Category: News Feeds

In
a
move
extending
generative
AI’s
global
reach
in
the
legal
industry,
DISCO
announced
the
launch
of
its
Cecilia
AI
Platform
across
the
European
Union
and
the
UK.
Note
how
we
said,
“European
Union
and
the
UK”
as
opposed
to
just
“European
Union”
there?
The
UK
blew
up
its
whole
economy
just
so
we
have
to
append
its
name
separately!
Brilliant
trade-off.

Alas,
Cecilia
AI
promises
to
streamline
the
data-heavy
lift
of
modern
document
review
and
ediscovery,
aiming
to
turn
days
and
weeks
of
discovery
work
into
hours.

Getting
AI
into
the
hands
of
the
European
market
requires
navigating
Europe’s
complex
regulatory
environment.
The
EU’s
Artificial
Intelligence
Act
erected
a
framework
to
address
the
risks
and
ethical
concerns
posed
by
AI,
introducing
stringent
requirements
on
transparency,
accountability,
and
the
ability
to
explain
AI
decisions.
Satisfying
Europe’s
call
for
visibility
in
AI
decision
making
involves
a
little
extra
work
than
in
the
U.S.,
but
in
addition
to
the
products
launched
this
week,
DISCO
expects
to
have
more
generative
AI
tools
in
that
market
in
2025.

With
this
launch,
DISCO
introduces
Cecilia
Q&A
to
the
European
market.
This
AI
fact
expert
is
fully
integrated
within
a
user’s
DISCO
Ediscovery
database.
Lawyers
can
interrogate
their
document
sets
directly,
receiving
quick,
citation-backed
answers
that
highlight
key
documents
swimming
within
the
terabytes
of
data.
It’s
a
tool
designed
to
put
eyes
on
the
most
important
documents
quickly
and
efficiently.
Or,
if
the
attorney
wants,
there’s
a
single-document
version
of
Q&A
that
limits
the
interrogation
to
one
item.
All
of
which
is
done
without
sourcing
source
information
from
online,
with
answers
limited
to
the
information
within
a
customer’s
specific
database.

Basically
keeping
AI
from
hallucinating
by
cutting
off
access
to
the
internet
shrooms.

And
the
document
summary
function
creates
the
reader’s
digest
version
of
lengthy,
complex
or
important
documents
to
speed
up
the
all-too-familiar
process
of
slogging
through
a
long
document
only
to
realize
it’s
totally
irrelevant.

Which
gets
back
to
the
theme
I
took
away
from
my
ILTACON
meeting
with
DISCO
—

generative
AI’s
most
powerful
application
might
just
be
its
appeal
as
an
interface.
Legal
tech
has
had
the
power
to
deliver
a
lot
of
these
insights
for
a
while.
Providing
material
relevant
to
a
query
or
generating
a
‘Key
Word
In
Context’
style
summary
existed
before.
But
now,
AI’s
ability
to
offer
a
natural,
conversational
interface
—
delivering
coherent,
easily
reviewed
results
—
makes
a
difference.

But
something
about
generative
AI
products
have
proven
more
accessible
to
the
lawyerly
mind.
Personally,
I
think
it’s
the

iterative
nature
of
the
interface.
Prior
technology
could
only
answer
the
most
recent
query
and
left
it
to
the
user
to
figure
out
if
their
prompt
delivered
the
right
result.
Hunting
and
pecking
but
with
inquiries.
Generative
AI
learns
from
its
interactions
with
the
user
mimicking
the
back-and-forth
between
a
partner
and
associate
and
improving
the
results
incrementally.
This
dynamic
interface
feels
more
intuitive
to
lawyers,
who
are
used
to
a
process
of
refining
insights
through
dialogue.

And
occasionally
yelling.

Whatever
it
is,
studies
reveal
that
these
AI
tools
have
brought
many
senior
attorneys
to
technology
for
the
first
time
when
they
would
historically
farm
that
work
out
to
juniors
or
outside
providers.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
if
the
European
and
UK
contingent
follow
their
American
counterparts
in
embracing
this
tech.

Because
technology
is
only
useful
if
it
gets
used.

---

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.

MAGA
lawyer
Cleta
Mitchell
is
back
at
it
—
trying
to
sow
seeds
of
doubt
about
the
2024
election,
even
before
the
results
are
in.
Sure,
her

dubious
legal
advice
surrounding
the
2020
election
got
her shitcanned
from
Biglaw
firm
Foley
&
Lardner’s
partnership
(and
the
fact
that
the
firm

claimed
to
have
no
knowledge
of
the
representation).
But
her
entire
gig
now
basically
revolves
around
disenfranchising
voters
—

as
reported
by
Shawn
Musgrave
at
the
Intercept.

