Biglaw
bonus
news
is
dropping
fast
and
furious.
The
latest
firm
that’s
giving
associates
a
very
special
thank
you
in
the
form
of
cold,
hard
cash
is
Fish
&
Richardson.
The
firm
took
in
$499,597,000
in
gross
revenue
last
year,
making
it
#96
on
the
Am
Law
100.
And
they’re
sharing
that
money
with
hardworking
—
and
high-billing
—
associates.
That’s
right,
Fish
is
giving
associates
who
qualify
special
bonuses
this
year.
They
align
with
the
market
standard
for
special
bonuses,
set
over
the
summer
by
Milbank.
The
special
bonus
schedule
at
the
firm
is
as
follows:
The
special
bonuses
kick
in
at
2,000
hours,
and
are
prorated
for
those
who
may
not
have
hit
that
billable
threshold.
All
of
which
is
on
top
of
the
standard
year-end
bonus,
which
insiders
at
the
firm
report
match
the
Milbank
scale.
The
full
memo
is
available
below.
Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.
And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!
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].
Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts.
ZESA
Holdings
Executive
Chairman
Sydney
Gata
said
that
Zimbabwe
will
be
capable
of
generating
4,000
MW
within
two
years,
surpassing
the
national
electricity
demand.
Gata
made
these
remarks
during
the
ground-breaking
ceremony
for
the
720MW
thermal
power
plant
and
200MW
solar
project
on
Monday,
December
2,
at
Tutu
Ingagula,
located
along
Chaba
Black
Road
in
Hwange. Said
Gata:
I
am
tired
of
being
insulted
for
the
energy
crisis.
In
two
years,
we
will
have
surplus
energy.
Gata
said
that
the
720
MW
power
plant
is
part
of
a
broader
plan
involving
18
projects
aimed
at
collectively
adding
over
4,000
MW
to
the
national
grid.
Gata
said
that
Zimbabwe
is
currently
facing
a
shortfall
of
only
600
MW.
Zhou
Ding,
representing
the
project’s
financial
backers
from
China,
confirmed
a
US$1
billion
investment,
with
the
project
set
for
completion
by
the
end
of
2028.
On
8th
October,
an
unexpected cabinet
announcement laid
out
plans
for
a
completely
new
tenure
regime
in
the
land
reform
areas.
This
was
to
provide
a
secure
form
of
tenure
arrangement;
not
necessarily
title
but
with
an
arrangement
that
was
to
be
‘bankable’,
allowing
for
collateral
to
support
investment.
It
was
to
be
implemented
across
land
reform
areas,
with
war
veterans
and
women
prioritised.
The
registration
and
granting
of
tenure
rights
was
in
turn
expected
to
allow
for
sale
and
purchase
by
‘indigenous’
Zimbabweans.
Many
questions
raised
The
announcement
has
caused
a
huge
amount
of
debate,
raised
many
questions
and
quite
a
lot
of
consternation.
Given
its
provenance
(from
cabinet)
and
timing
(just
before
a
major
party
gathering)
it
has
been
seen
as
politically
significant,
but
the
details
remain
very
opaque.
Many
asked,
if
not
freehold
title,
what
would
the
secure
tenure
arrangement
entail?
Would
it
really
be
bankable
given
the
objections
that
the
bankers
had
made
about
even
the
revised 99-year
lease?
Would
all
prior
offer
letters,
permits
and
leases
become
null
and
void,
and
would
this
registration
and
allocation
process
have
to
start
from
scratch,
so
affecting
all
the
informal
and
semi-formal
rental,
lease
and
purchase
agreements
that
have
been
put
in
place
over
the
last
decades?
Would
purchase
be
allowed
for
only
a
single
farm,
or
many?
Should
the
proposal
be
applied
to
all
land
reform
land,
or
only
in
practice
A2
land?
Who
was
to
be
defined
as
‘indigenous’,
does
this
include
white
Zimbabweans?
How
would
the
process
guard
against
proxies
acting
on
behalf
of
others,
including
investors
from
South
Africa
and
beyond?
And
so
on.
Beyond
the
technical
questions
of
how
this
might
even
work,
there
were
other
political
questions
raised
about
the
process
and
its
timing.
Given
the
high
profile
of
this
announcement
and
its
timing
before
a ZANU-PF
congress and
in
advance
of
further
rounds
of AfDB-led
debt
negotiations,
who
was
it
being
aimed
at?
Was
it
disgruntled
war
veterans
who
have
been
criticising
the
party
elite?
