Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Some Geniuses

Episode Notes

Transcript

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  Hello.

Kathryn Rubino:  Hello.

Joe Patrice:  Why and welcome to thinking like a lawyer. I am Joe Patrice from Above the Law. This is the Above the Law Podcast where we cover big legal stories of the week. The person who interrupted me there is Kathryn Rubino.

Kathryn Rubino:  As per usual.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. Can we make it not usual? That’d be great.

Kathryn Rubino:  Probably not.

Joe Patrice:  We’re also joined of course —

Chris Williams:  Hi.

Joe Patrice:  — by Above the Law, it’s Chris Williams. Hey.

Chris Williams:  Hello. Hello.

Joe Patrice:  Hey. So we have some big legal stuff to break down today.  I don’t know if we have enough time to like even have another sec — and you know, what? I hear it. It’s time for some small talk.

Kathryn Rubino:  Is it? It’s the time. Is that what that noise is meant to convey?

Joe Patrice:  It is so welcome to small talk. How are you?

Kathryn Rubino:  I mean I am — I’m here. I’m here.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, you had — you can let people know. You had a rough week.

Kathryn Rubino:  I did. I was in a car accident on thurs — last week. Yeah, it was the first time I was in a serious car accident and I guess you know, I’ve been in a fender bender. What kind of dinged up but no. I mean this was like airbags deployed.

Joe Patrice:  Wow!

Chris Williams:  Shit.

Kathryn Rubino:  I’m bruised up. The car had to be towed.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  It’s unlikely that I will see the car again. It’s sad. Not my favorite. Zero at a 10, do not recommend.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, at least you’re okay. You said you’re bruised but you seem —

Kathryn Rubino:  I am bruised. My knee is a little sore, but you know, listen there was no blood. The other driver was also fine. It was their fault. I’ll say it again; it was their fault. I mean they admitted it to on the scene. They just kind of crashed right on it and to me. Yeah, but it was not my favorite, but I was very lucky in the sense that there were witnesses who gave statements and actually the witnesses were married couple who are paramedics who got out of the car and checked on me want whatever. So it’s kind of amazing to actually have somebody because I — you remember nothing. When all of — you think, you know what to do when a car accident happens —

Joe Patrice:  Well, especially as an attorney, you would think you’d have thoughts in your head about what to do and —

Kathryn Rubino:  They were like, please sit down and I was like, I can follow that instruction. That was about all I could really handle but you know. It’s fine. It’s fine. I need a new car but other than that. How about you? Did you have a — did you have as eventful a week?

Joe Patrice:  Not particularly. No. No, I did not have anything like that happen. I guess it was Halloween. Chris, did you do anything on Halloween?

Chris Williams:  Yeah, I went to a bar and I had had a buffalo chicken quesadilla that was a little too heavy on the cumin. But you know, we all survived, we deal with the life we’ve been given. I’m hanging in there. I’m hanging in there. The sour cream was nice.

Joe Patrice:  Nice.

Chris Williams:  So you know, I too have felt pain.

Joe Patrice:  All right. Well, let’s I guess get to some stuff on the back end of this segment.

Kathryn Rubino:  Do you find it as annoying as I do Chris? This sound effects?

Chris Williams:  Well, I like a bit of whimsy. I’m cool with it, and also, for the folks that are listening, what we’re doing right now, we can actually see each other’s faces. So I just want you to know that Kathryn doesn’t like the sound. But I could see the joy on Joe’s face and I’m just you know, just trying not to get attacked but also enjoy the frustration on Kathryn’s face.

Kathryn Rubino:  Joe lives to frustrate me. That is like his raison d’etre.

Joe Patrice:  I mean it’s worked out for our professional careers here.

Chris Williams:  As a general rule.

Joe Patrice:  Having an antagonist.

Chris Williams:  As a general rule, whenever somebody uses conversational French in a conversation, I hope they get annoyed. So I think you did it.

Kathryn Rubino:  But I mean come on, if you were going to rank ATL editors by the most pretentious to the least, Joe would definitely be number one though, right?

Joe Patrice:  Wait, what?

Chris Williams:  Give me my time. I’m making in growth. Have you read what I write?

Kathryn Rubino:  Fair. Fair.

Joe Patrice:  All right. So wow, you know, it wouldn’t — I will say when Ellie left this show, I worried that I wouldn’t be able to keep up an antagonistic relationship with a co-host and you slid right on in there and you’ve done it.

(00:05:00)

I think you’ve actually elevated the game above Where Ellie was.

