Category: News Feeds

Laura
Jeffords
Greenberg
isn’t
just
an
innovative
legal
mind;
she’s
a
champion
of
transforming
how
legal
teams
operate
in
the
age
of
AI.
As
a
senior
legal
director
at
Copenhagen-based
WorkSum,
Laura
focuses
on
helping
startups
and
scale-ups
leverage
AI
and
streamline
their
processes.
In
a
recent
conversation,
she
shared
her
expertise
on
asynchronous
communication,
AI
adoption,
and
why
prompt
engineering
might
just
be
the
skill
every
lawyer
needs
to
master.

Watch
the
full
conversation
here:


The
Future
of
Legal:
Will
Prompting
Be
Required?

Asynchronous
Communication:
The
Foundation
Of
Efficiency

Laura’s
journey
into
asynchronous
communication
began
with
a
need
to
bridge
a
9-hour
time
difference
between
her
legal
team
in
California
and
her
location
in
Europe.
“I
couldn’t
just
walk
up
to
someone’s
desk
or
wait
a
couple
of
hours
for
a
response,”
she
explained.
This
forced
her
to
adopt
a
new
way
of
working
—
documenting
processes,
creating
knowledge
banks,
and
setting
clear
expectations.

Asynchronous
communication
isn’t
just
about
sending
emails
or
Slack
messages;
it’s
about
structuring
information
so
recipients
can
respond
meaningfully
on
their
own
time.
Laura
sees
this
as
foundational
for
high-performing
legal
teams,
as
it
minimizes
delays
and
builds
transparency.
“Your
communication
should
anticipate
questions
and
provide
context,”
she
said.
“The
goal
is
to
get
useful
answers
the
first
time.”

The
AI
Connection:
Why
Documentation
Is
Key

For
Laura,
the
meticulous
documentation
required
for
asynchronous
communication
also
lays
the
groundwork
for
successful
AI
adoption.
Generative
AI
thrives
on
context,
and
teams
that
document
their
processes
and
create
knowledge
repositories
are
better
positioned
to
leverage
their
capabilities.

“Without
context,
AI
can
only
give
you
generic
outputs,”
Laura
noted.
“But
if
you
provide
it
with
detailed,
company-specific
information
—
within
compliance
boundaries
—
it
can
deliver
tailored
results.”
This
includes
everything
from
generating
NDAs
to
creating
polished
communications
that
align
with
a
company’s
tone
of
voice.

Prompt
Engineering:
A
Skill
Every
Lawyer
Needs?

Prompt
engineering
—
the
art
of
crafting
effective
queries
for
AI
—
has
sparked
a
lively
debate.
Is
it
a
fleeting
skill
or
a
long-term
necessity?
While
the
jury’s
still
out,
Laura
argues
that
mastering
prompting
is
essential
for
lawyers
today.

Her
advice?
Use
the
WRAPS
framework
to
structure
your
prompts:

• 
  What:
  
  Define
  the
  expected
  output
  (e.g.,
  email,
  contract,
  policy).
• 
  Role:
  
  Specify
  your
  perspective
  or
  the
  role
  of
  the
  AI
  (e.g.,
  in-house
  counsel
  at
  a
  SaaS
  company).
• 
  Audience:
  
  Identify
  the
  target
  audience
  for
  the
  output
  (e.g.,
  a
  client,
  CEO,
  or
  counterparty).
• 
  Purpose:
  
  Clarify
  the
  overarching
  goal
  (e.g.,
  to
  persuade,
  educate,
  or
  negotiate).
• 
  Scope:
  
  Provide
  any
  additional
  details
  or
  context
  to
  refine
  the
  result.

Laura
also
highlighted
the
importance
of
iterative
refinement,
what
she
calls
“wrapping
with
a
side
of
DIP”:

• 
  Discussion:
  
  Engage
  in
  a
  conversation
  with
  the
  AI
  to
  refine
  outputs.
• 
  Interrogate:
  
  Question
  the
  AI’s
  suggestions
  to
  validate
  their
  accuracy.
• 
  Pace:
  
  Take
  your
  time
  and
  restart
  when
  necessary
  to
  avoid
  getting
  stuck
  in
  unproductive
  loops.

Practical
Applications
For
In-House
Legal
Teams

When
it
comes
to
in-house
legal
teams,
Laura
sees
AI
as
a
game-changer
for
improving
efficiency
and
reducing
workload.
From
drafting
contracts
to
creating
internal
policies
and
even
helping
with
Excel
formulas,
AI
can
save
significant
time.
“For
tasks
like
structuring
a
brain
dump
into
polished
communication,
AI
is
invaluable,”
she
said.

Laura’s
favorite
use
case?
Training
AI
to
adopt
a
company’s
specific
tone
of
voice
for
consistent
messaging.
“It’s
a
huge
time-saver
and
ensures
alignment
across
all
communications,”
she
explained.

Creating
A
Culture
Of
Experimentation

One
of
Laura’s
key
insights
is
the
importance
of
fostering
a
culture
of
experimentation.
“Using
AI
isn’t
just
about
efficiency;
it’s
about
creativity,”
she
said.
Leaders
must
give
their
teams
the
time
and
psychological
safety
to
explore
AI’s
potential,
make
mistakes,
and
innovate.

She
emphasized
that
this
mindset
shift
requires
moving
away
from
traditional
legal
perfectionism.
“It’s
okay
to
fail
as
you
experiment
with
AI,”
Laura
said.
“What
matters
is
learning
from
those
failures
and
adapting.”

Key
Takeaway:
Start
Playing
And
Keep
Learning

Laura’s
message
is
clear:
don’t
wait
to
start
experimenting
with
AI.
Whether
you’re
exploring
basic
tools
like
ChatGPT
or
diving
into
more-advanced
use
cases,
the
time
to
learn
is
now.
Use
frameworks
to
guide
your
prompts
and
approach
AI
with
a
mindset
of
curiosity
and
continuous
improvement.