Today,
Mitchell
is
a
senior
fellow
at
the
Conservative
Partnership
Institute
and
founder
of
the
Election
Integrity
Network.
In
recent
weeks,
she
has
helped
plant
lawsuits
that
seek
last-minute
changes
to
election
procedures
based
on
the
hypothetical
risk
of
election
fraud
from
overseas
voters.
Mitchell
did
not
respond
to
The
Intercept’s
questions,
including
about
the
status
of
a
disciplinary
complaint
filed
against
her
in
2022.

Of
course,
those
lawsuits
are
in
swing
states.

The
current

con
cases
involve
casting
doubt
on
the
votes
of
U.S.
citizens
abroad.
Mitchell
has
described
her
“theory”
in
public
statements.

“They’re
literally
getting
people
to
lie,”
Mitchell
said,
“and
to
say
that
they’re
overseas
or
to
say
that
they’re
citizens,
and
the
states
are
not
checking
at
all.
And
so
I’ve
helped
to
organize
suits
in
two
states:
one
in
Pennsylvania,
one
in
North
Carolina.”

Mitchell’s
comments
follow
recent
claims
from
Trump
that
Democrats’
get-out-the-vote
efforts
among
overseas
citizens
was
actually
cover
for
fraud.
Two
lawsuits
match
the
timing
of
Mitchell’s
interview
and
her
description:
one
filed
in
federal
court
in
Pennsylvania
on
behalf
of
six
Republican
members
of
Congress,
and
the
other
in
state
court
in
North
Carolina
on
behalf
of
the
Republican
National
Committee
and
the
state
GOP.

The
RNC
filed
a
similar
third
suit
last
week
in
Michigan,
after
Mitchell’s
interview.
And
Mitchell
said
she
hoped
to
see
similar
litigation
over
overseas
ballots
filed
soon
in
Wisconsin
and
Georgia.

The
RNC
has
denied
Mitchell
worked
on
their
lawsuits.

Officials
have
strongly
denied
there’s
any
fraud,
except
that
which
lives
in
MAGA
attorneys’
heads.

“This
is
not
a
legitimate
legal
concern,”
Angela
Benander,
spokesperson
for
the
Michigan
Department
of
State,
told
The
Intercept.
“Just
the
latest
in
the
RNC’s
PR
campaign
to
spread
unfounded
distrust
in
the
integrity
of
our
elections.”
On
Monday,
the
agency
asked
for
sanctions
against
the
RNC’s
attorneys
for
filing
a
last-minute
lawsuit
“devoid
of
legal
merit”
over
long-standing
overseas
ballot
procedures.

But
even
without
evidence
of
voter
fraud,
the
litigation
itself
fuels
the
problem.

“One
of
the
lessons
from
2020
was
that
the
impact
of
bringing
all
these
lawsuits
in
terms
of
public
trust
in
the
election
was
significant,”
said
legal
ethics
professor
Scott
Cummings,
who
has
written
about
the
MAGA
legal
braintrust’s
efforts
to
keep
Trump
in
power.
“Most
of
the
lawsuits
then
were
not
designed
to
win
on
the
merits,
but
to
confuse
the
public.
These
cases
are
of
a
same
piece.”

“It
seems
like
there’s
a
political
calculation,”
Cummings
said.
“These
lawyers
unfortunately
believe
it’s
worth
it.”

Makes
you
wonder
about
the
status
of
that

disciplinary
complaint
against
Mitchell.

---

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].

In
the
latest
episode
of
our
video
series

How
It
Works,
we
bring
you
a
demonstration
of

Briefpoint,
a
solution
that
uses
artificial
intelligence
to
draft
discovery
responses
and
discovery
requests
in
litigation.

With
Briefpoint,
a
lawyer
simply
uploads
a
PDF
document
and
it
generates
the
appropriate
discovery
requests
or
response.
It
can
generate
responses
to
requests
for
admission,
requests
for
production,
or
interrogatories.

In
addition
to
creating
discovery
responses,
Briefpoint’s
newest
feature
can
create
initial
discovery
requests
based
on
the
pleadings.
The
lawyer
simply
uploads
a
complaint
or
answer,
and
it
automatically
generates
a
request
for
production,
a
request
for
admissions,
and
a
set
of
special
interrogatories.