Kathryn Rubino:  Well I do what I can.

Joe Patrice:  Fair enough.

Chris Williams:  Why don’t you the applause sound?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  That is too long of a sound effect.

Joe Patrice:  It is a little long. Yeah. I know. Maybe they can clean that up in post.

Chris Williams:  It’s like the distinction which in a round of applause and a lack of one.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. Well, okay, so we have some big stories from last week to talk about. But actually right now we’re in the middle as we record this of big stories of this week. So let’s talk about that a little bit.

Kathryn Rubino:  Reproductive freedom. We hardly knew ye.

Joe Patrice:  Well, no. I mean in fairness I think — I think the way this is going to turn out is you get to know it for a little bit longer, but the oral arguments are going on in this SB8 nonsense and it is — it’s a bit of a doozy. But I think — the first angle we wanted to tackle on this I guess is Chris, you wanted to talk about the Supreme Court precedent that everybody didn’t know they needed to know until today ex parte Young.

Chris Williams:  By wanting to talk about that, I had a question about it. The question being, should we explain to people the legal significance, of ex parte Young? And by that I mean, I don’t know the legal significance of ex parte Young. So hopefully one of you two can put everybody else in on it.

Joe Patrice:  So fair enough. In a nutshell, what ex parte Young was about, this is a very old case, 1800 something rather. I’m not enough of an expert. But basically —

Chris Williams:  I remember ignoring that case in my case book. There we go.

Joe Patrice:  I mean — fair enough. Well, so the Supreme Court — so in a nutshell, the constitution, the eleventh amendment says people can’t sue States in federal court. You can’t file a lawsuit against Texas in federal court. That’s just banned by the constitution. That said, in ex parte Young, we got — had a situation where Minnesota, I think had passed some laws that arguably violated the constitution. And when the officials of Minnesota went about trying to enforce those laws, folks filed a suit in federal court saying that this person is violating my you know, constitutional rights. The court determined that that isn’t a violation of the Eleventh Amendment to bring that case. Partially because if the law is unconstitutional, they don’t have a legal right to be doing it. So the Eleventh Amendment wouldn’t apply but also that the officers who are taking the action are acting not as people with sovereign immunity but as people, which means the Eleventh Amendment doesn’t apply. So the crux of it is, if somebody — if some state passes a law that violates the Constitution, you can go to Federal Court not to sue the state proper but to sue say the attorney general or the cops or the DA’s or whoever it is who is enforcing the unconstitutional role. The logic being that if you didn’t allow that, you basically make it so that states could just take away people’s federally constitutionally protected rights and avoid review.

Chris Williams:  I see why that’s relevant here.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. I’ve actually looked it up now, this case — this actually was 1908. Now that I looked, but lording over it, right? Is the fact that this is a post-civil war case, right? Like a lot of the — even though this was about Minnesota and railroads, the implication of it was largely —

Kathryn Rubino:  The implication.

Joe Patrice:  — that the south might be doing things that they couldn’t do under the Constitution. And so there needed to be a remedy around that. And so here we are. There was a dissent in this case from Harlan who is the person they want to name the Supreme Court that the crazy people want to name the Supreme Court after, but whatever. So that’s this case. This comes up today because SB8 of course is the abortion law in Texas that says you can’t sue women for getting abortions. And Texas can’t do anything because it’s a constitutional right. But random people can sue the providers for doing it basically or frankly, anyone who advises someone that they could do it.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right. It’s like Uber drivers on the way.

Joe Patrice:  Right. Exactly.

Kathryn Rubino:  To get an abortion.

Joe Patrice:  And the argument here is that this is you know, a law intended to block the exercise of a constitutional right and therefore can be challenged in federal court under ex parte. This is not an answer that Alito particularly likes who is very much excited about the idea of having random laws be insulated from judicial review, but it does seem as though this case — I mean, you’ve been listening. This case seems like it’s doomed.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yes.  I think that the —

Joe Patrice:  By that I mean the law seems doomed.

Kathryn Rubino:  Right. Right. Right. I don’t think that Texas is going to win this one. I think it will largely be a hollow victory because Mississippi is about to win one.

(00:10:00)

Joe Patrice:  Right. There’s already a real challenge to Roe V. Wade coming up but.

Kathryn Rubino:  I mean I think that these issues, these ex parte Young issues were incredibly obvious when it came up for a stay and the shadow docket said no, we’re going to let it go into effect. And this was exactly the problem that Roberts had with it. And that’s why he voted the way he did on the shadow docket and it just seems to me like this was obvious the entire time. This is not new information and that the fact that now they may rule against Texas just belies the point that it is not about the actual constitutional rights of people with uteruses but instead about this procedural morass that Texas has created and the desire to insulate gun manufacturers.