“AI
isn’t
going
anywhere,”
Laura
concluded.
“The
sooner
you
start
experimenting,
the
more
prepared
you’ll
be
to
leverage
its
full
potential.”

Watch
the
full
conversation
here:


The
Future
of
Legal:
Will
Prompting
Be
Required?

---

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.

WASHINGTON—
No
one
could
predict
the
twists
and
turns
of
the
first
Trump
administration,
even
for
an
area
as
obscure
and
mundane
as
the
defense
industrial
base,
and
it
would
be
a
fool’s
errand
to
try
to
do
that
for
a
second
one.

[This
article
is
one
of many

in
a
series
in
which
Breaking
Defense
reporters
look
back
on
the
most
significant
(and
entertaining)
news
stories
of
2024
and
look
forward
to
what
2025
may
hold.]

Instead,
let’s
break
down
the
current
state
of
play
in
the
political
environment,
look
back
at
the
first
Trump
term,
and
think
about
some
of
the
major
questions
facing
the
defense
industry
during
a
second
Trump
administration:

Will
Trump
personally
involve
himself
in
defense
acquisition,
again?

For
defense
acquisition
nerds,
Trump’s
first
term
was
marked
by
his
highly
unusual
personal
involvement
in
weapons
contracting.
Whether
it
was
his
stated
desire
to
return
to
“goddamn
steam”
catapults
on
the
Ford-class
carrier,
interrogating
Boeing
executives
on
the
possibility
of
buying
a
“Super
Duper
Hornet”
F/A-18
variant,
or
having
personal
meetings
with
defense
CEOs
on
Air
Force
One
and
F-35
contracts,
Trump
delved
into
the
minutia
of
defense
acquisition
in
a
way
that
no
US
president
had
done
in
the
modern
era.

With
the

Wall
Street
Journal
reporting
that
Trump
has
already
spoken
with
Boeing
CEO
Kelly
Ortberg
about
the
Air
Force
One
replacement
program
—
as
well
as
the
return
of
the
F-35
and
drone
warfare
to
the
mainstream
news
cycle
—
it’s
highly
probable
that
we
could
see
Trump
once
again
try
to
make
his
mark
on
a
program,
putting
pressure
on
defense
contractors
to
highlight
his
deal-making
skills
to
the
American
taxpayer.
If
I
were
a
gambler,
my
money
would
be
on
Trump
interference
on
big-name
aerospace
projects
—
most
likely
F-35
or
Air
Force
One,
again
—
but
potentially
also
other
fighter
jets,
including
the
Navy
and
Air
Force’s
sixth-generation
fighter
programs.

What
happens
with
defense
spending?

The
fiscal
24
defense
budget
was
constrained
by
the
spending
limits
imposed
by
last
year’s
Fiscal
Responsibility
Act,
and
while
final
appropriations
for
FY25
won’t
be
passed
until
spring
(at
earliest),
signs
point
to
a
budget
that
conforms
to
those
limits.

Those
restrictions
will
be
gone
in
time
for
FY26
—
the
first
chance
the
Trump
administration
has
to
shape
the
defense
budget,
albeit
not
from
the
bottom
up.
While
the
groundwork
for
the
FY26
was
performed
by
the
Biden-era
Pentagon,
whether
the
incoming
administration
doubles
down
on
that
stagnant
Pentagon
spending
or
bumps
it
up
could
be
a
bellwether
for
its
approach
in
future
years.

Analysts
who
spoke
to
Breaking
Defense
immediately

after
the
presidential
election
were
split
on
whether
Trump
would
be
good
for
defense
spending.
Roman
Schweizer,
a
defense
analyst
with
TD
Cowen,
pointed
to
boosts
in
defense
spending
under
the
first
Trump
administration
and
cited
support
for
higher
toplines
among
Republican
leaders
on
the
defense
committees.

However,
whether
defense
budgets
ultimately
see
a
boost
could
be
down
to
the
interplay
of
House
Republicans,
as
the
razor-thin
GOP
majority
in
the
House
has
given
hardline
fiscal
conservatives
enormous
bargaining
power.

The
Department
of
Government
Efficiency,
spearheaded
by
Elon
Musk
and
Vivek
Ramaswamy,
could
be
another
fly
in
the
ointment
for
defense
spending
hawks.
Musk
has
declared
his
intent
to
use
DOGE
to
slash
$2
trillion
from
the
federal
budget.
And
although
lawmakers,
defense
executives
and
military
leaders
have
suggested
they’re
on
board
to
cut
wasteful
spending
(who
doesn’t
love
government
efficiency?),
I
don’t
see
defense
companies
lining
up
to
suggest
programs
where
they
should
receive
less
money.

RELATED:

Such
efficiency,
very
defense:
Congress,
industry
waiting
for
Elon’s
DOGE
to
wow

Is
Trump
a
friend
or
foe
to
the
defense
industry,
and
who
benefits?

During
his
last
term,
Trump
got
cozy
with
the
defense
primes,
celebrating
the
business
acumen
of
defense
executives
such
as
then-Lockheed
Martin
CEO
Marillyn
Hewson
and
—
before
the
Boeing
737
MAX
crisis
—
Boeing
chief
executive
Dennis
Muilenburg.

It
remains
to
be
seen
whether
any
CEOs
from
legacy
defense
primes
win
Trump’s
favor,
but
so
far
his
regard
seems
to
be
centered
on
business
leaders
from
the
defense
startup
and
venture
capital
world.
The
incoming
president
recently
tapped
Stephen
Feinberg,
who
leads
private
equity
firm
Cerberus
Capital
Management,
as
deputy
secretary
of
defense.
Other
executives
from
firms
like
Anduril
and
Palantir
are
also
reportedly
being
considered
for
major
roles
inside
the
Pentagon,
and
Musk
could
be
helping
to
cut
Pentagon
spending
despite
leading
a
major
defense
company
in
SpaceX.