Joining
me
today
to
tell
us
all
about
Briefpoint
and
show
us
how
it
works
is

Nathan
Walter,
the
company’s
CEO
and
cofounder.
The
topics
he
covers
are:

• About
  Briefpoint.
• Response
  Documents:
  Upload
  discovery
  request
  in
  PDF
  and
  download
  discovery
  response
  in
  a
  Word
  document.
• Response
  Collection:
  Briefpoint
  converts
  requests
  into
  plain
  English
  and
  collects
  responses
  from
  your
  clients.
• Document
  Formatting:
  Automatic
  document
  formatting
  pursuant
  to
  each
  case’s
  jurisdiction’s
  local
  formatting
  rules
  and
  customs
  (all
  50
  states
  +
  DC).
• Propounding
  Discovery:
  Upload
  a
  pleading
  PDF,
  download
  complete
  sets
  of
  interrogatories,
  requests
  for
  production,
  and
  fequests
  for
  admission.

Watch
the
video
below.

About
How
It
Works

How
It
Works is
a
sponsored
video
series
that
lets
you
see
how
legal
technology
products
work.
Each
episode
features
a
hands-on
demonstration,
presented
by
the
product’s
developer
and
moderated
by
me.

See other
episodes
here
or

on
YouTube,
or
read

this
introduction.

To
feature
your
product
in How
It
Works, contact
us
here.

Donald
Trump’s
lawyers
are
trying
something
new
in
the
election
interference
case,
and
that
thing
is
civility.
Since
August
of
2023,
attorneys
John
Lauro
and
Todd
Blanche
have
larded
their
pleadings
with
invective,
calling
the
special
counsel
a
puppet
of
the
Biden
administration
who
timed
his
filings
to
protect
his
“boss’s”
flagging
electoral
prospects
and
characterizing
the
judge’s
own
orders
as
lawless.

In
their

very
last
filing
in
this
case,
Lauro
and
Blanche
accused
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
of
presenting
“so-called
‘evidence’”
which
he
had
“unlawfully
cherry-picked
and
mischaracterized,”
in
an
act
of
“overt
and
inappropriate
election
interference.”
This
act
was
a
brief
defending
its
superseding
indictment
in
light
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
presidential
immunity
decision
in
July.
Trump
characterized
the
filing
as
“improper,”
despite
the
fact
that
Judge
Tanya
Chutkan
herself
ordered
the
prosecutor
to
file
it.

The
special
counsel
filed
an
appendix
to
that
brief
under
seal,
and
Judge
Chutkan
invited
the
defendant
to
comment
on
the
proposed
redactions.
He

did
not
comment
on
the
proposed
redactions,
which
he
had
referred
to
as
“impotent”
in
a
prior
filing.
Instead
he
asked
the
court
to
“stay
that
determination
for
a
reasonable
period
of
time
so
that
President
Trump
can
evaluate
litigation
options
relating
to
the
decision.”
Noting
that
“[a]s
in
his
previous
filing,
he
identifies
no
specific
substantive
objections
to
particular
proposed
redactions,”
the
court
nonetheless

granted
Trump
seven
additional
days
before
publishing
the
redacted
filing
on
the
public
docket.

Presumably
the
court
thought
Trump
would
race
to
the
Circuit
Court
or
perhaps
the
Supreme
Court
in
advance
of
the
deadline
expiring
today
seeking
mandamus
or
at
least
an
administrative
stay.
But
he
didn’t
do
that
either.
Instead
he
filed
yet
another

motion
asking
for
the

exact
same
relief,
but
this
time
with
about
75
percent
less
incendiary
rhetoric.
After
trying
literally
everything
else,
Trump
is
trying
to
act
normal
for
the
first
time
in
this
case.

Well,
normalish.
What
he’s
asking
for
is
still
batshit
and
stupid.
But
at
least
he’s
being
polite
…
graded
on
a
curve.

He
asks
Judge
Chutkan
to
stay
release
of
the
appendix
until
his
own
response
is
released
on
November
14.
That
document
is
due
on
the
7th,
and
will
remain
under
seal
for
a
week
to
allow
the
parties
to
argue
about
redactions,
and
Trump
suggests
that
potential
jurors
will
be
less
poisoned
by
seeing
the
two
filings
together.

“[I]f
the
Court
immediately
releases
the
Special
Counsel’s
cherry-picked
documents,
potential
jurors
will
be
left
with
a
skewed,
one-sided,
and
inaccurate
picture
of
this
case.
Those
same
potential
jurors
may
not
see
President
Trump’s
later
responsive
filing,
and
even
if
some
do,
first
impressions
are
prone
to
remain,”
he
argues.
“That
is
especially
so
as
this
Court’s
gag
order
unconstitutionally
restricts
President
Trump’s
ability
to
utilize
First
Amendment-protected
political
speech
to
publicly
comment
on
these
proceedings,
including
the
SA
Appendix.”
(Okay,
that’s
a
bit
inappropriate.
Old
habits
die
hard!)

