You Catch More Judges With ‘Honey’ Than With Vinegar

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Hey everybody. Welcome back to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I’m joined by my Above the Law colleagues, Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams. How are you guys?

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey,

Joe Patrice:

Pretty good. Alright, so we are doing our usual, which is talking about the big stories from the week that was in legal that were covered over at Above the Law, which you all should be reading. I assume you all are on. That said, I’ve talked to listeners who say that they only listen to the show and don’t read us. I don’t think they meant that as a slight about our reading skills. I think they just are busy people.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I think also people just consume content in different ways. Some people will never listen to a podcast. Some people will only listen to a podcast and I think most people probably fall somewhere in between those two extremes, but takes all types.

Joe Patrice:

Alright, well let’s get going with a little small talk. That’s our new, I had to update the soundboard software feel. That’s our

Kathryn Rubino:

New A special horn.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, no, it’s the same one. It sounds the same. Yeah. No, I mean it is my first time using the new system though. It looks different. The user experience is different. How about I put it that way?

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I’m so glad you could bring us behind the curtain like that.

Joe Patrice:

Oh yeah, it is very hot.

Kathryn Rubino:

How hot is it?

Joe Patrice:

That’s great. No, it’s,

Kathryn Rubino:

Is that not the right answer? I think that’s the only acceptable answer.

Joe Patrice:

That’s fair. No, it is warm. That’s all I was just talking about

Kathryn Rubino:

The heat way a lot to the small talk table.

Chris Williams:

Anyway, so for anybody that is new to the podcast and wasn’t here for the Bush era mission accomplished vibes, we are totally back in that section of American politics.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, well in fairness, it took a lot of logistical effort to make a banner and hang it. I don’t know, as though this administration has put any of that time into the arts and crafts of it, to be fair. And as somebody who appreciates a good art and craft project,

Kathryn Rubino:

I can’t think of somebody who appreciates arts and crafts less than you.

Joe Patrice:

That’s fair. But see, I was trying to make small talk.

Kathryn Rubino:

You were failing

Chris Williams:

The people that should appreciate arts and crafts with the teenagers that got appointed to head positions in the government.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, the 22-year-old running our counter-terrorism response

Chris Williams:

Department of homeless security, I think it is or something. It’s like

Joe Patrice:

23.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, yeah. It’s going to be great for us here in New York.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Not great. Anyway,

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I fortunately or unfortunately, I mean it’s all kind of a hellscape. It blends together. Missed a lot of this in real time as the Iran attacks were happening because I have a toddler as regular listeners and she was not feeling great this weekend. Had a bit of a fever and just, man, you don’t realize how much of your entire existence is caught up in another one’s your child’s until they need to be physically sitting on your lap in order to not be screaming.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

No,

Joe Patrice:

That’s rough. Glad that you could join us today.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, she is feeling marginally better. Her attitude hasn’t really improved, but no more fever. So I

Joe Patrice:

Mean, neither is yours. So with all of that

Kathryn Rubino:

Mother daughter, I’m very proud of her.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, well what do you know? That’s

Kathryn Rubino:

The

Joe Patrice:

End of small talk. Alright, so let’s get going on the big stories of the week. I think one of the bigger ones to talk about is Honey Gate.

Kathryn Rubino:

Was there something with bees going on?

Joe Patrice:

There was not

There not, but this is a story that started making the rounds on social media. A attorney for the state in an appeal in Colorado was being questioned about a, I think, aggressive argument they were making. I think the judge was probably right to make some questions about it. It was an effort to try to take one of the elements of a case and then an element of a charge and take that element and make it also the basis of another charge and say, oh, well we can sentence based on multiple counts. And the judge was like, no, that’s one count. So that was the back and forth. But the real crux of this is as the judge was grilling, the lawyer responded with, but honey, no. And that threw everything off the rails.