Was
it
the
international
donors
who
wanted
to
see
progress
on
the
‘land
pillar’
in
advance
of
further debt
negotiations,
allowing
a
land
market
to
increase
efficiency
and
productivity
alongside
investment?
Was
this
a
deal,
aimed
at
further
accumulation
by
the
elite
beneficiaries
of
land
reform
in
the
A2
farms,
allowing
them
to
capitalise
on
the
assets
that
they
had
been
granted,
and
make
more
money?
Was
it
an
attempt
to
reduce
pressure
on
the
national
fiscus
given
the
government
is
broke,
allowing
private
funds
to
be
mobilised
for
investment
in
farming?
Or
was
it
some
combination
of
the
above?
The
various
discussions,
public
and
private,
that
took
place
in
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
announcements,
showed
some
interesting
reactions.
Vocal
supporters
of
the
opposition
(at
least
in
the
past)
argued
that
this
was
just
another
example
of
a
corrupt
political
elite
cashing
in
on
the
land
reform.
Following
the
(long
disproved
but
still
persistent)
narrative
that
post-2000
land
reform
only
benefited
ZANU-PF
‘cronies’,
this
latest
move
was
seen
as
a
way
of
improving
their
position,
without
having
invested
anything
at
least
in
the
acquisition
of
land.
Even
if
not
linked
to
ZANU-PF
patronage,
many
questioned
the
idea
of
just
giving
a
national
asset
(land)
that
had
been
fought
for
during
the
liberation
war
to
a
select
group
of
individuals
for
free
and
allowing
them
to
cash
it
in
through
land
sales.
A
new
land
tenure
regime
or
a
better
land
administration
system?
I
must
say
that
I
remain
sceptical
of
the
proposal.
In
the
past
–
together
with
Sam
Moyo
and
others
and
following
the
work
of Mandi
Rukuni on
President
Mugabe’s
Land
Tenure
Commission
of
the
early
1990s
–
I
have
argued
for
the
retention
of
a multiform
tenure
system,
with
different
approaches
suited
to
the
context.
I
have
argued
against
creating
a
completely
free
land
market
because
of
the
risks
of
land
concentration
and
elite
capture,
a
theme
picked
up
by
Freedom
Mazwi
and
George
Mudimu
in
a
recent Agrarian
South journal
blog.
In
line
with
others,
I
have
also
made
the
case
that
offer
letters,
permits
and
leases
–
the
existing
mechanisms
–
could
easily
provide
the
basis
for
secure
tenure
if
effectively
implemented,
with
records
updated.
‘Freehold
title‘
for
some
strange
reason
is
seen
as
the
gold
standard
in
Zimbabwe
(by
former
farmers
and
war
vets
alike),
but
has
so
many
flaws,
not
least
the
implications
for
equity
and
justice.
I
have
argued
in
particular
that
what
is
(still)
absent
is
an
effective,
transparent
and
functioning land
administration
system that
provides
for
low-cost
registration,
regular
audit
and
the
collection
of
land
tax
and
other
revenues.
Revised
forms
of
land leases in
particular
I
believe
offer
the
potential
for
collateral
security
to
guarantee
bank
loans,
and
all
existing
forms
of
recognised
tenure
can
and
should
guard
against
land
grabbing
and
speculation
by
outsiders
if
properly
recognised.
The
growth
of
informal
land
markets
and
the de
facto existence
of
land
sales/purchases
on
quite
a
large
and
growing
scale,
alongside
increasing
numbers
of
cases
of
‘land
grabs’
for
commercial
agriculture,
mining
and
others
uses
especially
in
the
communal
areas,
makes
this
even
more
imperative.
Offering
a
bankable
lease
that
can
be
exchanged
through
sales/purchases
for
A2
farms
may
be
part
of
this
solution
if
a
cheap
registration
and
audit
system
can
be
devised,
allowing underutilised
land to
be
brought
into
production.
My
long-held
view
is
that
such
A2
farmers
should
pay
at
least
for
the
‘improvements’
on
their
land
through
a
land
tax,
and
so
contribute
to
the compensation
funds offered
to
former
owners,
and
so
offering
leases
for
such
land
allocated
by
the
state
should
not
be
‘free’.
By
contrast,
the
possibility
of
implementing
the
current
cabinet
proposal
in
A1
areas
is
slim.
This
land
should
in
my
view
remain
state
land,
but
with
provisions
for
rental/leasing
as
exists
in
the
informal
system,
and
discussed
in
the last
blog.