This
is
transparent
bullshit,
of
course.
Obviously
he
just
wants
to
keep
this
document
out
of
the
public
before
the
election.
And
once
again
he
approvingly
quotes

Elie
Honig
and

Jack
Goldsmith
to
buttress
his
point,
even
though
their
arguments
are
based
solely
on
proximity
to
the
election,
not
poisoning
the
jury
pool.
The
court
has
already

rejected
the
“Defendant’s
concern
with
the
political
consequences
of
these
proceedings”
and
warned
him
that
“Future
filings
should
be
directed
to
the
issues
before
the
court.”

Trump’s
lawyers
seem
to
think
that
perhaps
they
will
get
a
different
result
if
they
dial
back
the
invective
a
scosh
and
repeat
their
argument
in
a
slightly
different
way.

Although
the
Court
has
decided,
over
President
Trump’s
objections,
that
the
“‘political
consequences
of
these
proceedings’
is
not
a
cognizable
legal
prejudice,”
the
Court
has
not
addressed
the
public’s
interest
in
ensuring
that
this
case
does
not
unduly
interfere,
or
appear
to
interfere,
with
the
ongoing
election.
A
temporary
stay
would
serve
that
interest
by
ensuring
that
the
redacted
SA
Appendix
is
accompanied
by
President
Trump’s
rebuttal,
reducing
(but
again
not
eliminating)
this
case’s
improper
impact
on
the
election,
as
well
as
the
potential
for
voter
confusion.
Additionally,
a
stay
would
promote
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
of
these
proceedings
and
a
court’s
duty
to
remain
apolitical.

That
is
one
“litigation
option,”
but
it’s
unlikely
to
be
an
effective
one.
Perhaps
if
Trump
had
filed
this
on
Monday
and
gotten
an
immediate
denial,
he’d
have
had
to
time
for
a
Hail
Mary
pass
to
SCOTUS.
As
it
stands,
the
stay
expires
today
and
Judge
Chutkan
is
almost
certain
to
deny
the
request
and
order
the
immediate
unsealing
of
the
appendix
in
the
same
order.

The
filing
notes
that
“Counsel
for
President
Trump
requested
a
position
from
the
Special
Counsel
by
email
on
October
16,
2024,
and
again
on
October
17,
2024.
As
of
the
time
of
this
filing,
the
Special
Counsel
has
not
responded.”
Presumably
because
Jack
Smith
and
his
team
were
laughing
so
hard
they
couldn’t
type
anything
out
before
this
hit
the
docket
this
morning
at
9am.

US
v.
Trump [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

In
today’s
rapidly
evolving
legal
landscape,
especially
in
the
niche
but
growing
field
of
cryptocurrency
law,
having
the
right
mindset
and
strategy
can
make
all
the
difference.
Justin
Wales,
head
of
legal
for
the
Americas
at
Crypto.com,
brings
a
unique
perspective
to
this
space.
With
years
of
experience
both
at
a
law
firm
and
in-house,
Justin
shares
some
invaluable
lessons
on
how
to
thrive
as
a
lawyer
in
the
crypto
world.

Here
are
some
of
the
key
takeaways
from
our
recent
discussion:

1.
Embrace
Flexibility
And
Take
Risks
Early

One
of
Justin’s
most
striking
pieces
of
advice
is
about
the
importance
of
flexibility
in
your
career.
He
emphasizes
that
being
willing
to
take
risks
and
pivot
when
necessary
is
crucial,
especially
in
an
area
like
crypto,
where
the
regulatory
landscape
and
market
conditions
are
constantly
changing.
Early
in
his
career,
Justin
made
deliberate
choices
that
didn’t
always
align
with
the
conventional
path.
He
chose
to
prioritize
learning
and
experience
over
simply
hitting
billable
hours
at
his
firm.
This
unconventional
approach
allowed
him
to
build
a
broad
skill
set
across
various
areas
of
law,
including
securities,
commodities,
and
regulatory
work
—
all
of
which
are
highly
relevant
to
crypto.

For
legal
professionals
considering
a
career
in
crypto,
Justin’s
advice
is
clear:
don’t
be
afraid
to
step
outside
your
comfort
zone.
If
you’re
stuck
in
a
niche
that
doesn’t
excite
you,
it’s
worth
taking
a
calculated
risk
to
explore
other
areas.
You
don’t
need
to
be
locked
into
one
specialization
for
the
next
30
years.
The
field
of
crypto
law
rewards
those
who
are
adaptable
and
willing
to
learn.

