In October 2015, Jeff joined Bluelock as executive vice president of product and service development. He is responsible for...
Joe and guest host Kathryn Rubino talk to Jeff Ton of Bluelock about what’s on the horizon for 2018. Ransomware attacks, data disasters, robot lawyers… it actually isn’t all as bad as that sounds. Lawyers are notoriously behind the times with technology, so take this podcast as your wake up call. These are the obstacles your practice will face and the tools you’ll be working with to solve them.
Above the Law – Thinking Like a Lawyer
2018 Legal Technology Predictions
Intro: Welcome to Thinking Like a Lawyer with your hosts Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice, talking about legal news and pop culture, all while thinking like a lawyer, here on Legal Talk Network.
Joe Patrice: Hello and welcome to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer.
Yes, yes, yes, eat it up audience.
I’m Joe Patrice from Above The Law. I’m not joined by Elie Mystal as I usually am, because he is traveling, winging it out into the heartland for a business trip. So would I be able to come on this show and do it all by myself? Obviously not, because nobody wants to listen to me talk by myself. So, Kathryn Rubino, who’s also here at Above The Law, our guest from last episode actually.
Kathryn Rubino: Hey. I’m still here.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, you are still here.
Kathryn Rubino: So, I just used to be right here.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, well, you are familiar, you know everyone’s name.
Kathryn Rubino: So, that helps.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean our standards are —
Kathryn Rubino: Pretty low?
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I work here.
Joe Patrice: Oh.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Self-depreciating is a little bit better.
Joe Patrice: Self-deprecating.
Kathryn Rubino: Deprecating.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Depreciating like —
Kathryn Rubino: Depreciating value, I don’t know.
Joe Patrice: Yeah — yeah that joke was.
Kathryn Rubino: Poor?
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Depreciating overtime.
Joe Patrice: Well, yeah, we are still having fun with the soundboards here. So yeah, so since we’re not rage-filled people. I thought we would talk about instead of grinding of gears, we could do the like, I don’t know, daily up-to-the-minute explosive coverage of Above The Law, The Week.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean like the rest of the world the legal news has pretty much been all sexual harassment and assault all the time, just depressing actually, but at least we’re talking about it at long last.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, it’s true, like about, you kind of feel bad because every day one of these things happens as writers covering it. We’re like it’s good to have work, but it’s awful but this has to be the work that it is.
Kathryn Rubino: Awful, for sure?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean the big thing at least from my perspective has been Roy Moore. Yeah, actually pretty much everything has flowed from a Roy Moore issue. We got former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He is trying to and will inevitably become the next Senator from Alabama because Alabama — but he brought himself a lawyer, Trent Garmon who is from an unaccredited law school, which — hey there’s enough —
Kathryn Rubino: Somebody, you know?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with that other than that they aren’t accredited for a reason because they are actually terrible law schools, but otherwise there’s nothing wrong with that and he’s representing the Chief Justice, so the former Chief Justice, and it’s been —
Kathryn Rubino: Well, listen, he needs work, right?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, I guess, the word “disaster” comes to mind. So you wrote this demand letter of the local newspaper to tell them to stop printing things that — well, we don’t know, these allegations that seem to be —
Kathryn Rubino: Certainly newsworthy.
Joe Patrice: — excessively sourced and/or certainly newsworthy, and it’s — you should go on Above The Law and we have the letter up. It’s fairly embarrassing.
Kathryn Rubino: Typos are not really great for a lawyer.
Joe Patrice: It’s typos, it’s grammatical mistakes, it’s not understanding basic stuff about the English language. I mean there’s words in there where I’m like I don’t even know what he’s asking at this point. I mean, the quip I make is, I know 14-year-olds who write better than that and I’m pretty sure Roy Moore does too. Ooh.
No, no, that’s a bad one for that. People should have thought that was funnier. Yeah, all right. Yeah. All right, we are in New York, people think that’s funny up here.