Joe Patrice:  Well, yeah. You raised the gun manufacturer point which seems to be — which gun rights groups actually came in on this case on the side of abortion providers which is a you know, not a common —

Kathryn Rubino:  Bed fellows.

Joe Patrice:  Bed fellow situation, but they rolled in quickly with a — it seems to me —

Kathryn Rubino:  Hey you guys. This will be really bad for us.

Joe Patrice:  But this just basically makes it such the California says anyone can sue gun sellers and avoid any judicial review. That is something that Cavanaugh seems to have locked in on as one person I saw put it. Cavanaugh is locked in a debate between how much he hates abortions and how much he loves guns. But it feels as though guns might be winning this.

Kathryn Rubino:  Well, thanks to Mississippi he doesn’t actually have to split that baby, right?

Joe Patrice:  Quite literally.

Chris Williams:  Oh God, come on —

Joe Patrice:  No. No. I just thought it was a striking poorer way of —

Chris Williams:  I think the punchline was a little premature.

Joe Patrice:  So —

Kathryn Rubino:  Anyway.

Joe Patrice:  Yes. Go on.

Chris Williams:  I’ll stop. I’ll stop.

Kathryn Rubino:  Cavanaugh and the rest of the conservatives and the court are more than able to protect the gun lobby in this instance and still take away reproductive freedom in the Mississippi case in like a month.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  They get to do it all. They get to do everything. Well I believe the hearing will be in a month. Yeah, but a month after this case comes out in all likelihood.

Joe Patrice:  So I mean — but the real takeaway out of this, I don’t know if anyone else has favorite takeaways of everything that happened this morning. I feel as though the dweebs trying to bring this cases argument that outrage is the justification for standing.

Kathryn Rubino:  Some geniuses.

Joe Patrice:  Some geniuses, Justice Kagan continues an uninterrupted run of being the person on the court who cuts through everybody else’s nonsense.

Chris Williams:  How could you even approve outrage? Like will you use an IED standard?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, I think so. I mean that’s certainly the implication of this person, but I mean this —

Chris Williams:  Isn’t that like a high ass standard? I’m pretty sure I like — I remember there was some courts where like somebody got aggressively sexually assaulted in New York and it was like, yeah, this is bad, but it’s not ideal. Like what? It sounds like if that’s the standard, let them have it. There won’t be a problem anymore.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, and as you might imagine it was not well received by Chief Justice Roberts who has spent the last decade or so trying to keep people from having rights to go to court. To find out that being peeved now counts as standing was not his cup of tea. There’s some geniuses line was Kegan rolling through I feel like just the way —

Kathryn Rubino:  With pure contempt.

Joe Patrice:  With pure contempt to the Texas solicitor general. So some geniuses came up with a way to evade ex parte Young and the broader principle the states cannot nullify federal constitutional rights. I guess I just don’t understand the argument which was brutal. But yeah, so right now, we are having the corollary case where the Department of Justice is trying to assert its rights in this case on the argument that, you know, Texas is trying to take away Federal supremacy clause. It seems as though the conservatives don’t want to side with the feds on this one, which is in a weird way more terrifying because it seems as though they want to get rid of this law on the grounds that it messes with Federal Supremacy, but they don’t want to recognize the Federal Supremacy exist.

Chris Williams:  Why are they avoiding that? I thought there was like a given?

Kathryn Rubino:  I thought it was super clear.

Joe Patrice:  I think they want a situation in which they can have states grew up with feds.

Kathryn Rubino:  States’ rights man. States’ rights!

Joe Patrice:  The feds in other places, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, I think that the less broad statements they can make about the federal government supremacy, the better off the conservative movement is, right? Because they’re more likely to win in localities as opposed to federal offices, right?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Chris Williams:  I think this whole dance they’re doing is fun with — well this is from a theory point of view, like wanting to maintain a strong second amendment but trying to curtail other constitutional rights.

(00:15:11)

Because I think that is — that was one of the questions that was brought up during oral argument, right? Was like, could what if somebody use this workaround of Young to deal with other things that are constitutionally protected.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah. That’s definitely true.

Joe Patrice:  Well, yeah. It’s been — it’s been an interesting morning. That said, it’s one of those times, especially when you listen to Breyer just kind of like go off. Breyer, like obviously people are annoyed with Breyer for a lot of reasons right now, but the fact that he doesn’t really add — 

Kathryn Rubino:  Mostly because he hasn’t retired.