2.
Become
A
Lifelong
Learner
And
Engage
With
The
Community

Justin
underscores
the
importance
of
continuous
learning
and
engagement
with
the
community
as
a
vital
strategy
for
success
in
the
crypto
legal
field.
Crypto
law
isn’t
static;
it’s
an
interdisciplinary
area
that
spans
multiple
legal
and
regulatory
frameworks.
Whether
it’s
understanding
the
nuances
of
state
regulations,
securities
law,
or
the
latest
developments
in
decentralized
finance
(DeFi),
staying
updated
is
non-negotiable.

But
learning
doesn’t
happen
in
a
vacuum.
Justin
advises
aspiring
crypto
lawyers
to
actively
participate
in
the
community.
This
could
mean
attending
industry
conferences
like
Consensus,
joining
online
forums,
or
simply
reaching
out
to
other
professionals
in
the
space
for
coffee
chats.
The
crypto
community
is
remarkably
open
and
collaborative,
making
it
a
fertile
ground
for
networking
and
mentorship.
Engaging
with
others
not
only
expands
your
knowledge
base
but
also
enhances
your
reputation
in
the
field.
You
don’t
need
a
long
list
of
credentials
to
make
a
mark;
genuine
curiosity
and
the
willingness
to
learn
can
set
you
apart.

3.
Self-Publishing
As
A
Strategic
Move

In
an
unusual
yet
brilliant
move,
Justin
chose
to
self-publish
his
book,
“The
Crypto
Legal
Handbook.”
This
decision
wasn’t
just
about
maintaining
control
over
content;
it
was
about
making
the
book
accessible
and
updatable
—
a
crucial
consideration
in
a
field
that
evolves
as
quickly
as
crypto.
Traditional
publishing
routes
can
be
slow
and
expensive,
with
textbooks
often
costing
hundreds
of
dollars
and
becoming
outdated
almost
as
soon
as
they
hit
the
shelves.
By
self-publishing,
Justin
ensures
that
his
book
remains
a
living
document,
reflecting
the
latest
changes
in
the
industry.

For
those
in
legal
education
or
just
starting
out
in
their
crypto
careers,
this
approach
offers
a
valuable
lesson:
there
are
always
alternative
ways
to
share
knowledge
and
build
a
reputation.
You
don’t
have
to
wait
for
a
traditional
publisher
to
validate
your
expertise.
In
the
age
of
digital
media,
self-publishing
can
be
a
powerful
tool
for
both
personal
branding
and
community
service.

Final
Thoughts:
Control
Your
Career
Narrative

Justin’s
insights
boil
down
to
one
powerful
message:
be
proactive
in
shaping
your
career.
Whether
it’s
taking
risks,
building
a
broad
skill
set,
engaging
deeply
with
your
community,
or
finding
innovative
ways
to
share
knowledge,
there
are
countless
ways
to
differentiate
yourself
in
the
fast-paced
world
of
crypto
law.

If
you’re
ready
to
dive
deeper
into
this
fascinating
field,
don’t
miss
my
full
conversation
with
Justin
Wales
on
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self.”
You’ll
gain
even
more
insights
into
how
to
navigate
the
challenges
and
opportunities
in
the
world
of
crypto,
from
someone
who’s
been
on
the
front
lines
since
the
early
days.
Tune
in
to
hear
more
about
the
future
of
law
in
the
age
of
digital
currencies
and
how
you
can
be
at
the
forefront
of
this
exciting
journey.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

The
2023
hiring
market
boasted
some
very
high
salaries
and
employment
rates,
but
who
were
the
main
benefactors?
The
data
are
in
and
they
show
some
interesting
outcomes
across
racial
demographics.

Reuters
has
coverage:

The
disparities
are
widest
when
looking
at
legal
jobs
that
require
bar
admission,
which
are
considered
by
many
as
the
gold
standard
for
J.D.
employment.
Among
white
law
grads,
84%
had
secured
those
positions
within
10
months
of
graduation.
But
of
Black
law
grads
and
Native
American
or
Alaska
Natives,
73%
were
in
those
jobs.

Just
80%
of
Latino
law
grads
secured
those
jobs,
four
percentage
points
lower
than
their
white
classmates.
Asian
law
grads
had
81%
bar
passage-required
employment
rate,
while
Native
Hawaiian
or
other
Pacific
Islanders
posted
the
lowest
such
employment
rate
at
67%.

It
is
hard
to
know
the
exact
reasons
for
the
employment
disparities,
but
it’s
worth
recognizing
as
we
contemplate
the
fall
out
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
6-3
decision
that
the
14th
Amendment
is
race-neutral

despite
the
clear
historical
context
that
gave
rise
to
it.
With
that
said,
the
overall
high
rate
of
gainful
legal
employment
is
good
to
see.

