*
Trump
takes
away
Covington’s
security
clearances
because
they
represent
Jack
Smith.
If
they
want
to
see
classified
material,
they
have
to
hang
out
at
Mar-a-Lago
like
every
other
hostile
power.
[Washington
Post]
*
Supreme
Court
refuses
to
put
to
death
a
man
that
even
Oklahoma’s
tough
on
crime
prosecutors
admit
is
innocent.
5-3.
[Slate]
*
As
companies
bend
over
to
appease
the
new
administration,
Apple
is
going
the
Costco
route
and
refusing
to
back
down
from
diversity
commitments.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
Patlytics,
an
AI-powered
patent
workflow
platform
founded
just
last
year,
said
today
that
it
has
closed
a
$14
million
Series
A
round,
on
top
of
a
$4.5
million
seed
round
last
April,
bringing
its
total
funding
to
$21
million,
all
within
a
nine-month
span.
This
latest
round
was
led
by
global
venture
firm
Next47,
with
participation
from
existing
investors
including
Google’s
AI-focused
venture
fund
Gradient,
8VC,
Alumni
Ventures,
Liquid
2
Ventures,
and
Myriad
Venture
Partners.
The
company
says
its
fundraising
success
validates
market
demand
for
its
product
“and
positions
the
company
to
lead
the
seismic
shift
in
AI-driven
intellectual
property
protection
and
management.”
“We’ve
entered
a
pivotal
moment
in
legal
tech
where
AI
can
drive
an
immense
amount
of
value,
even
within
the
complex
and
nuanced
realm
of
intellectual
property,”
said
Paul
Lee,
CEO
and
cofounder
of
Patlytics.
“Our
platform’s
ability
to
deliver
efficiency
and
insights
with
generative
AI
is
fundamentally
transforming
the
patent
lifecycle.”
The
company
also
announced
the
hiring
of
lawyer
Eric
Lin
as
vice
president
of
strategy
to
further
the
company’s
next
phase
of
growth.
Lin
has
been
an
IP
litigator
since
2014,
most
recently
at
the
law
firm
Paul
Hastings,
and
previously
at
Morrison
&
Foerster
and
Baker
Botts.
Patlytics’
product
enables
AI-assisted
patent
application
drafting
and
provides
tools
for
identifying
infringement,
generating
claim
charts,
and
patent
pruning
by
identifying
high-
and
low-potential
assets.
“Patlytics’
cutting-edge
AI
is
revolutionizing
how
patents
are
drafted,
analyzed,
protected,
and
monetized,
as
evidenced
by
their
enterprise
customers
and
end-to-end
platform
approach,”
said
Matthew
Cowan,
general
partner
at
Next47.
“Patlytics’
benchmark
of
velocity
is
unmatched
—
and
the
team
has
harnessed
this
momentum
to
deliver
secure,
comprehensive
AI
outcomes
on
par
with
patent
professionals.
The
company
says
it
has
seen
an
18x
expansion
in
its
customer
base
within
six
months,
with
notable
customers
including
Quinn
Emanuel,
Koch
Disruptive
Technologies,
Google,
Xerox,
Abnormal
Security,
Richardson
Oliver
Law
Group,
Young
Basile,
and
Reichman
Jorgensen
Lehman
&
Feldberg
LLP.
Last
week,
I
presented
Part
I
of
my
written
interview
with
Lindzee
Barrera,
a
former
Division
I
college
golfer
turned
entrepreneur.
That
column
presented
her
answer
to
the
first
of
my
three
questions
and
focused
on
the
current
state
of
play
for
Lindzee
and
her
company,
Birdie
Girl,
on
the
trademark
litigation
front.
What
follows
are
Lindzee’s
answers
to
my
remaining
two
questions.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
her
answers
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
her
answers
as
she
provided
them.
Gaston
Kroub:
Is
there
a
message
you
would
offer
other
female
founders
that
find
themselves
in
a
similar
position
vis-à-vis
an
IP
case
with
a
competitor?