Joe Patrice:  But the fact that he doesn’t really add much to the court right now is what’s really annoying. He’s not retiring and he just sits up there and pontificates about like what Oliver Wendell Holmes would have done which nobody else cares about. Like, if that’s the sort of thing you want to talk about, just go back law school.

Kathryn Rubino:  That’s — why did you go to law school?

Joe Patrice:  To be a lawyer.

Kathryn Rubino:  I thought it was to be an accountant.

Joe Patrice:  No, you went to law school to be a lawyer, not an accountant. Take advantage of Noda, a no-cost dial to management tool that helps small law firms track client funds down to the penny. Enjoy peace of mind with one-click reconciliation, automated transaction alerts and real-time bank data. Visit trustnoda.com/legal to learn more. Terms and conditions may apply.

Kathryn Rubino:  I love Chris’s utter contempt for our little back and forth there.

Chris Williams:  Wait. No. No. No, that’s not taken — that was misinterpreted. My thought in that head shake because again, everyone — you can see each other’s faces. You come for the current events, you stay for the transition. Now that was good. That was fucking good.

Joe Patrice:  Thank you. Good. All right, so yeah, we pulled it off. Yeah. We have to think — yeah. So, what else was there. Well the big story of last week on —

Kathryn Rubino:  Money, money, money, money.

Joe Patrice:  No. Not as it turns out. The actual biggest traffic story of last week that people were caring about was Donald Trump has a new social media service. His like version of Twitter where you can’t be banned except he is banning everybody who doesn’t say things he likes but whatever. The new —

Kathryn Rubino:  Like the exact problem he has with Twitter?

Joe Patrice:  Right. So the new like —

Kathryn Rubino:  Cool. Cool.

Joe Patrice:  — called Twitter. So he created it. Unfortunately, for him, it is clear from people who are more software savvy than we are, it is clear that this was put together with a bunch of open source code that they lifted from the internet. The thing with open source code in the open source community is software engineers create this code, post it up for people to use with the license that allows others to use it explicitly stating you can use this if you know, release it back to the public and make no proprietary claims upon it. Trump of course is not trying to run a social media business where he doesn’t claim its propriety, he has been alerted by the folks who manage this particular license that he has 30 days to release all of the code or else face legal action. And that’s where we sit.

Kathryn Rubino:  IP is a bitch huh?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, I think the title is he runs face-first into the buzz saw of intellectual property. I mean this is not even a difficult one. And look, in the past we’ve had — there was that fairly disgraceful prosecution of Sergey Aleynikov here in New York, which we covered at the time and for even better coverage you can read I think Michael Lewis wrote a big thing about it. That was a situation where he was working for Goldman Sachs and when he went to a different place, he took some of the code of what he had been working on. Now that would be illegal if what he had been working on was for actually Goldman Sachs. However, as it turned out, it was open source code that Goldman Sachs had lifted and was claiming was proprietary in violation of the license. Ultimately, because the former prosecutor here has never met a situation or I guess still maybe he’s still in office until —

Kathryn Rubino:  Sidebands?

Joe Patrice:  Yes. His replacement has been elected. I can’t remember if they took office, anyway.

Kathryn Rubino:  Isn’t the election day tomorrow?

Joe Patrice:  Right. I forget. I always — I always forget everybody as a New Yorker that there are November election days because those don’t matter. The Democratic primary one is the one that matters, but you’re right. So Sidebands, never seeing a headline he didn’t want to crash in on decided that he would prosecute this person on behalf of Goldman Sachs and put them in jail for —

Kathryn Rubino:  Also, he never found a bank that he didn’t want to be on the side of.

Joe Patrice:  That he didn’t want to help out. Yeah. So anyway, very disgraceful. But the point is, this was a similar situation where somebody had stolen code and — not stolen. They’re totally legally allowed to use it so long as they release it, but they take it and then try to make a quick buck in violation of the licensing agreement. But yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, that happened.

(00:20:01)

Joe Patrice:  It is what happened. Any other thoughts on that?

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah. I mean, let’s hope this IP claim is the end of this terrible social experiment.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. It’s interesting. It just seems like it though this is par for the former presidents course, right? Like do something that’s very obviously improper, double down on it, get caught long after you’ve already absconded with everything you need from the deal. Leave it holding the bag. I assume it’s a separate corporation so we can go bankrupt and yeah, it’s very shady-shady business.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah. I mean, the only hope is that the alternative to Twitter does not actually get off the ground.