One
way
this
dynamic
could
play
out
is
greater
preference
for
inexpensive
uncrewed
systems
—
an
area
where
defense
startups
have
firm
footing
—
instead
of
the
exquisite,
expensive
weapons
platforms
traditionally
made
by
defense
primes.
Pentagon
leaders
could
potentially
opt
to
sacrifice
a
discrete
quantity
of
a
major
weapons
system
such
as
a
single
Virginia-class
submarine
or
several
dozen
F-35s
in
order
to
buy
hundreds
of
autonomous
weapons
and
improved
networks,
Byron
Callan,
a
defense
analyst
with
Capital
Alpha
Partners,
wrote
in
a
Dec.
18
note
to
investors.

“The
tension
between
GOP
fiscal
hawks
and
defense
hawks
will
likely
push
the
administration
to
look
for
lower-cost
options
for
defense
in
the
form
of
autonomous
air
and
naval
systems.
The
role
of
persons
with
defense
tech/venture/start-up
backgrounds
in
senior
administration
positions
adds
firepower
to
this
battle,”
he
wrote.

Down
further
into
the
weeds
are
questions
about
the
regulatory
environment,
changes
to
defense
contracting,
and
how
Trump’s
overall
trade
policy
influences
defense
contractors.
The
previous
Trump
administration
took
a
more
hands-off
approach
to
antitrust
enforcement,
resulting
in
increased
mergers
and
acquisitions,
most
controversially
seen
in
Northrop
Grumman’s
purchase
of
Orbital
ATK.
(The
Biden
administration
would
later
block
a
similar
proposal
for
Lockheed
to
acquire
Aerojet
Rocketdyne.)
Analysts
speculate
that
the
second
Trump
administration
will
revert
back
to
a
more
permissive
environment
for
M&A.

*
Bird
Flu
epidemic
has
people
worried
about
Trump’s
incoming
HHS
regime
under
RFK
Jr.
But
maybe
crystals
and
burning
sage
is
all
it
takes
to
ward
off
the
virus!
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Law
School
trends
to
watch
[Reuters]

*
Kansas
facing
“constitutional
crisis.”
Get
in
line,
buddy.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Biden
asks
guys
who
take
luxury
gifts
under
the
table
to
enforce
anti-money
laundering
law
[SCOTUSBlog]

*
Legal
Tech
brought
all
the
VCs
to
the
yard
in
2024.
[Legaltech
News]

*
London
market
remains
hot
for
laterals.
[Financial
Times]

*
Bird
Flu
epidemic
has
people
worried
about
Trump’s
incoming
HHS
regime
under
RFK
Jr.
But
maybe
crystals
and
burning
sage
is
all
it
takes
to
ward
off
the
virus!
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Law
School
trends
to
watch
[Reuters]

*
Kansas
facing
“constitutional
crisis.”
Get
in
line,
buddy.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Biden
asks
guys
who
take
luxury
gifts
under
the
table
to
enforce
anti-money
laundering
law
[SCOTUSBlog]

*
Legal
Tech
brought
all
the
VCs
to
the
yard
in
2024.
[Legaltech
News]

*
London
market
remains
hot
for
laterals.
[Financial
Times]

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It’s
a
lot
of
everything
all
at
once.

You
have
to
be
respectful
of
everyone
going
through
the
change.
Lawyers
aren’t
exactly
change
agents,
and
managing
them
through
that
is
challenging.

—

Tom
Cole,
chair
of
newly
merged
firm
Troutman
Pepper
Locke,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
what
the
merger
and
integration
process
has
been
like
with
legacy
firm
Locke
Lord.
The
merger
between
Troutman
Pepper
Hamilton
Sanders
and
Locke
Lord

took
effect
on
January
1,
2025,
and
the
combined
firm
is
expected
to
bring
in
$1.5
billion
and
will
rank
among
the
country’s
top
30
largest
law
firms.

---

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.

Texas
AG
Ken
Paxton
emerged
from
under
his
bridge
to
file
another

performative
trollsuit
yesterday.
This
time
his
target
is
the
NCAA,
which
he
accuses
of
violating
Texas’s
consumer
protection
statute
by
selling
tickets
to
women’s
sporting
events
with
transgender
participants.

As
Lisa
Needham
pointed
out
in

Public
Notice,
this
is
a
solution
to
a
non-problem.
It’s
already
illegal
for
trans
athletes
to
participate
in
collegiate
athletics
in
Texas.
And
last
month
NCAA
President
Charlie
Baker

told
a
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
panel
that,
of
the
roughly
510,000
student
athletes
participating
in
collegiate
sports
today,
only
ten
are
trans.

But
Paxton’s
got
a
culture
war
to
fight,
so
he
marched
into
the
District
Court
of
Lubbock
County
and
filed
this
dumbshit
suit
premised
on
the
theory
that
transgender
people
simply
do
not
exist,
and
so
Texas
has
the
right
to
demand
that
the
NCAA
bar
trans
athletes
nationwide,
or
at
least
out
them
and
stop
calling
events
where
they
play
“women’s”
sport.

Paxton
begins
by
arguing
that
sex
is
binary,
and
it
was
ever
thus.

Most
consumers
know
that
a
“woman”
means
an
adult
human
female.
“Sex
is
an
immutable
characteristic
determined
solely
by
birth.”
Gibson
v.
Collier,
920
F.3d
212,-
217
n.
2
(5th
Cir.
2019)
(cleaned
up)
(quoting
Frontiero
v.
Richardson,
411
U.S.
677,
686
(1973)
(plurality
op.)).
This
definition
of
sex
is
ubiquitous
and
has
been
the
same
throughout
human
history.
And,
most
importantly,
it
is
how
Texas
consumers
understand
the
word.

He
then
goes
on
to
immediately
contradict
himself
by
citing
several
professional
athletes
who
identified
as
female
their
entire
lives,
but
whom
the
Texas
AG,
in
his
infinite
wisdom,
has
decided
are
really
men.