Lindzee
Barrera:
First
and
foremost,
know
your
rights
and
don’t
let
anyone
intimidate
you
out
of
what’s
rightfully
yours.
It
can
feel
extremely
overwhelming
when
you’re
up
against
a
bigger
or
more
aggressive
opponent. If
we
want
to
see
more
thriving
women-owned
companies,
we
have
to
push
back
against
tactics
designed
to
wear
us
down.
Build
a
strong
legal
team,
but
also
tap
into
your
network
for
insights
and
different
perspectives
on
the
best
path
forward.
When
I
first
reached
out
to
my
female
founder
network,
I
was
met
with
overwhelming
support
and
valuable
connections
that
helped
guide
my
decisions.
Whenever
possible,
pay
it
forward
by
supporting
others
who
may
find
themselves
in
a
similar
position.
GK:
As
a
male
business
owner,
albeit
one
with
a
bit
more
of
a
comfort
level
when
it
comes
to
litigation,
I
think
Lindzee’s
advice
rings
true.
When
confronted
with
an
unplanned
business
crisis,
it
is
important
to
lean
on
trusted
advisors,
including
with
respect
to
the
selection
and
engagement
of
the
right
outside
counsel.
Here,
Lindzee’s
company
is
in
very
good
hands
with
her
litigation
team.
And
I
am
sure
that
she
will
live
up
to
her
suggestion
of
paying
good
advice
forward
to
other
founders
once
she
has
put
this
dispute
behind
her.
GK:
What
did
your
athletic
career
teach
you
about
dealing
with
adversity,
in
life
and
in
business?
Anyone
who
plays
golf
knows,
golf
has
a
way
of
humbling
you. As
a
college
golfer,
I
had
my
fair
share
of
ups
and
downs.
At
times,
it
felt
like
my
entire
worth
was
tied
to
whether
my
score
started
with
a
7.
But
the
biggest
lesson
I
learned
is
that
tough
moments
don’t
define
you,
how
you
respond
to
them
does.
I
also
watched
my
dad,
who
was
my
only
golf
coach,
navigate
his
own
challenges. He
was
dealing
with
a
legal
battle
for
his
own
small
business
and
he
ultimately
lost.
Seeing
that
as
a
kid
stuck
with
me
and
showed
me
that
even
when
you
do
everything
right,
things
don’t
always
go
your
way. With
hindsight,
I’ve
realized
setbacks
are
never
wasted. They
teach
you
to
toughen
up
and
push
hard
for
something
better.
GK:
Lindzee’s
comments
about
the
humbling
nature
of
golf
will
resonate
with
many
litigators,
who
also
operate
in
a
high-stress
and
challenging
environment
that
often
results
in
the
feeling
that
their
professional
life
is
a
roller-coaster
ride.
But,
like
golf,
it
is
the
unpredictability
of
results
in
litigation
coupled
with
the
importance
of
preparation
to
place
oneself
in
the
best
position
of
success
that
provides
the
moments
of
satisfaction
that
can
offset
all
the
frustration
inherent
in
the
pursuit.
At
least
for
the
lawyers,
that
is.
As
a
litigant,
the
challenge
of
navigating
an
unfamiliar,
costly,
and
uncertain
process
can
be
a
daunting
one.
Lindzee’s
experience
as
an
athlete,
as
well
as
her
recollections
of
watching
her
dad
struggle
through
a
similar
experience,
should
serve
her
in
good
stead
as
her
case
proceeds.
Her
skilled
legal
team
that
is
also
empathetic
and
committed,
coupled
with
her
own
beliefs
in
the
rightness
of
her
cause
will
hopefully
position
her
for
success
in
her
case.
My
thanks
to
Lindzee
for
the
insights
and
cooperation,
and
I
wish
her
and
her
legal
team
the
best
of
luck
with
their
pending
SDNY
lawsuit
and
TTAB
proceeding.