This
is
the
same
for
communal
lands,
which
are
acknowledged
to
be
out
of
the
scope
of
the
proposal.
In
the
A1
areas,
as
discussed
in
the
previous
blogs
in
this
series,
a
system
of
land
authority
has
emerged
that
is
quite
similar
to
the
communal
areas.
There
is
a
more
dynamic
land
market
because
of
there
being
more
land
to
exchange,
and
the
value
of
it
for
commercial
investment,
but
trying
to
box
this
incredible
complexity
and
the
multiple
informal
systems
at
play
into
a
simple
farm-based
registration
and
tenure
recognition
process
allowing
for
commercial
sales
seems
incredibly
unwise.
As
I
have
argued
before,
there
are
other
ways
of
providing agricultural
finance in
these
areas,
with
different
collateral
loan
arrangements
backed
by
the
state,
and
by
retaining
state
ownership
even
if
individual
usufruct,
these
national
assets
would
not
be
up
for
sale.
While land
registration
systems are
certainly
needed,
these
need
not
be
incredibly
complex
or
costly
and
should
not
prevent
the
informal
systems
that
have
been
evolving.
Land
markets
can
provide
for
a
healthy
exchange
of
land
through
rental
and
leasing
systems,
even
purchase,
and
help
farmers
make
use
of
their
land
more
effectively,
as
the
discussion
of
‘new
entrants’
in
the
previous
two
blogs
have
shown.
The
trouble
is
that
nearly
25
years
after
land
reform
there
remains
confusion
over
tenure
rights.
As
a
Lands
officer
explained,
“We
can’t
keep
up.
We
have
no
transport
in
the
district,
so
we
have
not
been
able
to
issue
final
A1
permits
except
in
very
few
places.
They
are
nearly
all
temporary,
most
with
different
names.
There
are
now
so
many
disputes,
so
many
different
‘offer
letters’.
When
we
issue
final
permits,
we
only
select
those
few
A1
schemes
without
disputes,
ones
that
have
respected
boundaries
and
carrying
capacities”.
Commenting
on
‘illegals’,
he
went
on
“It’s
a
complicated
web.
Illegal
settlers
are
too
many
in
the
resettlement
areas.
They
do
what
they
want.
They
know
that
Lands
officers
do
not
visit
farms
regularly,
and
if
they
do
pass
through
the
farms,
it
will
take
another
two
years
or
so
before
they
return
to
the
farm.
So,
they
are
doing
whatever
they
want.
And
when
you
are
trying
to
evict
those
illegal
settlers,
politicians
tells
us
to
leave
them
because
they
voted
for
them”.
The
frustration
of
those
charged
with
addressing
land
issues
across
the
country
is
palpable.
But
will
a
brand-new
tenure
system
make
things
better
or
worse?
Most
people
think
the
latter.
In
the
words
of
one
local
official:
“if
in
the
A1
areas,
it
will
be
chaos,
real
chaos”.
Instead,
what
is
needed
more
than
anything
is
a
low-cost,
transparent
and
efficient land
administration
system that
can
keep
on
top
of
transfers,
inheritance
bequests
and
other
changes
of
use,
while
limiting
the
operations
of
‘land
barons’
and
others.
Currently
the
system
is
not
keeping
up.
As
another
official
commented,
“Land
seekers
are
being
defrauded
by
scammers.
People
are
buying
land
from
land
barons.
These
land
barons
are
better-informed
than
us
in
terms
of
what
is
happening
on
the
farms.
They
know
where
spaces
are.
They
are
more
networked
than
us.
Some
land
barons
have
even
set
up
offices
in
towns.
They
print
very
nice
offer
letters.
If
you
compare
offer
letters
from
the
Ministry
of
Lands
and
the
ones
that
they
print,
you
would
think
that
the
land
barons’
offer
letters
are
genuine
and
ours
are
fake!”
Suggesting
a
totally
new
system
will
I
fear
cause
even
more
delays
and
confusion.
Instead
of
changing
tenure
regime,
a
focus
on
boosting
the
capacity
for
basic land
administration is
therefore
essential,
and
long
overdue.
Watch
this
space:
time
for
some
more
deliberation
Let’s
see
how
this
debate
unfolds.
The
African
experience
of
formalising
land
tenure
systems
through
the
offering
of title (of
some
equivalent)
has
not
been
positive.
The
Rwanda
experience,
often
promoted
by
donors
and
others,
does
not
always
stand
up
to
the
hype,
as
discussed
in
an earlier
blog.