He
starts
with

Caster
Semenya,
whom
he
describes
as
“a
male
with
disorders
of
sex
development
(‘DSD’),
despite
displaying
some
physical
traits
of
a
female.”
Semenya
is
an
intersex
runner
with
female
characteristics
who
was
raised
from
birth
as
a
girl
and
would
qualify
as
female
under
the
very
language
Paxton
cites
from
the
5th
Circuit.

He
moves
on
to
Indian
runner
Dutee
Chand,
whom
he
refers
to
with
male
pronouns,
despite
the
fact
that
she
has
undergone

invasive
and
humiliating
testing
to
prove
that
she
is
a
cisgender
woman
whose
body
produces
high
levels
of
testosterone,
a
condition
know
as
hyperandrogenism.
And
then
to
Algerian
boxer
Imane
Khelif,
whom
the
Russian-led
International
Boxing
Association
(IBA)
disqualified
due
to
some
unspecified
testing
three
days
after
Khelif
beat
Russian
boxer
Azalia
Amineva,
restoring
Amineva’s
perfect
record.

The
IBA

first
suggested
that
it
had
performed
chromosomal
testing
when
it
disqualified
Khelif
and
Taiwanese
boxer
Lin
Yu-ting,
before
backtracking
and
saying
that
the
women
“did
not
undergo
a
testosterone
examination
but
were
subject
to
a
separate
and
recognized
test,
whereby
the
specifics
remain
confidential.”
In
2023,
the
International
Olympic
Committee stripped
IBA
of
its
recognition
as
the
global
body
for
boxing,
and
Khelif
and
Lin
went
on
to
win
gold
medals
in
the
Paris
Olympics
this
summer.

Nevertheless,
Paxton
refers
to
Khelif
as
“a
male
with
DSD”
who
“fought
against

another
male
boxer
with
DSD,
Lin
YuTing,
in
the
final
round
of
the
women’s
boxing
competition
at
the
2024
Olympics.”
This
cites
to
a

Fox
News
story
which
states
as
fact
that
Lin
has
male
chromosomes,
based
solely
on
the
IBA’s
disputed
allegations.
There
is
no
citation
for
Paxton’s
claim
that
“The
IOC’s
actions,
like
those
of
the
NCAA,
ultimately
left
consumers
confused,
angry,
and
feeling
cheated
after
they
purchased
goods
and
services
associated
with
women’s
boxing
thinking
they
were
supporting
women’s
competition,
only
to
witness
men
fighting
women
and,
ultimately,
two
men
fighting
each
other
over
the
gold
medal.”

Nor
could
there
be,
because

it
never
happened.
Gross
misgendering
aside,
Khelif

won
gold
as
a
welterweight,
and
Lin

took
the
top
prize
in
the
featherweight
category.
They
didn’t
fight
each
other
in
Paris.

This
mixup
is
illustrative
of
more
than
just
shoddy
lawyering,
though.
It
undercuts
Paxton’s
whole
premise
that
sex
is
obvious
and
immutable
from
birth.
Every
single
one
of
these
athletes
has
lived
her
entire
life
as
female
and
has
female
secondary
sexual
characteristics.
Paxton
points
to
Chand
and
Semenya’s
exclusion
from
their
sport
due
to
testosterone
levels
as
evidence
that
they
are
men.
This
would
appear
to
concede
the
point
that
gender
is

not
fixed,
since
hormone
levels
can
be
easily
altered
through
medication.
Would
Paxton
claim
that
a
male-presenting
person
with
high
levels
of
estrogen
(thanks
to
either
biology
or
injections)
was

really
a
woman?

The
International
Amateur
Athletics
Federation
(IAAF)
tried
to
thread
the
needle,
decreeing
that
Semenya
and
Chand
could
participate
as
women
if
they’d
agreed
to
take
testosterone
suppressants.
Both
athletes
refused
to
alter
their
bodies,
opting
instead
to
retire
from
running.
But
Paxton
seems
incapable
of
nuance,
much
less
appreciating
the
inherent
contradictory
nature
of
his
position.
Or
maybe
he
just
doesn’t
give
a
shit,
because
he’s
got
to
hit
his
quotient
of
garbage
lawsuits,
and
he
won’t
be
able
to
sue
Joe
Biden
in
two
weeks.

Trolls
gotta
troll,
y’all.

---

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

Texas
AG
Ken
Paxton
emerged
from
under
his
bridge
to
file
another

performative
trollsuit
yesterday.
This
time
his
target
is
the
NCAA,
which
he
accuses
of
violating
Texas’s
consumer
protection
statute
by
selling
tickets
to
women’s
sporting
events
with
transgender
participants.

As
Lisa
Needham
pointed
out
in

Public
Notice,
this
is
a
solution
to
a
non-problem.
It’s
already
illegal
for
trans
athletes
to
participate
in
collegiate
athletics
in
Texas.
And
last
month
NCAA
President
Charlie
Baker

told
a
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
panel
that,
of
the
roughly
510,000
student
athletes
participating
in
collegiate
sports
today,
only
ten
are
trans.

But
Paxton’s
got
a
culture
war
to
fight,
so
he
marched
into
the
District
Court
of
Lubbock
County
and
filed
this
dumbshit
suit
premised
on
the
theory
that
transgender
people
simply
do
not
exist,
and
so
Texas
has
the
right
to
demand
that
the
NCAA
bar
trans
athletes
nationwide,
or
at
least
out
them
and
stop
calling
events
where
they
play
“women’s”
sport.

Paxton
begins
by
arguing
that
sex
is
binary,
and
it
was
ever
thus.

Most
consumers
know
that
a
“woman”
means
an
adult
human
female.
“Sex
is
an
immutable
characteristic
determined
solely
by
birth.”
Gibson
v.
Collier,
920
F.3d
212,-
217
n.
2
(5th
Cir.
2019)
(cleaned
up)
(quoting
Frontiero
v.
Richardson,
411
U.S.
677,
686
(1973)
(plurality
op.)).
This
definition
of
sex
is
ubiquitous
and
has
been
the
same
throughout
human
history.
And,
most
importantly,
it
is
how
Texas
consumers
understand
the
word.