While
the
legal
processes
play
out,
I
hope
that
Lindzee
will
continue
to
find
success
with
Birdie
Girl,
hopefully
in
a
way
that
takes
her
business
to
new
heights. I
am
always
open
to
conducting
interviews
of
this
type
with
other
IP
thought
leaders,
so
feel
free
to
reach
out
if
you
have
a
compelling
perspective
to
offer.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected]or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.
Some
of
the
best
law
firms
in
New
York
City
still
have
that
old
mindset
of
…
chasing
a
deal.
We
had
the
luxury
of
not
having
the
history
of
150
years
of
representing
James
Pierpont
Morgan
or
Mr.
Goldman.
We
invested
in
our
clients.
We
thought
about,
where
do
the
clients
want
to
be
in
five
years,
10
years,
and
what
skills
are
we
going
to
need
to
bring
to
our
platform
to
be
that
consigliere,
that
strategic
adviser
to
our
very
best
clients.
When
you
have
a
bet-your-company
M&A
matter,
when
you
have
a
bet-your-company
controversy
…
I
want
someone
to
think,
‘We
need
to
call
Latham
&
Watkins.’
I
want
us
to
be
the
only
firm
that
comes
to
mind.
— Marc
Jaffe,
managing
partner of
Latham
&
Watkins’
New
York
office,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
on
the
firm’s
strategy
in
the
city
as
a
“talent
aggregator”
that
can
“exercise
dominance”
over
the
competition.
“There
are
firms
that
we
compete
with
in
slices,
in
products.
I
think
there
is
no
firm
that
presents
to
the
market
the
breadth
of
…
market
leadership
that
we
do,”
he
said.
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.
The
February
administration
of
the
California
bar
exam
is
so
broken
that
they’re
offering
a
free
July
test
to
everyone
who
fails.
This
comes
after
they
already
offered
refunds
to
everyone
struggling
with
the
catastrophic
launch
of
the
new
exam
structure
that
takes
the
test
outside
the
NCBE
monopoly
and
uses
Kaplan
prepared
questions
for
a
test
administered
by
Meazure
Learning.
Despite
the
trouble
they’ve
faced,
California’s
effort
to
reinvent
the
bar
exam
was
born
out
of
necessity.
The
existing
procedure
—
beholden
to
NCBE
rules
requiring
the
administrators
to
rent
out
pricey
in-person
venues
—
drove
the
licensing
organ
into
the
red
and
without
a
drastic
change,
the
exam
would
continue
hurtling
toward
bankruptcy.
But
a
reform
that
probably
needed
a
year
or
two
to
implement
effectively
received
a
matter
of
months
and…
here
we
are.
Venues
missing,
practice
tests
not
working,
and
communication
vague
at
best.
Specifically,
the
Board
approved
$3.1
million
in
the
budget
to
support
fee
waivers
for
the
July
2025
bar
exam
to
eligible
February
2025
bar
exam
takers
and
authorized
staff
to
develop
the
eligibility
framework,
with
general
parameters
being
those
who
withdrew
from
or
fail
the
February
2025
bar
exam,
after
good
faith
efforts.
Recall
that
this
whole
thing
is
supposed
to
be
about
SAVING
money,
not
losing
it.
And
someday
it
will
be.
I
continue
to
be
the
Cal
bar
optimist
who
believes
this
will
ultimately
make
for
a
better
licensing
exam
(putting
aside
whether
or
not
the
bar
exam
is
a
good
idea
in
the
first
place).
But
for
now,
it’s
going
to
drag
the
examiners
down
a
bit
longer
as
they
try
to
work
out
the
kinks.
If
you
thought
being
appointed
to
the
bench
by
a
Republican
and
having
a
documented
history
of
measured
jurisprudence
was
enough
to
prevent
a
MAGA-head
from
trying
to
end
your
career,
boy,
are
you
wrong!