Racial,
Ethnicity
Gaps
In
New
Lawyer
Jobs
Persisted
In
2023,
Amid
Robust
Job
Market
[ABA
Journal]

---

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.

Most
civil
servants
are
dedicated
professionals.
Some
are
lazy
jerks
dragging
down
the
reputation
of
the
whole
field.
Marge
Simpson’s
sisters
Patty
and
Selma 
have
served
as
avatars
for
the
worst
tinpot
dictatorial
bureaucrats
for
the
last
three
decades.
Now
they’ve
found
their
way
into
a
Nebraska
Supreme
Court
opinion
as
Justice
Lindsey
Miller-Lerman
invoked
the
pair
in
her
concurrence
after
the
court
forcefully
benchslapped
the
state’s
attorney
general
and
secretary
of
state
for
attempting
to
steal
back
voting
rights.

The
case,


State
Ex
Rel.
Spung
v.
Evnen,
arose
from
an
effort
by
state
executive
officials
to
circumvent
a
2024
statutory
amendment
that
restored
voting
rights
to
convicted
felons
after
they
have
fully
paid
their
debt
to
society
immediately.
Prior
to
this
amendment,
state
law
still
returned
the
right
to
vote,
but
required
an
additional
two
years
after
the
completion
of
the
sentence.

Secretary
of
State
Evnen
didn’t
want
to
follow
the
law,
so
he
asked
for
and
secured
an
advisory
opinion
from
Attorney
General
Mike
Hilgers
declaring
the
law
unconstitutional
based
on
a
flimsy
claim
that
it
infringed
upon
the
state’s
executive
branch
pardon
process
—
even
though
voting
rights
are
not,
in
fact,
pardons.

The
state
Supreme
Court
wasn’t
amused.

And
Justice
Miller-Lerman
took
it
further.
As

flagged
by
Tim
Royers,
president
of
the
Nebraska
State
Education
Association:

For
a
statute
to
be
declared
unconstitutional,
the
Nebraska
Constitution
requires
the
vote
of
five
justices
of
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court.
Neb.
Const.
art.
V,
§
2.
Only
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court
declares
statutes
unconstitutional.
The
supermajority
requirement
is
also
well
known.
Patty
and
Selma
at
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
may
not
be
constitutional
scholars,
but
they
know
that
they
are
expected
to
follow
the
law.

In
fairness,
there
are
some
judges
that

aren’t
living
up
to
that
“constitutional
scholar”
bar
right
now
either.
As
an
aside,
it
seems
the
governor
filed
an
amicus
in
this
case
written
by
the
daughter-in-law
of

notably
ABA
not
qualified
Eighth
Circuit
judge
Steven
Grasz.
Small
world!
But
the
point
remains
that
if
the
power
to
make
constitutional
proclamations
exists
anywhere,
it’s
not
at
the
DMV.
Just
like
it
wasn’t

the
county
marriage
license
clerk.

And
it’s
not
the
AG
either.

Do
we
want
to
live
in
a
world
where
every
state
employee
who
has
a
hunch
a
statute
is
flawed
gets
to
ignore
it?
State
officers
who
take
the
oath
to
follow
the
constitution
are
expected
to
follow
that
oath
and
not
disregard
their
sworn
duty
to
abide
by
the
Nebraska
Constitution,
including
its
dictate
in
article
V,
§
2,
that
it
is
the
Nebraska
Supreme
Court,
not
the
Attorney
General,
who
declares
laws
unconstitutional.

Marbury
v.
Madison called.

But
the
partisan
chicanery
runs
deeper,
because
if
the
constitutional
problem
is
“returning
the
right
to
vote”
and

not
“eliminating
the
two
year
waiting
period,”
then
it’s
an
argument
coming
a
couple
decades
too
late.

Way
back
in
time,
on
March
18,
1996,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
issued
an
opinion
to
“Lisa
M.
Perry,
Administrative
Assistant
Nebraska
Board
of
Pardons,”
in
connection
with
Neb.
Rev.
Stat.
§§
29-2264
(Cum.
Supp.
1994)
and
83-1,118
(Reissue
1994),
in
which
it
opined
that
the
restoration
of
various
civil
rights,
including
the
right
to
serve
as
a
juror,
serve
as
an
elector,
possess
firearms,
possess
brass
or
iron
knuckles,
and
hold
certain
licenses,
could
only
be
done
by
the
Board
of
Pardons.
See
Att’y
Gen.
Op.
No.
96023
(Mar.
18,
1996).
So
every
day
since
1996,
and
while
§
84-215
was
simultaneously
in
effect,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
had
the
opportunity
to
test
the
constitutionality
of
restoring
certain
rights
by
statute.
L.B.
53
became
effective
in
2005,
but
I
am
not
aware
of
an
opinion
of
this
court
or
lawsuit
challenging
it.
In
sum,
despite
the
existence
of
the
procedure
to
do
so
via
§
84-215,
and
other
remedies,
the
Attorney
General
waited
nearly
two
decades
to
challenge
L.B.
53
during
the
election
season
of
2024.