He
then
goes
on
to
immediately
contradict
himself
by
citing
several
professional
athletes
who
identified
as
female
their
entire
lives,
but
whom
the
Texas
AG,
in
his
infinite
wisdom,
has
decided
are
really
men.

He
starts
with

Caster
Semenya,
whom
he
describes
as
“a
male
with
disorders
of
sex
development
(‘DSD’),
despite
displaying
some
physical
traits
of
a
female.”
Semenya
is
an
intersex
runner
with
female
characteristics
who
was
raised
from
birth
as
a
girl
and
would
qualify
as
female
under
the
very
language
Paxton
cites
from
the
5th
Circuit.

He
moves
on
to
Indian
runner
Dutee
Chand,
whom
he
refers
to
with
male
pronouns,
despite
the
fact
that
she
has
undergone

invasive
and
humiliating
testing
to
prove
that
she
is
a
cisgender
woman
whose
body
produces
high
levels
of
testosterone,
a
condition
know
as
hyperandrogenism.
And
then
to
Algerian
boxer
Imane
Khelif,
whom
the
Russian-led
International
Boxing
Association
(IBA)
disqualified
due
to
some
unspecified
testing
three
days
after
Khelif
beat
Russian
boxer
Azalia
Amineva,
restoring
Amineva’s
perfect
record.

The
IBA

first
suggested
that
it
had
performed
chromosomal
testing
when
it
disqualified
Khelif
and
Taiwanese
boxer
Lin
Yu-ting,
before
backtracking
and
saying
that
the
women
“did
not
undergo
a
testosterone
examination
but
were
subject
to
a
separate
and
recognized
test,
whereby
the
specifics
remain
confidential.”
In
2023,
the
International
Olympic
Committee stripped
IBA
of
its
recognition
as
the
global
body
for
boxing,
and
Khelif
and
Lin
went
on
to
win
gold
medals
in
the
Paris
Olympics
this
summer.

Nevertheless,
Paxton
refers
to
Khelif
as
“a
male
with
DSD”
who
“fought
against

another
male
boxer
with
DSD,
Lin
YuTing,
in
the
final
round
of
the
women’s
boxing
competition
at
the
2024
Olympics.”
This
cites
to
a

Fox
News
story
which
states
as
fact
that
Lin
has
male
chromosomes,
based
solely
on
the
IBA’s
disputed
allegations.
There
is
no
citation
for
Paxton’s
claim
that
“The
IOC’s
actions,
like
those
of
the
NCAA,
ultimately
left
consumers
confused,
angry,
and
feeling
cheated
after
they
purchased
goods
and
services
associated
with
women’s
boxing
thinking
they
were
supporting
women’s
competition,
only
to
witness
men
fighting
women
and,
ultimately,
two
men
fighting
each
other
over
the
gold
medal.”

Nor
could
there
be,
because

it
never
happened.
Gross
misgendering
aside,
Khelif

won
gold
as
a
welterweight,
and
Lin

took
the
top
prize
in
the
featherweight
category.
They
didn’t
fight
each
other
in
Paris.

This
mixup
is
illustrative
of
more
than
just
shoddy
lawyering,
though.
It
undercuts
Paxton’s
whole
premise
that
sex
is
obvious
and
immutable
from
birth.
Every
single
one
of
these
athletes
has
lived
her
entire
life
as
female
and
has
female
secondary
sexual
characteristics.
Paxton
points
to
Chand
and
Semenya’s
exclusion
from
their
sport
due
to
testosterone
levels
as
evidence
that
they
are
men.
This
would
appear
to
concede
the
point
that
gender
is

not
fixed,
since
hormone
levels
can
be
easily
altered
through
medication.
Would
Paxton
claim
that
a
male-presenting
person
with
high
levels
of
estrogen
(thanks
to
either
biology
or
injections)
was

really
a
woman?

The
International
Amateur
Athletics
Federation
(IAAF)
tried
to
thread
the
needle,
decreeing
that
Semenya
and
Chand
could
participate
as
women
if
they’d
agreed
to
take
testosterone
suppressants.
Both
athletes
refused
to
alter
their
bodies,
opting
instead
to
retire
from
running.
But
Paxton
seems
incapable
of
nuance,
much
less
appreciating
the
inherent
contradictory
nature
of
his
position.
Or
maybe
he
just
doesn’t
give
a
shit,
because
he’s
got
to
hit
his
quotient
of
garbage
lawsuits,
and
he
won’t
be
able
to
sue
Joe
Biden
in
two
weeks.

Trolls
gotta
troll,
y’all.

---

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

Rudy
Giuliani
is
running
through
the
tape
in
2024,
and
so
is
his
badabing-badabang
lawyer
Joe
Cammarata.
Although
only
one
of
them
is
in
the
running
for

ATL’s
2024
Lawyer
Of
The
Year.
There’s
always
2025,
Joe!

The
pair
are
currently

bumstumbling
through
two
contempt
motions
in
front
of
Judge
Lewis
Liman
in
the
collection
action
brought
by
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.
One
involves
Rudy’s
failure
to
comply
with
discovery,
for
which
the
plaintiffs
would
like
to
bar
him
presenting
evidence
that
he
lives
in
Florida
and
is
thus
entitled
to
assert
that
state’s
unlimited
homestead
exemption.
(Giuliani
appears
to
have
declared
himself
a
Florida
resident
in
July,
just
before
he
got
himself
booted
out
of
bankruptcy,
allowing
the
plaintiffs
to
resume
collection
efforts.
Convenient!)

The
other
issue
involves
Giuliani’s
refusal
to
comply
with
Judge
Liman’s
turnover
orders,
despite
strong
signals
from
the
court
that
something

very
unpleasant
would
happen
if
he
didn’t.
Rudy
and
his
lawyers
have
essentially
thrown
up
their
hands
in
dumbfounded
astonishment
when
instructed
that
they
needed
to
deliver
not
just
the
car
but
the
title
as
well.
Who
knew
that
handing
over
the
keys
to
the
apartment,
but
not
the
deed
(which
is
still
in
joint
tenancy
with
his
ex-wife,
several
years
after
the
divorce)
would
not
get
him
full
credit?