Kathryn Rubino:

What I think is really interesting is that we only know because there’s cameras in the Courtroom that this awkward moment even happened.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Because the transcript itself doesn’t even really reflect what happened because the only friend that this lawyer apparently had in the Courtroom was the court reporter because the subtitles to this are going through and do not capture the honey. They do, however, capture the series of apologies and stumbling that then take over the conversation afterwards, but

Chris Williams:

Which quite frankly may have been the proper response if you just kept on like, listen, honey, X, Y, Z, the backlash would have been worse.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I actually felt like, so a lot of interpretation, a lot of people on social media taking this multiple ways, whether or not this was a reflection of deep seated misogyny in the legal profession or an embarrassing moment where somebody probably practiced this argument with his wife and that came through when it really happened, who knows what it really was. I definitely read it as accidental. I don’t think he was attempting to condescend to the judge. I think this just,

Kathryn Rubino:

It wasn’t a sort of pejorative listen sweetheart

Joe Patrice:

Kind of. Yeah. It wasn’t that chomping on a cigar at a Sears sucker suit kind of moment.

Chris Williams:

No apology when that happens,

Kathryn Rubino:

Right? Yeah, right,

Joe Patrice:

Exactly.

Kathryn Rubino:

So yeah, maybe the apology was definitely necessary. And I don’t even know necessarily that he was practicing with his wife as much as maybe it’s just when you’re in a tense back and forth, maybe that just comes up more frequently.

Joe Patrice:

Your brain defaults to the person that you have the most grueling fights of your life with. And in this case, maybe that was what happened here.

Chris Williams:

Well, my read of it, which, and for those of you that only listen to the podcast, please read Joe’s coverage of the story. It is strange. I’ve never looked at that man and thought, mommy, but apparently it has happened. But my read of it is less of like a, he was arguing having a conversation with his wife and maybe it was like an authority figure thing. I remember as a kid, I would talk to a teacher, I’ve had one time where I accidentally called a teacher

Joe Patrice:

Mom. Well, yeah,

Chris Williams:

But it was like a person in authority who was female thing. So there may be some reductive reading happening there Definitely. But it didn’t feel like it had any of an ism attached to it.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I mean I think we’ve all probably had these moments when you’re maybe on the phone with a doctor’s office or some other kind of professional person and you end the call with, okay, got to go Love you,

Joe Patrice:

Bye. Love you. Yep. No, I have not had that. Well,

Kathryn Rubino:

That probably speaks more,

Joe Patrice:

Maybe your doctor needs better bedside manner. I can think of several Supreme Court practitioners who should end their oral arguments with Love You by

Kathryn Rubino:

Love You, bye

Joe Patrice:

After they finish talking to Alito or something. But after they finished bribing him. Yeah. So Chris has had the Ralph Wigga moment calling teacher mommy. Yeah, definitely have. And I thought that was what was going on here. Honestly, I thought that the lawyer’s mistake was to stammer and try to, I have no words, as opposed to quickly own up to, oh my God, this is because I was, you got to be quicker.

Kathryn Rubino:

They might not even know where it came from. Right. It could just be some deep-seated instinctive kind of like, okay, I got to go bye, love you kind of moment as opposed to a, you kind of constructed a whole narrative in your head when you were coming through it like, well, he must’ve been practicing the argument with his wife and therefore,

Joe Patrice:

So I will say I didn’t construct that. That was actually one of the most popular responses of people on social media. Tons of litigators popped up in the replies and said, yeah, I’d practice this way. This is why you shouldn’t do it. And so it is a common thing for people to do apparently, at least according to the folks who chimed in on social media,

Chris Williams:

Maybe he just made an army of AI robots to all say the same thing, to make them more relatable. See, fault you can’t rule that out. Wasn’t my fault. You can’t rule that out these days. Nothing on the Israel cannot,

Joe Patrice:

You should practice your oral argument with the AI bots. You won’t call them honey theoretically, I guess. Yeah, no,

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean he was saying that he had AI bots being like, see, it’s not that big a deal. It happens to be kind of on social media

Joe Patrice:

To, but it was

Kathryn Rubino:

All the perception kind of in the zeitgeist that this happens. Okay,

Joe Patrice:

Well I’ll say no on that. Then I will throw in the legal tech plug. There are products that you could pretty easily adapt to being your oral argument checker. So there’s some of these products that I already have seen for depositions that will listen to what’s being said and say, oh, what about this question? What about that question? So you could probably pretty easily utilize AI to be your prep tool. I haven’t really thought about, I haven’t seen anybody specifically say that, but are

Chris Williams:

Legal tech conversation. Listen, I’m so sorry. That is my fault. I should, it’s your fault known. That would’ve activated the legal tech bug. That’s on

Joe Patrice:

Me. Listen, hey, it’s very important. Arguably the most important thing happening to the profession right now. So it’s worth mentioning. But yeah, no, see, I rarely do the slip like that. I have definitely done the airport, have a nice flight U2. They’re not going anywhere. I don’t know why I say that one. Anyway, the practice tip of course is don’t call a judge by any other name than your Honor, I guess honey, you can’t get to your honor without HON. Maybe thats part

Kathryn Rubino:

Of the private. That seems like a lot of effort that you just made to get there.