So anyway, so that’s been the big thing that we’ve been talking about, and then Elie had a follow-up because Mr. Garmon decided to go on TV, and wow, makes something of a jack-hole of himself.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, it got a little racist there, didn’t it?
Joe Patrice: It got racist fast.
Kathryn Rubino: Pretty quick actually.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, like real fast. Well, the one that got me is even though Elie is focused on something that he did a day or so ago where he said of a MSNBC host who is a non-White host that he would understand how pedophilia works because of different cultures prompting somebody to jump in and point out he’s from Canada, which I mean, let’s face it. I think he was probably making a point, Canada.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, we all know what goes on in Saskatchewan, no, but –
Kathryn Rubino: Wow, wow.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I know. So anyway. The point is, he did that, but I actually thought the better one was 05:11 Don Lemon decided to keep calling him lemon Squeezy the whole time.
Kathryn Rubino: Yuks, that’s just –
Joe Patrice: Did you not see this one?
Kathryn Rubino: I’d heard about it but I haven’t actually seen the clip.
Joe Patrice: It’s cringeworthy.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I don’t like to watch things that are cringeworthy. I’m not a big like Curb Your Enthusiasm fan for that reason. I’m like, oh gosh, like life is cringeworthy enough, I don’t need that to be like my fun time.
Joe Patrice: Wow, you find life cringeworthy. You need a hug?
Kathryn Rubino: Oh my gosh, yes; pretty much all the time.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, alright, well —
Kathryn Rubino: But then people, a big law attorney Mercedes Colwin from Gordon & Rees went on Fox News to defend some of the allegations against Roy Moore, and in her defense said that the majority of sexual harassment victims who came forward were really just in it for the money and true victims were few and far between.
Joe Patrice: Really?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, her firm was not pleased.
Joe Patrice: No.
Kathryn Rubino: No.
Joe Patrice: And her firm wasn’t — it’s interesting, she thought they were few and far between, but did clarify saying that she and her family had been victims but —
Kathryn Rubino: But people who –
Joe Patrice: Otherwise.
Kathryn Rubino: Otherwise, everyone else is just a bunch of liars. She had some clarifying comments but did not walk back the few and far between language and —
Joe Patrice: I wonder what’s her firm would think about that.
Kathryn Rubino: Poorly. They think poorly of those comments and she’s voluntarily left management of the firm, because not only was she just a partner at a big law firm which is a pretty high-profile and high-responsibility job, she was actually managing partner for the New York Office. She’s no longer the managing partner of the New York Office.
Joe Patrice: Wow. Yes, so those are big things going on at Above The Law. It’s a little unfortunate that they’re all —
Kathryn Rubino: At least we’re talking about it, opening up the conversation.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, good for us.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean like, society at large, but okay.
Joe Patrice: That was more just so I could force into another sound effect.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh?
Joe Patrice: Yeah — no.
Kathryn Rubino: 06:59 right about now.
Kathryn Rubino: There you go.
Joe Patrice: And today we’re going to talk with Jeff Ton from Bluelock and the reason we brought Jeff on is that Bluelock has a publication out about some new predictions for where the industry is going to go in the next year and we wanted to kind of get a hold of where we are going to go next year and talk about that. So, welcome Jeff to the show.
Jeff Ton: Thank you very much, Joe and Kathryn. Thank you so much for having me as a guest on the show, looking forward to our discussion.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, absolutely, and this — I guess before we go too far, I guess we should talk about what you do at Bluelock and what Bluelock is, so for listeners who maybe aren’t familiar.
Jeff Ton: Absolutely. Bluelock is a cloud services provider. We’ve been around for about 11 years and we have a cloud that has two primary regions, an East region and a West region here in the US in multiple zones, so if you’re familiar with cloud computing we’re one of the providers of those solutions.
About five years ago, we started specializing in disaster recovery as a service so the concept of technology as a service and having our cloud be the target for companies’ disaster recovery efforts, and we’ve been specializing the last several years in the legal vertical because we really felt like the legal vertical was really ready to begin cloud adoption, was looking for solutions to lessen their capital expense and maybe move more to an OpEx model and it really fits with what we can provide and the solution that we bring to our clients.