But
Cammarata,
whose
practice
consists
largely
of
divorce
cases,
has
come
up
with

ONE
WEIRD
TRICK
to
make
all
that
unpleasantness
go
away.

What
if
nothing
counts
because
Freeman
and
Moss
forgot
to
say
the
magic
words
first?

It
appears
that
according
to
the
Court
docket,
Plaintiffs
as
the
Court
appointed
receivers
failed
to
comply
with
CPLR
§
6402,
and
never
filed
an
“Oath”
with
the
Court
as
required
by
CPLR
§
6402
before
entering
their
duties
to
act
as
receivers.
Hence,
the
receivership
has
not
yet
technically
or
legally
begun.
The
New
York
Civil
Practice
Law
and
Rules
applies
to
the
Judgment
being
enforced
herein.
The
Oath
was
required
to
be
signed
by
Plaintiff
Ruby
Freeman
and
Plaintiff
Wandrea’
Moss
as
the
receivers
and
an
oath
must
have
been
administered
by
any
person
authorized
to
take
acknowledgment
of
deeds
by
the
real
property
law
of
New
York
State,
and
then
filed
with
the
Court
before
the
Plaintiffs
undertook
the
duties
as
Receivers.

Checkmate,
libs!

Or
…
not.

Indeed, NY
CPLR
§
6402
does
require
temporary
receivers
to
take
an
oath.
But
there’s
no
requirement
that
such
an
oath
be
docketed
with
the
court.
In
their

reply,
Freeman
and
Moss’s
lawyer
Michael
Gottlieb,
a
litigation
partner
at
Willkie
Farr
(along
with
five
other
lawyers),
attached
said

oaths,
signed
three
days
after
the
court’s
receivership
order,
noting
that
“there
is
no
requirement
that
the
oaths
be
filed—but
even
if
there
were,
now
that
the
oaths
have
been
filed,
any
merit
in
Mr.
Giuliani’s
argument
would
be
moot.”

Gottlieb
et
al
also
documented
Rudy’s
ongoing
shenanigans
regarding
his
sports
memorabilia,

With
respect
to
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt,
Mr.
Giuliani
now
claims
there
“is
no
Signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
that
I
possess”
and
that
“the
Signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
was
hanging
in
the
New
York
Cooperative
apartment
at
the
time
the
apartment
was
turned
over.”
Mr.
Giuliani’s
claim
to
have
suddenly
lost
track
of
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
jersey
is
not
credible
for
multiple
independent
reasons.
First,
Mr.
Giuliani’s
former
counsel
represented
to
the
Court
at
the
November
7
Hearing
that
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
was
located
at
the
CTS
facility
in
Ronkonkoma.
Second,
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
was
not
present
at
the
New
York
Apartment
when
counsel
for
PlaintiffsReceivers
visited
on
October
31,
2024,
as
evidenced
by
comparing
the
photo
of
the
real
estate
listing
of
the
room
where
the
framed,
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
jersey
was
hanging
with
the
one
Plaintiffs’
counsel
submitted
from
the
October
visit.
Third,
one
of
Mr.
Giuliani’s
trial
witnesses
and
oldest
friends,
Monsignor
Alan
Placa—who
Mr.
Giuliani
recently
testified
would
be
a
credible
and
trustworthy
witness
testified
under
oath
during
his
recent
deposition
that
he
had
not
traveled
to
New
York
in
seven
years
but
that
he
had
personally
seen
the
framed,
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
within
the
last
two
years,
and
specifically
“at
the
apartment
–
actually,
it
was
here
in
Florida”
at
the
Palm
Beach
Condo.
Similarly,
Mr.
Giuliani’s
claim
that
there
“was
no
Reggie
Jackson
picture”
is
belied
by
his
own
Bankruptcy
Schedule,
and
his
former
counsel’s
representation
to
this
Court
that
the
signed
Reggie
Jackson
was
present
at
the
CTS
facility
in
Ronkonkoma.
And
even
if
Mr.
Giuliani’s
claims
about
either
signed
sports
memorabilia
had
any
indicia
of
credibility,
he
fails
to
describe
any
efforts
he
has
made
to
locate
them,
as
he
must
to
avoid
contempt.

Placa
is
a
former
priest
who
retired
under

interesting
circumstances
which
were
always
going
to
make
him
a
…

problematic
witness.
In
a

deposition
he
testified
variously
that
he:
was
a
lawyer;
understood
his
role
as
deponent;
kept
calendar
entries
of
Rudy’s
travel
to
Florida;
and
yet
failed
to
produce
them
because
“I
read
through
[the
subpoena]
quickly
and
didn’t
feel
that
I
had
anything
that
was
responsive
at
all.”
He
also
insisted
that
he
had
no
idea
how
a
LinkedIn
profile
showing
him
as
senior
VP
at
Giuliani
Partners
came
to
be,
since
he
never
drew
a
salary
or
went
into
the
office
more
than
a
few
times.
Although
he
did
admit
that
six
FEC
disclosures
in
the
name
of
Alan
Placa,
VP
at
Giuliani
Partners
came
from
him.

Rudy’s

deposition
went
similarly
swimmingly.
Asked
why
he
failed
to
renew
his
drivers
license,
he
said
“I
have
fatwas
issued
against
me
by
the
Ayatollah,
personally.”

He
refused
to
disclose
his
email
address
because:

Ninety-nine
percent
of
it
contains
matters
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
case
and
a
lot
of
them
are
privileged.
A
lot
of
them
are
personal
and
it
would
seem
to
me
that
it
constitutes
overbroad
discovery,
prying
into
things
—
using
this
litigation
for
the
purpose
of
prying
into
things
that
are
frankly
none
of
your
business,
that
have
been
utilized
in
the
past
for
leaking,
for
giving
information
to
other
people,
so
I
don’t
give
my
email
out
generally
anyway.
I
give
it
out
to
people
that
I
believe
will
use
it
for
a
proper
purpose.