Joe Patrice:  Right. Yeah. We’ll see.

Chris Williams:  What happened with the other alternative Trump did? How is that fair and I haven’t heard about it in ages.

Joe Patrice:  Well, so Parlor was not a Trump joint, but it was like done for that benefit. Yeah, the problem for them was they tried to do it and all the server companies said we don’t actually want to host you.

Kathryn Rubino:  No. Thank you.

Joe Patrice:  So they didn’t — they dumped millions of dollars into it but not the money to build their own server farm. They were trying to just get by with using Amazon or Microsoft. Those companies didn’t want them. So that kind of fell apart. There’s Telegram, Telegraph, whatever that is. That’s kind of become the new alternative, but whatever. We’ll see.

Kathryn Rubino:  For all the conspiracy theories you need.

Chris Williams:  The one thing that constantly grabs my attention. Again, as a point of theory. This was like the Trump phenomenon is one, it disappears that there are a lot of Americans that on some level might actually be okay with monarchy. Like the call to personalities the man has. And the second thing is for like a party that’s like considering like making America great again and winning, he just keeps taking Ls, just loss after loss after loss. I’m like, this is stronger commitment than like Eagles fans have like.

Kathryn Rubino:  Wow!

Chris Williams:  I can say that because I’m in Camron which is near Philly, I’m a big fan of Eagle’s fans. I’m not really into football but whoever Eagle’s fans root for, I will root for them because I’ve seen what they do when they win. If you destroy your city when you win, I’m your fan. Like you know, let that be said. But yeah, Trump is like the phenomenon. Trump is just a stranger here.

Joe Patrice:  The Eagle’s did manage to win this week. So there is that.

Chris Williams:  Okay. If the Eagle’s find their —

Kathryn Rubino:  By a hefty margin.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. Should have taken them in my survivor league because there’s not going to be many other good opportunities but whatever. We’ll see. So let’s hear from Lexicon right now and then check back in on the other side.

Sponsor:  Here’s a message just for the attorneys out there. So you passed the bar, joined a firm or even built your own. Now, are you finding out that you’re doing more administration than actual law practice? Lexicon can help. Lexicon is a legal services and technology provider with over a decade of experience streamlining administrative tasks. Like timekeeping, HR, billing, client intake and more so you can focus on maximizing billable hours and increasing client satisfaction. Call 855 for Lexicon or visit lexiconservices.com/go to learn more.

Joe Patrice:  Okay, so we should talk about lawyers and just like they’re making bank these days, right?

Kathryn Rubino:  They are.

Joe Patrice:  That’s you know, that is ultimately let’s do the rallying cry of lawyers.

Male:  Get ready to feel the power the power of attorney!

Joe Patrice:  The power of attorney.

Kathryn Rubino:  Wow!

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, I dug that one up.

Kathryn Rubino:  Wow! I mean that was a thing that happened.

Chris Williams:  You know what? As time goes on, maybe Kathryn is right.

Kathryn Rubino:  I’m not wrong. I’ll tell you what. I’m not wrong. I mean I’d be right. I’m not wrong. Yeah, so there’s a ton of money out there. We’ve talked kind of ad nauseam about the hot lateral market and particularly on the transactional side in big law. If you want to try to go somewhere new, the world is really your oyster. There’s not enough qualified attorneys to go around. And the latest reporting is that in an effort to get these highly sought-after lateral attorneys, firms are offering signing bonuses in the $500,000.00 range.

Chris Williams:  What?

Kathryn Rubino:  Which is a lot of money.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  And I think it’s interesting —

Chris Williams:  That’s squid game level.

Kathryn Rubino:  We also did a survey at Above the Law asking folks what they expected at a bonus season and the majority of folks, or the largest cadre of folks think that bonuses will be larger in 2021 than they were in 2020. And I firmly disagree. I think that the base bonus numbers will stay the same. And if anything, they’ll be more special bonuses, or as Paul Weiss —

Joe Patrice:  Right, that was going to be my transition.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, has come out and said that they were going to do practice area bonuses.

(00:25:04)

And I think that is really what we’re going to see and I think that this signing bonus also dovetails with the increase in practice area of stuff because for your average, let’s say litigation associate, which there are plenty of. They are already getting paid an awful lot of money. Yeah, they’re working a lot of hours, but they’re making — they’re making — they’re probably not going to see any more money. But if you’re talking about a capital markets associate.