Republican
Congress
members
have
already
filed
articles
of
impeachment
against
U.S.
District
Judge
Paul
Engelmayer
for
issuing
a
temporary
restraining
order blocking
the
Department
of
Government
Efficiency
(DOGE)
from
accessing
Treasury
Department
data.
But
the
GOP’s
ire
isn’t
limited
to
jurists
appointed
by
Democrats.
Yesterday,
Rep. Andy
Ogles (R-Tenn.)
introduced
an
impeachment
resolution
against
U.S.
District
Judge John
Bates
because
he
had
the
audacity(!)
to
order
restoring
public
health
data
websites.
Ogles
really
lays
it
on
thick
too
with
his
articles
of
impeachment,
writing
Bates’s
decision
was
“so
utterly
lacking
in
intellectual
honesty
and
basic
integrity
that
he
is
guilty
of
high
crimes
and
misdemeanors.” Ogles
also
blasted
Bates
on
social
media,
calling
him
a
“RADICAL
LGBTQ
ACTIVIST,”
and
seeking
to
stoke
the
flames
of
indignation
by
saying
he’s
supporting
“surgical
or
chemical
castration
of
healthy
children.”
Sigh.
That’s
a
gross
misrepresentation
of
what
Bates
—
appointed
by
George
W.
Bush
—
actually
did.
U.S.
health
agencies
rushed
to
comply
with
Donald
Trump’s
anti-transgender
executive
order
asserting
there
are
only
two
sexes,
and
pulled
down
public
health
data
from
the
internet.
The
agencies
were
sued
by
a
physicians
group
that
argued
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(PRA)
they
had
to
provide
adequate
notice
before
terminating
significant
information
products.
Bates
merely
issued
an
order
saying
the
datasets
had
to
be
temporarily
reinstated.
I
guess
Ogles
believes
“datasets”
and
“paperwork
reduction”
are
central
tenants
of
that
gay
agenda.
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].
Committing
to
expose
yourself
to
both
the
elements
and
Jeff
Probst
for
weeks
and
yet
we
all
know
that
Biglaw
is
still
more
dehumanizing.
That’s
the
takeaway
from
this
this
interview
with
upcoming
contestant
Kyle
Fraser,
an
attorney
from
Virginia
who
was
asked
by
Entertainment
Weekly
to
decide
on
a
brutal
punishment
for
themselves
if
they
end
up
being
voted
out
first.
While
some
promised
to
give
up
weed
for
two
years
or
stop
watching
Survivor
(sounds
like
a
reward
to
me),
Fraser
knew
the
unspeakable
horror
he’d
subject
himself
to
if
the
castaways
boot
him
first:
I
have
done
white
collar
criminal
defense
at
larger
firms,
which
I
very
much
enjoyed,
but
I
want
to
eventually
segue
to
more
of
a
public
interest
job.
My
fiancée
has
given
me
this
leeway,
and
my
expectation
is
to
bring
home
the
gold
on Survivor.
That
said,
if
I
get
voted
out
first
and
I
don’t
get
that
gold,
then
I’m
working
at
a
big
law
firm.
That’s
my
punishment.
I
know
that’s
really
lame
and
corny,
but
I’m
going
to
go
make
the
big
bucks.
I’m
going
to
give
myself
a
little
bit
of
license
to
not
try
and
save
the
world
just
yet.
I’m
going
to
go
grind
it
out
at
a
law
firm
and
try
and
make
the
big
bucks.
That’s
my
punishment.
Any
lawyer
knows
that
that’s
a
pretty
difficult
thing
to
do.
Some
EW
reader
will
confront
you
as
their
lawyer
friend
and
sneer
that
“his
PUNISHMENT
is
making
more
money”
and
you
will
be
magically
transported
to
that
jungle
and
go
full
Colonel
Kurtz
softly
repeating,
“the
horror…
the
horror….”
Good
luck,
Kyle.