Cammarata
instructed
him
not
to
answer,
because
“I
believe
we
have
a
protective
order
with
that
information.”
(Nope.)

Also,
it
does
not
seem
to
have
occurred
to
them
that
discussing
his
testimony
over
lunch
might
waive
the
privilege
to
said
conversation.

“Any
discussions
I
had
during
the
break
with
my
attorney
and
beyond
what
I
said,
which
I
probably
shouldn’t
have
said
at
all,
is
privileged,”
he
shouted,
after
admitting
that
he
had,
indeed,
talked
about
the
deposition
with
his
lawyer.
“But
the
answer
is
I
will
not
answer
questions
about
what
I
talk
to
my
attorney
about.
I
think
I’m
entitled
to
that
privilege
as
an
American
citizen.”

TL,
DR:
Giuliani
is
an

amazing
witness,
who
will
certainly
have
the
discipline
not
to,
say,

invoke
the
advice
of
counsel
defense
and
waive
privilege
about
why
his
prior
lawyers
ran
for
the
hills.
Or
lie
on
the
stand.
Or
assert
non-existent
privileges
in
defiance
of
the
court’s
prior
order.
Or
shout
at
the
judge.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

With
the
holiday
season
truly
over,
reality
is
careening
towards
the
second
Trump
presidency
at
an
alarming
rate.
And
everyone
is
busy

trying
to
predict
what
horrors

await
us
during
Trump
II,
but
it
seems
certain
the
effort
to
remake
the
judiciary
with
the
most
reactionary
jurists
possible
will
continue
apace.

The
upside,
such
as
it
is,
is
that
there
are
fewer
judicial
vacancies
awaiting
Donald
Trump
at
the
start
of
his
second
term
than
were
vacant
at
the
start
of
his
first
reign,
thanks
to
a
wildly
obstructionist
GOP-controlled
Senate
that
plagued
the
end
of
Barack
Obama’s
second
term
that
left
a
bunch
of
seats
open.
But
there
are
still
a
number
of
opportunities
for
the
balance
of
power
to
swing
dramatically
to
the
right.

As

reported
by
Bloomberg
Law,
there
are
a
number
of
district
courts
poised
to
feel
the
impact
of
Trump
nominees,
but
the
appellate
court
that
hangs
in
the
balance
is
the
Third
Circuit.
Trump
already
appointed
four
judges
to
that
bench
in
his
first
term,
and
the
defeat
of
Biden
nominee
Adeel
Mangi
plus
another
vacancy
that
never
got
a
nominee
means
a
real
shift
in
the
court.
If
Trump
is
able
to
fill
those
seats,
GOP-appointed
jurists
will
out
number
Democratic-appointed
ones,
8-6.

And
Republicans
are
practically
salivating
at
the
prospect.
As
former
Trump
White
House
lawyer
turned

ASS
Law
professor
Robert
Luther
III
said,
“As
Pennsylvania
continues
to
play
a
decisive
role
in
our
national
elections,
this
circuit
couldn’t
be
more
important.”
Fucking
fantastic.

The

Fifth
Circuit
might
soon
have
competition
for

the
MAGA
crown.

---

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].

Rudy
Giuliani
is
running
through
the
tape
in
2024,
and
so
is
his
badabing-badabang
lawyer
Joe
Cammarata.
Although
only
one
of
them
is
in
the
running
for

ATL’s
2024
Lawyer
Of
The
Year.
There’s
always
2025,
Joe!

The
pair
are
currently

bumstumbling
through
two
contempt
motions
in
front
of
Judge
Lewis
Liman
in
the
collection
action
brought
by
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.
One
involves
Rudy’s
failure
to
comply
with
discovery,
for
which
the
plaintiffs
would
like
to
bar
him
presenting
evidence
that
he
lives
in
Florida
and
is
thus
entitled
to
assert
that
state’s
unlimited
homestead
exemption.
(Giuliani
appears
to
have
declared
himself
a
Florida
resident
in
July,
just
before
he
got
himself
booted
out
of
bankruptcy,
allowing
the
plaintiffs
to
resume
collection
efforts.
Convenient!)

The
other
issue
involves
Giuliani’s
refusal
to
comply
with
Judge
Liman’s
turnover
orders,
despite
strong
signals
from
the
court
that
something

very
unpleasant
would
happen
if
he
didn’t.
Rudy
and
his
lawyers
have
essentially
thrown
up
their
hands
in
dumbfounded
astonishment
when
instructed
that
they
needed
to
deliver
not
just
the
car
but
the
title
as
well.
Who
knew
that
handing
over
the
keys
to
the
apartment,
but
not
the
deed
(which
is
still
in
joint
tenancy
with
his
ex-wife,
several
years
after
the
divorce)
would
not
get
him
full
credit?

But
Cammarata,
whose
practice
consists
largely
of
divorce
cases,
has
come
up
with

ONE
WEIRD
TRICK
to
make
all
that
unpleasantness
go
away.

What
if
nothing
counts
because
Freeman
and
Moss
forgot
to
say
the
magic
words
first?

It
appears
that
according
to
the
Court
docket,
Plaintiffs
as
the
Court
appointed
receivers
failed
to
comply
with
CPLR
§
6402,
and
never
filed
an
“Oath”
with
the
Court
as
required
by
CPLR
§
6402
before
entering
their
duties
to
act
as
receivers.
Hence,
the
receivership
has
not
yet
technically
or
legally
begun.
The
New
York
Civil
Practice
Law
and
Rules
applies
to
the
Judgment
being
enforced
herein.
The
Oath
was
required
to
be
signed
by
Plaintiff
Ruby
Freeman
and
Plaintiff
Wandrea’
Moss
as
the
receivers
and
an
oath
must
have
been
administered
by
any
person
authorized
to
take
acknowledgment
of
deeds
by
the
real
property
law
of
New
York
State,
and
then
filed
with
the
Court
before
the
Plaintiffs
undertook
the
duties
as
Receivers.