Almost
as
though
no
one
really
had
strong
feelings
about
this
until
someone
did
some
polling
on
the
chances
that
Kamala
Harris
(or
Joe
Biden
at
the
time)
snags
an
electoral
vote
from
Nebraska’s
district-based
electoral
allocation
regime
and
decided
to
suppress
votes
in
Omaha
at
all
costs.

Not
that
a
Republican
public
official
would
attempt
to
abuse
their
office
like
that
or
anything!

On
that
note,
despite
the
fact
that
the
court
ruled

per
curiam
in
favor
of
the
statute’s
constitutionality,
Justice
Miller-Lerman
also
noted
that
the
court
could’ve
issued
that
opinion
long
ago
but
instead
dragged
it
out
until
days
before
registration
closed,
functionally
dissuading
legally
eligible
voters
from
attempting
to
register
while
the
case
lingered
on
the
docket.
Per

Bolts
(h/t

Election
Law
Blog)

The
timing
of
the
court’s
decision
gives
advocates
little
opportunity
to
help
people
who
might
be
confused
about
their
voting
rights
because
of
Evnen
and
Hilgers:
It
came
just
two
days
before
the
Oct.
18
deadline
to
register
to
vote
online.
The
cutoff
for
people
to
register
in
person
is
next
week,
Oct.
25.

Surely
another
coincidence.

(Opinion
on
the
next
page…)

Last
week,
the

California
Supreme
Court
declined
to
adopt
a
proposal
known
as
the
Portfolio
Bar
Examination
(PBE)
that
would
be
a
substitute
for
taking
the
California
Bar
Examination.
Instead,
law
school
graduates
would
engage
in
a
period
of
supervised
practice
and
generate
a
portfolio
of
work
product
while
advising
and
representing
actual
clients.
They
would
also
only
take
a
portion
of
the
California
Bar
Examination
—
specifically
the
performance
test
which
requires
applicants
to
perform
legal
analysis
based
on
specific
information
provided.

The
court
noted
that
the
PBE
is
illegal
because
California
law
requires
admission
to
the
bar
which
requires
an
applicant
to
pass
the
“general
bar
examination.”
The
court
does
not
consider
the
PBE
to
be
equivalent
to
the
general
bar
examination.

The
court
was
concerned
about
the
fairness
of
the
PBE.
It
assumed
that
the
supervising
attorney
would
play
a
role
in
the
creation
of
the
work
product.
But
this
would
make
the
portfolio
dependent
on
the
supervising
attorney.
A
more
skilled
attorney
would
create
a
better
portfolio
than
a
less
skilled
one.
The
court
also
noted
that
there
were
no
safeguards
to
ensure
that
the
applicant
created
their
work
product
as
opposed
to
using
premade
templates
or
other
peoples’
work.

Next,
the
court
stated
that
the
PBE
is
unlikely
to
be
an
adequate
measure
of
an
applicant’s
competence
in
issue-spotting.
In
a
preconstructed
question,
it
would
contain
both
relevant
and
irrelevant
facts
or
law,
and
so
the
grader
would
know
which
issues
a
competent
attorney
should
spot.
On
the
other
hand,
the
issues
involved
in
a
real-world
scenario
are
unknown
to
the
grader.
If
an
applicant
fails
to
identify
a
crucial
fact
or
legal
issue
in
the
portfolio,
the
grader
is
unlikely
to
spot
the
issue
as
well.

The
court
also
found
that
the
PBE
grader
would
be
unable
to
directly
view
an
applicant’s
ability
to
conduct
client
interviews
and
negotiations.
Instead,
the
grader
would
score
these
skills
indirectly
through
redacted
assessments
of
the
applicant’s
performance,
authored
by
the
applicant
and
his
or
her
supervisor.
These
self-reported
assessments
may
not
be
objective.
Also,
the
court
noted
the
ethical
dilemma
of
compelling
inexperienced
attorneys
to
conduct
high-stakes
negotiations
and
interviews.

Lastly,
the
court
noted
that
if
the
graders
were
to
detect
a
subpar
work
product,
the
grader
may
have
the
obligation
to
inform
the
supervisor’s
client
of
the
deficient
work.
The
supervisor
may
even
be
reported
to
the
state
bar
for
failing
to
adequately
supervise
the
applicant’s
work,
which
could
result
in
discipline.