All
the
snake
bites
and
malnourishment
is
worth
it.
Ed.
note:
This
is
the
second
in
a
series
of
articles
by
our
friends
Neil
Handwerker
and
Kimberly
Fine
of
ex
judicata,
who
will
be
writing
about
lawyers
interested
in
transitioning
to
nonlegal
careers.
What
is
the
big
idea?
We
have
now
reached
100,000
unique
users
on
exjudicata.com.
A
testament
to
the
rapidly
growing
number
of
lawyers
and
law
students
interested
in,
if
not
transitioning
to
nonlegal
careers
right
away,
at
least
exploring
what
alternatives
are
open
to
them
besides
practicing
law.
Which
leads
to
an
idea
so
big
it
is
hard
to
conceptualize.
What
kind
of
career
alternatives
are
available
to
lawyers
and
law
students? Everything.
Save
those
occupations
requiring
specific
schooling
and
credentialing.
For
example:
brain
surgeon,
CPA,
licensed
plumber.
Last
year,
ex
judicata
had
the
pleasure
of
interviewing
Patty
Roberts,
the
Dean
of
St.
Mary’s
Law
School.
For
those
unfamiliar,
Dean
Roberts
is
one
of
the
most
innovative
legal
educators
in
America.
Her
law
school
is
at
the
forefront
of
making
a
legal
education
available
to
underrepresented
communities.
Though
having
a
live
curriculum,
St.
Mary’s
was
also
the
first
law
school
in
the
nation
to
make
available
a
fully
remote
JD
program
accredited
by
the
ABA.
Dean
Roberts
told
ex
judicata:
“The
question
is
not
what
can
you
do
with
a
law
degree,
it
is
what
can’t
you
do
with
a
law
degree.”
And
readers
of
this
column
will
know
that
last
month
we
quoted
Kellye
Testy,
CEO
of
the
American
Association
of
Law
Schools,
who
is
broadcasting
this
message
loud
and
clear.
“A
JD
is
a
degree
in
complex
problem-solving.
And
if
there
is
one
thing
every
business
needs
more
of,
it
is
complex
problem-solvers.”
Anecdotally,
most
know
it
is
not
unusual
to
see
in
the
biography
of
a
successful
business
executive
that
they
are
also
lawyers
by
training.
So,
if
lawyers
can
do
most
everything,
why
is
it
so,
so
difficult
to
leave
law
and
find
a
nonlegal
career
leveraging
the
JD
skill
set
which
includes
analytical
thinking,
ability
to
manage
huge
amounts
of
data,
speaking/writing
and
presenting
persuasively,
issue
spotting,
problem-solving,
etc.?
No
defined
paths.
If
you
ask
100
lawyers
now
in
successful
business
careers
how
they
got
there,
you
may
well
get
100
different
answers.
So,
it
is
not
as
if
a
lawyer
wakes
up
and
decides
to
leave
a
law
firm
to
become,
say,
a
talent
agent
and
here
is
where
and
how
to
apply.
Substitute
pretty
much
any
nonlegal
occupation.
Even
careers
that
are
deemed
to
be
close
to
the
practice
of
law
like
investment
banking
or
risk
management.
There
are
no
set
pathways.
Corporate
America
not
focused
on
hiring
JDs
for
nonlegal
jobs
The
day
ex
judicata
launched
as
a
company,
we
were
present
with
a
tradeshow
booth
at
SHRM’s
annual
convention.
For
the
uninitiated,
this
is
the
Society
for
Human
Resource
Management.
About
25,000
hiring
authorities
descended
on
Las
Vegas.
We
figured
we
would
go
to
the
belly
of
the
beast.
What
better
place
to
take
our
message
which
we
distilled
down
to
hire
JDs
because
they
are:
“The
Hidden
Talent
Pool”
in
plain
sight
Signage
at
Ex
Judicata’s
tradeshow
booth
at
SHRM
annual
convention
(heads
not
actual
employees
of
ex
judicata)
In
addition
to
manning
the
booth,
we
also
tirelessly
networked
with
sponsors,
speakers
and
attendees.