The
post-Independence
experience
of
Kenya
has
not
been
positive,
as
a
process
of
land
concentration
ensued
following
titling
programmes,
with
many
becoming
disenfranchised,
with
major
political
and
economic
consequences.
The
Zimbabwe
Land
Commission
has
been
deliberating
on
the
future
of
land
tenure
and
seeking
expert
advice.
Before
rushing
into
a
new
set
of
tenure
arrangements
based
on
a
vague,
politically-driven
announcement,
more
reflection
and
deliberation
on
what
makes
sense
in
Zimbabwe
is
urgently
needed.
Let’s
hope
that
the
technical
implementation
committee
has
the
opportunity
to
come
up
with
a
workable
approach.
Suggesting
a
totally
new
system
will
I
fear
cause
even
more
delays
and
confusion.
Instead
of
changing
tenure
regime,
a
focus
on
boosting
the
capacity
for
basic land
administration is
therefore
essential,
and
long
overdue.
The
final
blog
in
this
series
will
be
a
reprise
of
a
blog
from
2017,
which
laid
out
some
of
the
key
issues.
This
blog
is
the
third
in
this
series
and
was
written
by
Ian
Scoones
and
first
appeared
on Zimbabweland
Every
single
associate
I’m
talking
to
these
days,
one
of
the
top
five
questions
they
ask
me
is,
‘What
is
your
policy
on
being
able
to
work
hybrid?’
We
struggle
with
associates…
the
age-old
philosophy
has
always
been
that
if
you
want
to
get
work
from
a
partner
you
need
to
be
where
the
partner
is.
If
you
want
to
walk
in
and
ask
questions,
it’s
an
in-person
concept.
Firms
are
really
struggling
with
how
we
train
and
mentor,
especially
associates
who
don’t
want
to
be
there,
but
we
have
no
choice
anymore,
right?
I
cannot
make
my
associates
be
in
the
office
five
days
a
week
when
every
competitor
in
town
will
let
them
be
remote
at
some
portion
of
it.
—
Amanda
Koplos,
president
of
the
Association
of
Legal
Administrators,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
on
the
results
of
the
the
group’s
latest
compensation
and
benefits
survey.
As
noted
in
the
survey
results,
the
legal
industry
has
established
a
“sweet
spot”
for
remote
work
versus
in-person
work,
and
a
majority
of
respondents
said
no
further
changes
are
likely
to
be
made
to
remote
work
arrangements
in
the
future.
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
X/Twitter
and
Threads
or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
*
Joe
Biden
is
pardoning
his
son
Hunter.
Anyone
concerned
about
justice
and
the
rule
of
law…
should
have
said
their
peace
when
the
bog
standard
plea
deal
for
Hunter’s
charges
that
could’ve
resolved
this
without
a
pardon
got
blown
up
by
grandstanding
politicians.
[
*
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
have
time
for
death
penalty
appeals
from
likely
innocents,
but
it
is
more
than
ready
to
consider
the
rights
of
vapers
to
buy
flavored
products.
Which
seems
like
a
betrayal
of
the
tobacco
farming
Framers
but
“history
and
tradition”
are
elusive
concepts.
[Reuters]
*
Energy
practices
gear
up
for
AI
to
suck
up
more
of
the
world’s
power.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Companies
ask
full
Federal
Circuit
to
set
tighter
rules
on
what
juries
are
allowed
to
award
in
patent
cases.
And
by
“full”
Federal
Circuit,
they
mean
“not-the-full”
Federal
Circuit
as
Judge
Pauline
Newman
remains
“pocket
impeached”
by
her
colleagues.
[Law360]
Instead
of
the
ubiquitous
nose-wiping
associated
with
YSL
affiliates,
the
advertisement
largely
consists
of
Steel
being
on
the
phone
and
getting
in
and
out
of
cars.
That
said,
Steel
knows
better
than
to
be
the
lawyer
getting
caught
doing
that
on
video.
Wouldn’t
want
to
risk
violating
his
client’s
probation
over
a
promo
drop.
It
would
have
been
fair
to
assume
that
Thugger’s
first
day
out
drop
would
have
been
music
rather
than
merch,
but
his
reputation
for
fashion
has
never
been
far
behind
him:
During
the
trial,
Young
Thug
was
asked
to
limit
his
wardrobe
because
his
wardrobe
was
too
hard
distracted
the
public
eye.
See
them
for
yourself:
We’ve
yet
to
see
Judge
Whitaker
wearing
a
Sp5der
tracksuit,
but
it
would
be
a
welcome
edition
to
the
legal
fashion
watch.