Taking
all
of
the
above
into
account,
the
court
does
not
believe
that
the
PBE
scores
would
be
reliable
due
to
the
disincentives
for
giving
objective
assessments
and
the
lack
of
safeguards
to
ensure
that
the
applicant
completed
his
or
her
own
work
product.

There
are
a
few
observations
from
the
court’s
decision.
First,
the
court
seems
skeptical
about
solely
using
the
supervisor’s
word
to
determine
competency.
It
notes
the
potentially
awkward
position
of
a
supervisor
having
to
give
an
unfavorable
evaluation
of
someone
they
have
trained
and
may
continue
to
work
at
their
firm.
It
should
be
noted
that
other
professions
that
have
experience
requirements
in
order
to
be
certified
or
licensed
(such
as
CPAs
and
medical
residents)
similarly
rely
on
evaluations
from
supervisors
(of
varying
quality)
and
that
hasn’t
resolved
large-scale,
systemic
problems.
But
these
professions
require
applicants
to
take
and
pass
a
general
licensure
examination
to
be
admitted.

Also,
the
court
seems
to
understand
that
some
things
cannot
be
easily
and
reliably
tested,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
soft
skills
such
as
dealing
with
clients
and
people
in
general.
It
would
be
an
arduous
effort
to
evaluate
an
applicant’s
ability
to
engage
with
people
coming
from
various
walks
of
life
with
different
personalities.
Will
the
graders
want
to
know
how
the
applicant
handled
people
from
different
cultures
or
language
barriers?
How
about
people
with
adversarial
interests?
It
will
be
near
impossible
to
cover
every
single
potential
client
encounter.

Also,
how
would
a
candidate’s
honesty
be
tested?
For
example,
if
someone
gets
a
perfect
score
on
the
MPRE,
does
that
mean
he
or
she
is
an
absolutely
ethical
attorney?
Or
would
he
or
she
know
the
rules
well
enough
to
find
and
exploit
loopholes?

The
court
did
not
consider
the
issue
of
specialization.
Considering
that
most
lawyers
today
specialize
in
one
or
a
few
practice
areas,
would
it
be
appropriate
to
issue
a
general
license
to
practice
to
an
applicant
who
studied
under
a
specialist?
Should
someone
who
trained
under
a
family
law
attorney
be
allowed
to
do
worker
compensation
cases?

In
the
final
analysis,
standardized
testing
such
as
the
bar
exam
is
likely
to
stay,
for
better
or
for
worse.
Many
elite
colleges
temporarily
stopped
accepting
standardized
test
scores
but
have
now

reinstated
them.

The
primary
argument
against
the
bar
exam
and
standardized
testing
in
general
is
that
it
benefits
people
who
have
the
means
to
purchase
expensive
bar
exam
prep
courses
or
simply
“test
well.”
While
that
is
a
legitimate
concern,
law
schools
can
address
this
problem
by
offering
their
own
bar
exam
preparation
program.
For
law
schools
with
lower
than
average
first-time
passage
rates,
this
program
should
be
mandatory.

As
for
programs
such
as
the
PBE,
rather
than
being
a
substitute
for
the
bar
exam,
it
should
be
an
optional
replacement
for
the
third
year
of
law
school.
This
could
save
students
one
year
of
tuition
and
even
allow
them
to
earn
enough
money
to
pay
off
the
first
two
years
of
law
school.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

Yeah
my
wife
hates
it
too.

—
Donald
Trump’s
quip
to

former
Biglaw
attorney
and
current
political
spouse
Usha
Vance
about
her
distaste
for
politics.
According
to
JD
Vance’s

telling
of
the
story,
Usha
was
asked
by
the
former
president
what
she
thought
of
his
political
aspirations,
“If
anybody
knows
my
wife,
it’s
like
the
perfect
Usha
answer—it’s
a
very
diplomatic
answer.
It’s
like:
‘Well
sir,
my
husband
really
loves
public
service,
we
love
the
state
of
Ohio
and
I’m
just
really
thrilled
to
be
able
to
help
him
out
where
I
can.’”
But
Trump
apparently
saw
through
the
lawyerly
obfuscation.

We’ve
got
some
young
lawyers
out
there
who

don’t
understand
the
basics
of
professionalism
and
it
runs
a
lot
deeper
than
just
lacking
experience.
That
said,
there
are
some
experienced
attorneys

falling
down
on
fulfilling
a
different
set
of
professional
obligations.
Meanwhile,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
is
apparently

very,
very
sad
that
the
public
didn’t
appreciate
his
latest
Constitutional
rewrite.