In
talking
about
placing
lawyers
in
nonlegal
jobs,
we
may
as
well
have
been
talking
about
recruiting
people
from
Atlantis.
There
was
very
little
understanding
of
what
we
were
saying.
There
was
some
recognition
of
lawyers
being
hired
for
jobs
in
compliance.
Compliance
has
been
a
harbor
for
non-practicing
JDs
for
some
time.
As
many
of
you
may
know,
certain
employers,
like
the
Big
4
accounting
firms
and
management
consulting
firms,
have
been
hiring
lawyers
for
nonlegal
jobs
for
decades. For
many
kinds
of
jobs. Yet
even
here,
the
roles
are
not
marked.
It’s
not
the
case
where,
say,
a
Big
4
firm
places
an
ad
on
a
job
board
for
an
investigative
services
role
and
it
is
marketed
to
JDs. We
wish
that
were
the
case
because
we
want
these
kinds
of
positions
posted
on
ex
judicata’s
job
board.
The
only
one
where
all
the
opportunities
are
nonlegal
jobs
for
lawyers.
It’s
somewhat
surprising
that
Corporate
America
is
not
actively
seeking
lawyers
for
non-practicing
roles
in
that
more
than
70
of
the
Fortune
500
Chief
Human
Resources
Officers
have
law
degrees,
and
that
the
senior
ranks
of
HR
departments
of
many
large
companies
have
lawyers
in
nonpracticing
roles.
If
they
don’t
know
how
versatile
that
a
law
degree
is,
who
does?
If
all
else
fails,
audit!
We
hope
to
be
able
to
get
a
Fortune
500
company,
or
two,
to
audit
their
workforce
to
see
how
many
employees
hold
JD
degrees
outside
the
law
department.
The
results
could
be
quite
eye-opening.
Word
would
then
spread
with
more
and
more
companies
doing
similar
research
until
defined
paths
might
become
apparent.
For
example,
perhaps
Proctor
&
Gamble
discovers
four
former
practicing
lawyers
are
actually
in
Brand
Management.
Suddenly,
a
new
path
is
defined.
Law
schools
need
to
get
on
board
Few
law
schools
have
companies
interviewing
students
on
campus
for
nonlegal
jobs
upon
graduation.
Certain
elite
schools
do
get
some
management
consulting
firms.
But
these
are
extremely
limited
cases.
Ex
judicata
is
spending
considerable
time
networking
with
law
schools
to
have
a
banner
linking
back
to
our
site
on
the
career
services
and/or
alumni
portals
of
the
law
school.
To
date,
we’ve
signed
up
70
ABA-accredited
law
schools.
And
then
there
is
the
ABA
We
quote
from
our
last
Above
the
Law
article:
The
ABA
has
been
slow
to
get
onboard.
All
you
really
need
to
know
is
that
the
lead
article
Nine
Non-Legal
Jobs
You
Can
(Really,
Truly)
Do
with
a
Law
Degree
on
the
ABA’s
Alternative
Career
site
spells
“nonlegal”
wrong.
The
most
up-to-date
piece
under
“latest
resources”
is
dated
October
4,
2023.
Lawyers
heal
thyself
Lawyers
who
want
to
move
to
business
should
be
advocating
on
their
own
behalf
to
help
get
the
ball
moving.
This
means
making
everyone
in
their
ecosystem
aware
they
want
to
find
a
nonlegal
job.
The
good
news
More
and
more
attention
is
being
paid
to
those
who
want
to
pursue
an
alternative
path.
Here
comes
the
gratuitous
mention
of
AI.
Some
of
the
heat
and
hot
water
can
be
traced
to
the
belief
that
AI
will
so
dramatically
reduce
entry-level
legal
positions
that
alternatives
must
be
found.