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.
*
Joe
Biden
is
pardoning
his
son
Hunter.
Anyone
concerned
about
justice
and
the
rule
of
law…
should
have
said
their
peace
when
the
bog
standard
plea
deal
for
Hunter’s
charges
that
could’ve
resolved
this
without
a
pardon
got
blown
up
by
grandstanding
politicians.
[
*
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
have
time
for
death
penalty
appeals
from
likely
innocents,
but
it
is
more
than
ready
to
consider
the
rights
of
vapers
to
buy
flavored
products.
Which
seems
like
a
betrayal
of
the
tobacco
farming
Framers
but
“history
and
tradition”
are
elusive
concepts.
[Reuters]
*
Energy
practices
gear
up
for
AI
to
suck
up
more
of
the
world’s
power.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Companies
ask
full
Federal
Circuit
to
set
tighter
rules
on
what
juries
are
allowed
to
award
in
patent
cases.
And
by
“full”
Federal
Circuit,
they
mean
“not-the-full”
Federal
Circuit
as
Judge
Pauline
Newman
remains
“pocket
impeached”
by
her
colleagues.
[Law360]
I
have
a
sad
message
for
folks
who
were
hoping
that
Donald
Trump
would
end
his
life
bankrupt
and
imprisoned:
You
lose.
Trump’s
not
going
to
be
imprisoned:
He’ll
be
president
for
the
next
four
years,
and
he’ll
be
an
82-year-old
man
at
the
end
of
his
second
term.
That’s
no
recipe
for
prison.
Trump’s
not
going
to
be
bankrupt:
You
were
hoping
that
COVID-19
had
undercut
the
value
of
real
estate
and
that
Trump
wouldn’t
be
able
to
make
his
debt
payments.
Nope.
Elon
Musk,
or
someone
else
who
wants
to
ingratiate
himself
with
the
president,
will
buy
Truth
Social
at
an
inflated
price.
Trump
will
invest
in
cryptocurrency
and
then
cause
government
to
support
crypto.
Trump
will
be
the
center
of
power,
with
rich
folks
itching
to
pay
top
dollar
to
join
Trump’s
country
clubs
and
rub
elbows
with
him.
Trump
is
going
to
be
rich
and
famous
for
as
long
as
he
lives.
You
lose.
I
also
have
a
sad
message
for
most
of
the
folks
who
voted
for
Trump:
You
lose.
You
chose
not
to
vote
for
Kamala
Harris
because
of
the
war
between
Israel
and
Hamas.
You
lose.
Did
you
see
who
Trump’s
appointing
to
posts
in
the
Middle
East?
The
Palestinians
ain’t
seen
nothin’
yet.
You
voted
for
Trump
because
he
said
that
inflation
was
too
high.
You
lose.
Inflation
might
have
been
too
high,
but
Trump
has
no
plan
to
reduce
it.
Cutting
taxes
and
imposing
tariffs
is
a
recipe
for
increasing
inflation,
not
decreasing
it.
If
you
were
hoping
that
inflation
was
going
down,
you
lose.
You
voted
for
Trump
because
he
was
going
to
stop
illegal
immigration.
A
military
crackdown
on
illegal
immigrants
may
help
achieve
that
goal,
but
the
disruptions
to
the
economy
and
the
ferocity
of
the
resulting
protests
and
the
deportation
of
law-abiding
noncitizens
who’d
been
living
in
your
town
for
years
were
not
what
you
expected.
You
lose.
You
voted
for
Trump
because
he
was
going
to
reduce
the
size
of
government.
You
lose.
Once
you
get
past
the
military
budget
(which
Trump
won’t
touch)
and
Social
Security
and
Medicare
and
repayment
of
the
national
debt,
there’s
not
much
room
for
cutting.
And
you
probably
don’t
want
Trump
to
cut
what’s
left;
it
helps
you.
You’re
white
and
male
and
high-school
educated:
You
lose.
You
voted
for
Trump
because
vaccines
suck.
You
lose.
The
Senate
may
confirm
a
Secretary
of
Health
and
Human
Services
who
opposes
vaccines,
and
red
state
governors
may
choose
to
weaken
the
vaccine
requirements
for
kids
entering
school.
If
the
vaccine
requirements
are
weakened
for
the
2025
school
year,
then
by
2026
and
beyond,
it’s
your
kids
who
will
be
coming
down
with
measles
and
diphtheria
and
all
of
the
other
diseases
that
we’ve
conquered.
You
lose.