Joe Patrice:

You thought that was a lot of effort that seemed like the laziest of possible jokes I could have made.

Kathryn Rubino:

I bet you could be lazier.

Joe Patrice:

Your

Chris Williams:

Lazy jokes take a lot of effort, Joe.

Joe Patrice:

Okay, well I am done with this conversation then.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, okay then. Alright,

Joe Patrice:

So with that, we’ll take a break and be back on the other side. So we are still at the end of the Supreme Court season. There’s still several more cases to go, but we did get a few of them last week. We had a little bit of drama in two different cases really. So why don’t we talk first about the more reality show level of drama that we had.

Kathryn Rubino:

Sure. I mean, you have to, I think, read this story,

Joe Patrice:

Nine Strangers picked to live in one first Street

Kathryn Rubino:

And have their

Joe Patrice:

Lives not recorded on camera, but only on audio occasionally.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think you really have to read this story against the background of the growing ranker between the justices. That has been documented in plenty of publications and something we’ve covered as well, that there’s really some biting words that have been exchanged back and forth, not just in terms of their opinions, but the way that people won’t necessarily speak to one another. They’re sitting in certain locations. There’s a lot of kind of back and forth about the sort of way that the extreme positions people are taking in. A lot of these cases have translated to the interpersonal relationships of the different justices on the court. And all that is to say that there was a recent case, Stanley versus City of Sanford, and in that Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority and decided to call out Kean Brown Jackson and said specifically in the majority opinion that Justice Jackson finds pure textualism, insufficiently pliable to secure the results they seek.

And so instead invoke the statute’s primary purpose and legislative history. So very much calling out the dissent for the way that their sort of judicial philosophy can be bent in order to find the political goal, that political priority that Justice Jackson supports. Justice Jackson took this personally. She wrote what I think will go down and was one of the more epic petty moments in Supreme Court history. Footnote 12 in which she proceeded to decimate the notion of textualism generally and specifically in this case, and talk about how when you’re just looking at the text that without it being moored to any sort of reality or sort of legislative history or any of the context with which these texts was passed by Congress. Indeed, those kind of floating words in and of themselves are what can be twisted for the purpose of political agendas. Which also reminded me of an article you wrote Joe not too long ago about Judge Kathryn Maisel deciding that the word sanitation does not mean cleaning up.

Joe Patrice:

That was a while ago, but yeah, no, so Judge Findel wrote that opinion about the mask mandates and her argument was that the CDC has in the statute authorizing statute has some language that they can make rules for the purpose of sanitation, stuff like that. And she determined that sanitary masks don’t count as sanitation because she found a dictionary from 1934 that said sanitation is like garbage trucks. I don’t know how she then backward did that into how the CDC is about garbage trucks generally, but whatever. She made all that up. But it is the point that Justice Jackson’s making about how textualism when disconnected and unmoored from the intent is actually a more pernicious way of injecting what you want. And I will say of Misel, there was a follow-up to that which determined that before she wrote that opinion, she actually went on one of those nice luxury vacations that judges get to have if they’re of a certain ideological bent where she and several other judges went to on a retreat where they were instructed on how to use dictionaries to find the results they want to

Kathryn Rubino:

Find,

Joe Patrice:

Which is, it’s a thing and it is how this Textualism concept manifests itself. It’s not just, hey, some good faith people looking at text, they have actual junkets where they go and learn ways in which they can and sources. And these are good dictionaries to use to kind of find what you want this word to mean. These are good tools. There’s a, bring it back to technology. They’re AI tools and just generally databases that they comb to find some in a tiny newspaper from 1850 and say, we’ll see it used this word here, which means therefore we’re going to interpret the statute this way.