Joe Patrice:  Right now, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  You know, whether it’s trying to retain those valuable associates with practice area or discretionary bonuses of some sort, or you’re trying to lure them to your firm with ginormous signing bonuses in the that five hundred-thousand-dollar range. That’s what we’re going to see. It’s going to — it’s not going to be lock step across the associate ranks I don’t think. I think it’s going to be very specific. It’s going to be about the folks at the firm’s feel like they need right now.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, I think that’s true. I understand a lot of firms like the idea of a lockstep bonus system. I mean we obviously are those black box firms that pay everybody, you know, individualized money. But a lot of firms prefer to have that kind of lockstep view. It sells well in recruiting like, you know, and so on. But right now, yeah. I think what’s going to happen is everybody’s going to get their assigned bonus and then the capital markets people as you point out or mergers and acquisitions. The people who are busy and flying all over the place on the lateral market are going to get a little extra something in the stocking.

Chris Williams:  Did you all the mention the amount of money yet? Because I thought if it was like $500,000.00 bonuses and what not?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:  That’s the size of the signing bonuses that are being reported.

Chris Williams:  That’s crazy. Like do you know how many Arizona’s you can buy with that? Like pretext. At least 500,000.

Joe Patrice:  Several months ago we were already getting the reports of over a hundred thousand signing bonuses. So this is — this does not shock me given the way that the market has not slowed down at all in those practice areas.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, it hasn’t slowed down and again, it’s not just that they’re busy because there are periodically busy periods for any practice area, but it’s that the number of folks who are really qualified to do those deals is — there’s not as many of them to go around.

Joe Patrice:  Well, and the thing is, the thing with all of this stuff is it has to be done now. Like everybody’s — because of the nature of how the economy has shaken out of the recession and COVID and all that. These companies are sitting on money. They need to put places right now and they can’t really sit around for a partner who only has three associates working for them to get through everything. And that means that whole armies of associates are going to have to be lured over and the victor in that personnel war gets the spoils of all that work.

Chris Williams:  I feel like every time I see some firm gives like a modest four hundred-thousand-dollar bonus to their associates, I feel like I need to go buy Warby Parker or Cole Haan stock. Because what are these kids even getting? They’re like 25 to 30 and like, I got to impress. Like what are you doing? I mean they can’t wear Doc Marten’s to office. Like what are they doing with that cash because they’re going to be in that office either way.

Kathryn Rubino:  Paying off their loans?

Joe Patrice:  They get about six months closer to paying off their loans and unfortunately only that amount.

Chris Williams:  Correction. Maybe I should buy some Sallie Mae. Will that be bonds? I don’t know.

Joe Patrice:  That’s the business that keeps on ticking unfortunately. Anyway, so yes, big money, abortion law arguments.

Kathryn Rubino:  Yeah, and I think that it’ll be very interesting I think in the next few weeks we’ll get the numbers of the lockstep and year-end bonuses for 2021 and we’ll see whether I am right or the ATL raters are right. We’re going to see bigger numbers.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. All right. Well, I think that’s it. Thanks everybody for listening. You should be subscribed to the show. That way you can get shows when they immediately come out. You should be reading Above the Law so you see these stories as we cover them as well as many other stories that we cover. You should also listen to other shows. Kathryn’s the host at Jabot. I’m on the Legal Tech Week Journalists Roundtable.

Kathryn Rubino:  There you go.

Joe Patrice:  I really don’t need any of that attitude.

Kathryn Rubino:  I was going to let it slide. I was going to and then you stopped being able to say the name of your show.

Chris Williams:  I wasn’t going to let it slide. That title with BES for last month and I was so proud. I was so proud of you. Look at more.

Joe Patrice:  It’s been going on for so long. Yes, so that, also check out other shows that we are not necessarily involved with the Legal Talk Network. You should be following us on social media.

(00:30:00)

I’m at Joseph Patrice. She is at Kathryn1.  The numeral one.  Chris is At Rights For Rent all on Twitter. You should also follow the official ATL blog at ATL blog. That will get you the official account and —

Chris Williams:  Like my damn tweets. They’re hilarious.

Joe Patrice:  Exactly start — start engaging.  We are here for it.

Chris Williams:  Please and thank you.

Joe Patrice:  Give reviews to the show. Write stuff. Thanks to Lexicon and Noda powered by M&T Bank. And I think with all of that, we will talk to you next time.

Joe Patrice:  Peace.

[Music]

The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, and subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer.

 

Podcast transcription by Tech-Synergy.com

Continue Reading