That
is
a
more
advanced
discussion
for
another
day.
In
the
meantime,
at
ex
judicata,
the
majority
of
our
time
is
spent
networking
with
talent
executives
as
to
why
they
should
hire
JDs
for
nonlegal
jobs.
And
it
is
working.
Neil
Handwerker
and
Kimberly
Fine
are
the
co-founders
of
ex
judicata,
a
website
providing
information,
resources,
webinars,
coaching,
money
management,
and
inspirational
content
for
lawyers
and
law
students
interested
in
moving
to
nonlegal
careers.
This
is
their
second
startup
together.
Feel
free
to
email them
with
any
questions
or
suggestions
or
connect
with
them
on LinkedIn.
The
threat
of
being
defunded
is
pulling
the
rug
out
from
under
many
an
organizations’
“steadfast”
commitment
to
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion.
Shortly
after
the
Department
of
Education’s
“Dear
Colleague”
letter,
we
got
word
of
law
schools
scrubbing
DEI
mentions
from
their
websites
and
that
the
American
Bar
Association
decided
to
stop
enforcing
DEI
accreditation
requirements
on
law
schools.
The
next
step
is
waiting
to
see
how
state
bars
will
respond
to
the
push
to
get
rid
of
DEI
programs.
From
Bloomberg
Law:
Under
threat
from
the
Trump
administration
and
lawsuits
from
conservative
litigators,
state
bar
groups
across
the
country
are
deciding
whether
to
shelve
diversity
programming
or
risk
getting
dragged
into
court. … Some
bar
leaders
are
resolute,
including
Connecticut
Bar
Association
President
Tim
Shearin.
His
organization
will
continue
programs
like
its
diversity
summit
and
a
law
camp
for
high
school
and
college
students.
“Our
promise
to
make
the
legal
profession
open
to
all
remains
steadfast,”
he
said
in
a
statement.
Eight
state
bars
said
they
didn’t
plan
on
changing
their
DEI
programs.
Eight
is
a
far
cry
from
50,
but
it’s
a
start!
And
for
what
it’s
worth,
Shearin
is
right.
If
the
state
bars
that
used
all
of
that
flowery
language
to
justify
DEI
programs
actually
believed
in
what
they
were
saying,
they’d
do
what
it
takes
to
make
sure
that
capable
disenfranchised
folks
will
have
the
opportunities
that
would
otherwise
lie
outside
of
their
reach.
The
state
bars
that
have
the
most
freedom
to
maintain
DEI
programs
are
ones
that
1)
don’t
receive
federal
funds
and
2)
don’t
make
the
right
to
practice
in
the
state
contingent
on
mandatory
membership.
Targeting
state
bars
for
the
latter
reason
has
been
a
Wisconsin
Institute
for
Law
and
Liberty
staple
strategy
that
will
likely
pick
up
steam
elsewhere.
Some
state
bars
will
inevitably
bow
to
the
crown
—
the
Florida
Bar
has
already
scrubbed
mentions
of
DEI
from
its
policies
—
but
the
bars
committed
to
maintaining
equity
may
change
their
funding
mechanisms
or
membership
requirements
to
meet
their
goals.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Yale
Is
Where
You’d
Expect,
But
Check
Out
Everything
Else!:
Check
to
see
if
you
might
get
an
unexpected
prestige
bump!
Prepare
To
Fail
Upward:
Reality
TV
star’s
fallback
career
is
a
six-figure
salary
billing
away
hours.
Where
Does
Your
State
Bar
Stand
On
Diversity?:
You’re
gonna
find
out
pretty
soon.
Failure
Is
A
Second
Chance:
The
Cali
Bar
was
so
bad
it
offers
test
takers
a
free
second
bite
at
the
apple.
Doing
Your
Job
Is
Woke
Now:
District
Judge
Paul
Engelmayer
gets
a
finger
wagging
for
doing
his
job.
Kathryn