Kathryn Rubino:

And I definitely think that Justice Jackson’s takedown of Textualism really speaks to all of this. And I think that it is a very concise and forceful and elegant statement that will absolutely rear its head in many law school classrooms and in sort of at the bars after, as people are kind of debating judicial philosophies. I think that’s for sure. But another aspect of this decision, which kind of goes to the reality TV aspect that you alluded to earlier, Joe, is that Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed on to large chunks of the dissent but explicitly carved out not signing onto footnote 12.

Joe Patrice:

Yes, I saw that. I saw a bunch of people take umbrage with that on social media saying that they were disappointed that Sotomayor wouldn’t join this take down Textualism. I don’t know. I don’t know what you thought. I read it differently.

Chris Williams:

Opting out of footnotes just feels so high school.

Joe Patrice:

See, well, I mean my takeaway from it, I really felt like it was a personal attack that Justice Jackson was responding

Kathryn Rubino:

To called out by name.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, I mean I think it says the dissent, but

Kathryn Rubino:

Justice Jackson is definitely written. Yeah,

Joe Patrice:

Well, right it

Kathryn Rubino:

Opinion of Jackson J,

Joe Patrice:

Right? Yeah. But he says The dissent and she is the author of the Dissent. So that is how you would Blue book that, but it is her name on there. That is fair because she’s the one who wrote the dissent. So I dunno, I really felt like given that it was a personal call out, she’s able to stand up for herself and she’d be supported in standing up for herself. And so I think Justice Sotomayor was saying this is her fight to have, and so I’m not joining the part that’s a personal response. So I don’t think it was meant as a slight, I see though the people who are like, why didn’t she back her on that?

Kathryn Rubino:

My guess is that it wasn’t certainly intended as a personal slight, I do understand the notion that you wish that everyone, or as many people as possible sign onto this footnote. I think it’s a forceful piece of writing that really speaks to some of the ills that we’re seeing in jurisprudence right now. So I definitely see that. But there is a kind of, it got more attention because it explicitly says that Soor does not join on Footnote 12. And I think there’s a lot of readers who are like, okay, so what does Footnote 12 say?

Chris Williams:

Yeah, speaking of, I’m pretty sure this is the case. For those of you who are primary listeners, if you’d like to hear the attack read to you, Ellie Al right at the nation did so with the backbeat of a ether. So if for some reason you’ve been looking for a reason to get on TikTok, here you go. This is your permission. It is hard to understate how much of a bad butch body moment this is happening in the court for you. That I familiar Marjorie Taylor Greene popped off at the mouth and then Congressman Jasmine Crockett and it was a big thing. She was like, so it’s like that, but at the level of Supreme Court, so very high school, but great, you have nothing better to do, consume all the content you can, but yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. So the rest of the Supreme Court terms going to come down over the next few days. Professor Lipman, who was on the show recently notes that Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are the ones who are up to have the next several opinions, which will include the voting rights case, planned Parenthood non delegation at the deadline case. So that’s not a hell of a great lineup there. But you were talking about a footnote, let’s transition to a more famous footnote, Carlene products. And there was another case that dealt with that more famous footnote last week about Tennessee law and Transcare for minors. The law banned use of certain treatments for that purpose, but did say that they were allowed for other purposes, essentially to oversimplify, if you want breast implants and you’re a woman, it’s fine. If you aren’t biologically assigned a woman, it’s fine if you aren’t, it’s not. And so that was the way the law worked. There was an argument that is discrimination on the basis of sex because it is.

Kathryn Rubino:

That

Joe Patrice:

Is what that is. And so the equal protection clause was the basis of the claim. The majority determined that the equal protection clause isn’t involved because it bans it for all people so long. That’s for this purpose. And then don’t just wave your hands and pretend that this isn’t something that is explicitly on the basis of sex. So that was obviously got some dissent. A lot of people talking about both the majority opinion and the dissents. And also I saw Jay Willis over at Balls and Strikes has a whole bit focused specifically on Thomas’s concurrence. I actually wrote up a bit that was focused on Alitos concurring and dissenting in part sort of a piece, largely because what Alito says is he disagrees with the majority’s attempt to say that this isn’t discrimination on those grounds. He says it is absolutely discrimination on the grounds of transgender status. He just says, that’s awesome.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, yeah. We’re in a,