Checkmate,
libs!

Or
…
not.

Indeed, NY
CPLR
§
6402
does
require
temporary
receivers
to
take
an
oath.
But
there’s
no
requirement
that
such
an
oath
be
docketed
with
the
court.
In
their

reply,
Freeman
and
Moss’s
lawyer
Michael
Gottlieb,
a
litigation
partner
at
Willkie
Farr
(along
with
five
other
lawyers),
attached
said

oaths,
signed
three
days
after
the
court’s
receivership
order,
noting
that
“there
is
no
requirement
that
the
oaths
be
filed—but
even
if
there
were,
now
that
the
oaths
have
been
filed,
any
merit
in
Mr.
Giuliani’s
argument
would
be
moot.”

Gottlieb
et
al
also
documented
Rudy’s
ongoing
shenanigans
regarding
his
sports
memorabilia,

With
respect
to
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt,
Mr.
Giuliani
now
claims
there
“is
no
Signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
that
I
possess”
and
that
“the
Signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
was
hanging
in
the
New
York
Cooperative
apartment
at
the
time
the
apartment
was
turned
over.”
Mr.
Giuliani’s
claim
to
have
suddenly
lost
track
of
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
jersey
is
not
credible
for
multiple
independent
reasons.
First,
Mr.
Giuliani’s
former
counsel
represented
to
the
Court
at
the
November
7
Hearing
that
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
was
located
at
the
CTS
facility
in
Ronkonkoma.
Second,
the
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
was
not
present
at
the
New
York
Apartment
when
counsel
for
PlaintiffsReceivers
visited
on
October
31,
2024,
as
evidenced
by
comparing
the
photo
of
the
real
estate
listing
of
the
room
where
the
framed,
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
jersey
was
hanging
with
the
one
Plaintiffs’
counsel
submitted
from
the
October
visit.
Third,
one
of
Mr.
Giuliani’s
trial
witnesses
and
oldest
friends,
Monsignor
Alan
Placa—who
Mr.
Giuliani
recently
testified
would
be
a
credible
and
trustworthy
witness
testified
under
oath
during
his
recent
deposition
that
he
had
not
traveled
to
New
York
in
seven
years
but
that
he
had
personally
seen
the
framed,
signed
Joe
DiMaggio
shirt
within
the
last
two
years,
and
specifically
“at
the
apartment
–
actually,
it
was
here
in
Florida”
at
the
Palm
Beach
Condo.
Similarly,
Mr.
Giuliani’s
claim
that
there
“was
no
Reggie
Jackson
picture”
is
belied
by
his
own
Bankruptcy
Schedule,
and
his
former
counsel’s
representation
to
this
Court
that
the
signed
Reggie
Jackson
was
present
at
the
CTS
facility
in
Ronkonkoma.
And
even
if
Mr.
Giuliani’s
claims
about
either
signed
sports
memorabilia
had
any
indicia
of
credibility,
he
fails
to
describe
any
efforts
he
has
made
to
locate
them,
as
he
must
to
avoid
contempt.

Placa
is
a
former
priest
who
retired
under

interesting
circumstances
which
were
always
going
to
make
him
a
…

problematic
witness.
In
a

deposition
he
testified
variously
that
he:
was
a
lawyer;
understood
his
role
as
deponent;
kept
calendar
entries
of
Rudy’s
travel
to
Florida;
and
yet
failed
to
produce
them
because
“I
read
through
[the
subpoena]
quickly
and
didn’t
feel
that
I
had
anything
that
was
responsive
at
all.”
He
also
insisted
that
he
had
no
idea
how
a
LinkedIn
profile
showing
him
as
senior
VP
at
Giuliani
Partners
came
to
be,
since
he
never
drew
a
salary
or
went
into
the
office
more
than
a
few
times.
Although
he
did
admit
that
six
FEC
disclosures
in
the
name
of
Alan
Placa,
VP
at
Giuliani
Partners
came
from
him.

Rudy’s

deposition
went
similarly
swimmingly.
Asked
why
he
failed
to
renew
his
drivers
license,
he
said
“I
have
fatwas
issued
against
me
by
the
Ayatollah,
personally.”

He
refused
to
disclose
his
email
address
because:

Ninety-nine
percent
of
it
contains
matters
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
case
and
a
lot
of
them
are
privileged.
A
lot
of
them
are
personal
and
it
would
seem
to
me
that
it
constitutes
overbroad
discovery,
prying
into
things
—
using
this
litigation
for
the
purpose
of
prying
into
things
that
are
frankly
none
of
your
business,
that
have
been
utilized
in
the
past
for
leaking,
for
giving
information
to
other
people,
so
I
don’t
give
my
email
out
generally
anyway.
I
give
it
out
to
people
that
I
believe
will
use
it
for
a
proper
purpose.

Cammarata
instructed
him
not
to
answer,
because
“I
believe
we
have
a
protective
order
with
that
information.”
(Nope.)

Also,
it
does
not
seem
to
have
occurred
to
them
that
discussing
his
testimony
over
lunch
might
waive
the
privilege
to
said
conversation.

“Any
discussions
I
had
during
the
break
with
my
attorney
and
beyond
what
I
said,
which
I
probably
shouldn’t
have
said
at
all,
is
privileged,”
he
shouted,
after
admitting
that
he
had,
indeed,
talked
about
the
deposition
with
his
lawyer.
“But
the
answer
is
I
will
not
answer
questions
about
what
I
talk
to
my
attorney
about.
I
think
I’m
entitled
to
that
privilege
as
an
American
citizen.”

TL,
DR:
Giuliani
is
an

amazing
witness,
who
will
certainly
have
the
discipline
not
to,
say,

invoke
the
advice
of
counsel
defense
and
waive
privilege
about
why
his
prior
lawyers
ran
for
the
hills.
Or
lie
on
the
stand.
Or
assert
non-existent
privileges
in
defiance
of
the
court’s
prior
order.
Or
shout
at
the
judge.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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