You’ll
be
disappointed,
and
you’ll
be
able
to
take
out
your
rage
in
the
2028
elections.
But
by
then,
Trump
will
have
served
his
two
terms,
and
pocketed
the
dough,
and
moved
on
to
whatever’s
next.
*
Joe
Biden
is
pardoning
his
son
Hunter.
Anyone
concerned
about
justice
and
the
rule
of
law…
should
have
said
their
peace
when
the
bog
standard
plea
deal
for
Hunter’s
charges
that
could’ve
resolved
this
without
a
pardon
got
blown
up
by
grandstanding
politicians.
[
*
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
have
time
for
death
penalty
appeals
from
likely
innocents,
but
it
is
more
than
ready
to
consider
the
rights
of
vapers
to
buy
flavored
products.
Which
seems
like
a
betrayal
of
the
tobacco
farming
Framers
but
“history
and
tradition”
are
elusive
concepts.
[Reuters]
*
Energy
practices
gear
up
for
AI
to
suck
up
more
of
the
world’s
power.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Companies
ask
full
Federal
Circuit
to
set
tighter
rules
on
what
juries
are
allowed
to
award
in
patent
cases.
And
by
“full”
Federal
Circuit,
they
mean
“not-the-full”
Federal
Circuit
as
Judge
Pauline
Newman
remains
“pocket
impeached”
by
her
colleagues.
[Law360]
It’s
the
most
wonderful
time
of
the
year!
With
Biglaw
bonus
season
already
well
underway
—
thanks
to
Milbank,
we’re
talking
year-end
bonuses
and
special
bonuses,
too
—
the
holiday
season
is
already
off
to
a
great
start.
Law
firm
holiday
parties
will
certainly
get
our
readers
feeling
festive,
but
all
of
the
celebrations
and
hefty
paychecks
pale
in
comparison
to
what’s
about
to
get
underway:
Above
the
Law’s
sixteenth
annual
holiday
card
contest.
We’ve
already
received
several
emails
asking
about
when
this
year’s
contest
would
start.
The
answer:
It
starts
today.
We
are
a
legal
website,
so
of
course
there
are
some
rules
to
follow:
1.
Because
we
are
committed
to
the
environment
here
at
Breaking
Media,
we
will
consider
ONLY
E-CARDS.
Please
don’t
send
us
paper
holiday
cards
via
snail
mail
this
year
—
the
Above
the
Law
editorial
team
hasn’t
been
in
our
physical
office
much
since
March
2020.
2.
To
submit
an
e-card,
please
email
either
a
link
to
the
card
or
the
card
itself
(as
an
attachment)
—
but
note
that
WE
PREFER
LINKS,
if
available
—
to
[email protected],
subject
line:
“Holiday
Card
Contest.”
The
subject
line
is
very
important
because
it’s
how
we
will
comb
through
our
inbox
to
collect
the
entries
when
picking
finalists.
If
you
don’t
use
the
correct
subject
line,
expect
a
lump
of
coal
in
your
stocking.
3.
Please
limit
submissions
to
holiday
/
Christmas
cards
that
you
view
as
WORTHY
CONTENDERS.
We’re
looking
for
cards
that
are
unusually
clever,
funny,
or
cool;
we’re
not
interested
in
cards
that
are
safe
or
boring
(e.g.,
a
beautiful
winter
landscape,
a
“Happy
Holidays
2024,”
and
the
law
firm
name).
We’re
seeking
cards
with
some
attitude,
with
that
extra
je
ne
sais
quoi.
If
you
send
us
a
banal
card,
don’t
be
surprised
if
we
make
fun
of
it.
4.
In
your
email,
please
include
a
BRIEF
EXPLANATION
of
why
this
card
is
compelling
—
an
explanation
that
we
MIGHT
QUOTE
FROM
if
your
nominee
makes
the
finals
(if
you
want
to
be
anonymous,
let
us
know).
If
you
can’t
offer
an
explanation,
please
rethink
whether
the
card
is
a
worthy
contender
(see
rule
#3,
supra).
5.
The
deadline
for
submissions
is
about
two
weeks
away:
FRIDAY,
DECEMBER
13,
at
11:59
p.m.
(New
York
time).
No
exceptions.
If
you’re
reading
this
post
after
the
deadline,
then
you
don’t
read
Above
the
Law
frequently
enough.
We
look
forward
to
seeing
your
submissions.
Thank
you,
and
happy
holidays!
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
X/Twitter
and
Threads
or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
Kathryn
Chris