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. And the reason why this is a Carlene products issue is he does go through that argument about strict scrutiny and says, obviously we have strict scrutiny when it comes to evaluating the equal protection clause vis-a-vis questions of race. He suggests that that should also potentially be applied to religion by which he means people who don’t want to make cakes for gay weddings and stuff. He says that for women it will always be lower than that, but there’s still some heightened standard. And he just says in this instance, there’s just no excuse for them to have any more heightened standard. Weirdly, they all have to admit that in BOC that they’ve already extended that more protection exists along this line statutorily. But the Constitution is somehow lower than the statutory protection. Now, not quite sure how they deal with that, but they wave that off real quick. But my takeaway of it was, it’s really interesting to have Alito kind of saying the part out loud. So much of the conservative legal movements efforts, this goes to that Textualism discussion, have been about finding ways of explaining their policy preferences in ways that are obscured by doctrine. Oh, it’s textualism. Our hands are tied because of originalism,

Kathryn Rubino:

Whatever we’re calling it balls and strikes here.

Joe Patrice:

There’s nothing

Kathryn Rubino:

Wiki do about it.

Joe Patrice:

And it’s really interesting that Alito decided to just write a whole descent being like, well, flame on and burn that bridge

Kathryn Rubino:

Behind them. Think that’s been Alitos entire mantra post Dobbs.

Chris Williams:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Flame on

Chris Williams:

My thing is I think his was the opinion just him. Oh

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, the concurrence dissent.

Chris Williams:

Why didn’t Thomas join?

Joe Patrice:

Well, Thomas takes own joins Barrett and writes his own. He writes his own and joins in Barrett’s. They attempt to make a more academic case for why this wouldn’t meet those strictures. Well, Barrett does

Chris Williams:

Was Barrett, there isn’t a documented history of discrimination against trans folks.

Joe Patrice:

No. El Lido says that. Aldo says that bit. Yeah, no, I think he says that it can’t get the same sort of protections that race does because unlike race, there’s never been any documented history of discrimination against trans folks, which

Chris Williams:

That’s the weird thing

Joe Patrice:

About erasure.

But Bear tries to make an academic case, Thomas, of course. And the Willis piece actually does much better on this. It focuses on it. The Thomas piece just kind of goes out and grabs some of the more fringe blog posts in the universe claiming that doctors are wrong and here’s what real medical science is according to JK Rowling or whatever, and he makes those his opinion. So it’s weird all around, but I just thought that the Alito bit was interesting. I don’t know whether or not this speaks to whether he’s planning to retire soon or the opposite. This speaks to he has no interest in retiring. I don’t know what it says, but it is interesting that he’s kind of broken from what had been the mission on that side of the aisle, which was to create a doctrine based way of reverse engineering their policy preferences in a way that would not be a saleable on the backend. And I think whenever you write like this, you are more or less guaranteeing that this decision had become suspect. On the flip

Kathryn Rubino:

Side, yeah, this definitely I think fuels the sort of retirement rumors that have been going ever since Donald Trump won the election. And also very much fed by alitos behavior. Right. Flying the flag upside down, putting the appeal to heaven flag up in his LBI beach house, all of that kind of stuff seems like a very, I don’t care anymore vibe.

Joe Patrice:

But it also gives you maybe him not caring. He feels like if I leave, I’ll be replaced by somebody who does and I don’t want that. I don’t

Kathryn Rubino:

Know. Well, certainly I think it gives people a lot more to write about and pontificate about on the subject at the very

Joe Patrice:

Least. Oh sure. And we, I’m sure we will join the rest of the legal press in shamelessly. Click baiting the hell out of, will somebody retire and then they won’t, and then we’ll just move on from there.

Chris Williams:

My running theory is that there is a thousand of youth, it is being openly bigoted. He’s going to live to be 97 minimum, so there’s no worries of him being replaced anytime soon.

Joe Patrice:

All right, we’ll take a quick break and be back to talk a little big law. Alright, so the vault rankings are out. Yes. Yeah, I’m sure we have a fanfare there that we can play. Although I don’t want to use the same one as small talk, then people think this is small talk.

Kathryn Rubino:

No one thinks this is small talk. Alright, fair. It’s big. It’s about big

Joe Patrice:

Law. Oh yeah. So the vault list is out, which is always the prestige rankings that we get. They run their survey and find out a bunch of key information, not just kind of an overall ranking, but they find out who everyone perceives as the best in various practice areas and in regions of the country you should check all of that out. We have coverage of it and obviously Vault itself has the deepest coverage of it.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I think it’s did unfortunate sort of bug in Amber kind of crystallization of what everyone thought before the biggest story in big law happened. Right.

