
Speak
Up

Thousands
Of
Lawyers
Sign
Open
Letter
To
Defend
The
Rule
Of
Law
From
Executive
Attack

Over
50
Bar
Organizations
Stand
Up
For
The
Rule
Of
Law

---

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
is
learning
to
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.