Chris Williams:

I was going to say is deep the right description for this particular one?

Joe Patrice:

Right. Well, I mean it’s deep in that it will have, you’ll be able to see more than the top 10 and you’ll be able to kind of see the reflection of the market. But as Kathryn said, it exists as a bug and Amber and it always will, right? That’s the nature of a survey. The issue is that unfortunately for them, their survey,

Kathryn Rubino:

It closed on March 20th,

Joe Patrice:

It has to end at some point. You just happened to end immediately before a bunch of firms started getting hit with executive orders and then signing deals to get out of those executive orders while other firms started fighting those. And then business left. Some of those firms for other firms and lateral movements are happening and left. The nature of where you want to be in big law and either as a client or a partner has radically altered over the course of the last month or so and it’s just not captured. And I feel bad for them because obviously it’s not their fault. You have to end a survey at some point and then write it up and crunch the numbers and write it up. We do the same thing with our law school rankings. If, God forbid something wildly crazy happened in law school after we started crunching the numbers, it wouldn’t be

Kathryn Rubino:

Reflected. I mean, every ranking is only reflective of the moment of time for which they happened. It’s they usually continue to reflect the general sentiment for a good period of time after they closed. And I think I was a little bit wrong on the dates earlier and actually closed on March 21st and the first deal with any big law firm had with the Trump administration, Paul Weiss signs it on March 20th. So there was a one day, maybe if you

Joe Patrice:

Handed

Kathryn Rubino:

In that survey on the last day, it might’ve reflected the Paul Weiss deal at least. But that was the only one. And I just think it’s unfortunate that we’re live tumultuous times and when that happens, it’s going to appear stale.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, pragmatic question. I mean, we’ve done surveys where we ask people opinions things and we get the data, then we write a thing. We probably wait a little bit before we put it out. What is the bright line between being like, ah, this is huge, but we’ll still put it out. Or we need to redo the survey even if it means coming out at a later date.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it is expensive and time consuming and you have deadlines. And that’s the thing, people need to get the vault rankings on a certain date. People depend on that.

Kathryn Rubino:

And I think it’s a little different for a company like Vault who’s race on Detra is these rankings, right? Vis to be the legal industry and something like an A TL survey, which we might do a different number of them year to year, no one’s except for sort of our law school rankings. A lot of our surveys are trying to catch what’s going on or may not be that go on for that long or that kind of stuff. But I think when you’re talking about this kind of yearly thing, and I mean that’s what this organization is known for,

Joe Patrice:

And I do think that it is explicit that this is supposed to be the prestige rankings as of the work of last year. And it is that it’s just really wild that one way or the other, you don’t have to be on one side or the other. Your opinion of these firms on all sides has changed due to this because you don’t know where business is going. We had a major client, Microsoft Move Firms away from Paul Weiss to Jenner. That’s a big deal. McDonald’s has left Paul Weiss as a client, not necessarily explicitly

Kathryn Rubino:

And bunch of have left all of the firms that have, well, you had

Joe Patrice:

Wallet or they’re the

Kathryn Rubino:

Hemorrhaging people. Yeah, I write multiple stories a week that is just, these are the big lateral moves because of these deals. And I think what’s interesting though is you’re right, Joe, they’re always kind of reflective of the year prior and kind of that, but I can’t remember another instance where I know when these surveys closed because it’s super important this particular year.

Joe Patrice:

All right. Well that’s all for us. Thanks for listening. You should subscribe to the show to get new episodes when they come out, leave reviews, all that sort of stuff. Always helps. You should be listening to the Jabo Katherine’s other podcast. I’m also a guest on the Legal Talk Weeks. Nope, I messed that up. Legal guess on the Legal Tech Weeks Journalist Roundtable. You should also listen to shows by the Legal Talk Network. There’s lots of legal and T words. Then you should be reading Above the Law. So you read these and other stories before they come out. Follow on social media above law.com on Blue Sky. I’m at Joe Patrice, she’s at Cathar one, he’s at Rights for Rent. We will talk to you all later.

Kathryn Rubino:

Peace.

Joe Patrice:

Peace.

Continue Reading