Myself, I’m the Executive Vice President for Product and Service Development here at Bluelock, which means I get the fun job of looking a year, two years, three years, four years down the road and looking for what problems companies may be facing, what law firms may be facing, and the technology advances that we can marry up and provide solution. So it’s kind of that forward-looking role that’s really exciting.
Joe Patrice: Well, that seems to be — that’s probably a good reason to have this kind of predictions piece. So with this predictions piece, where the idea originated to start coming up with a list of predictions and how do you go about gathering insights, who do you contact to really flesh this out?
Jeff Ton: So as we were talking with some of our clients and some of our prospects, we know that law firms in particular like to know what other firms are doing. They don’t want to be the last one to adopt but they don’t want to be the first one either, and so we wanted to be able to give the legal IT folks a leg up on what’s coming at them so that they can stay on top of the conversation when they’re meeting after work for a beer or a bourbon with their peers, it’s really important that we include other contributors in this process as well.
So we reached out to many of our clients, we reached out to you many industry analysts that work in legal tech, we ask them for input as well because our expertise is in disaster recovery as a service and secured cloud hosting, we wanted to get a broader exposure to some of the advances in legal technology.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, the idea of the legal industry, they really are just the most milquetoast people on the playground, right? Like they don’t want to start it, they don’t want to be last. They’re just kind of hoping to get through their day without —
Kathryn Rubino: Risk of worsen — the worst way of — how to phrase?
Joe Patrice: Yeah – no, it’s so true. Well — so I guess maybe it’s a good thing not that we’re saying that’s what we’re doing here but like maybe it for all of us, industry analysts in all ways that our role is a good-natured peer pressure to let people know, no, no, no, this is what you need to do, trust me all the cool kids are doing it.
Kathryn Rubino: This is really a problem.
Joe Patrice: The cloud is totally cool. If you aren’t on the cloud, I mean, just really —
Kathryn Rubino: Don’t be scared.
Joe Patrice: Really what are you, yeah. So, I guess it was — let’s segue to like Bluelock’s real expertise here, this disaster recovery idea, because I think it’s you and I talked a little bit about this few months ago, when we met, but it’s a thing that a lot of law firms probably aren’t thinking about how important it is to have discussed or recovery, but it’s a real crucial response for a variety of reasons, be it cybersecurity or real like natural disasters or whatever.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, it is something that we found that — it’s seen typically when you talk about disaster recovery, it’s seen as an insurance policy almost against solely natural disasters, in fact, we were talking with a prospect earlier this week and they were like, well, you know, we’ve been in business for 16 years and we’ve had that ice storm that one time but we didn’t even really lose power to our office, so not really sure that we need disaster recovery, and what’s really started to happen is, it’s become more than just natural disasters. In fact the occurrence of a natural disaster that causes an IT disaster recovery process is really quite small.
What you see more often is human error, something gets changed that wasn’t intended to be changed or the entire database gets deleted, and then most recently the headline grabbers are the ransomware attacks that are more and more being targeted at law firms because the hackers are getting smart and they realized, gosh, we may not be able to penetrate the banks or we may not be able to penetrate the healthcare providers, but man, the attorneys have all the data, so let’s go after the attorneys and let’s try to get the data or at least hold the data ransom from there. So you have started to see more-and-more of the headlines around that. Disaster recovery as a service, specifically is a great restorative technique for mitigating some of the risk against ransomware. You’re able to recover much faster, you don’t have to pay the ransom or run the risk that you can’t even recover after the ransom anyway.
So you’ve got clean copies of your data at your cloud provider and that gives you another avenue to protect your data, more on the restorative side. So, we started talking about disaster recovery really in the terms of data protection, and so you look at data protection and you’ve got the preventive on one side that everybody is fairly familiar with from a technology perspective, it’s the firewalls, it’s encryption, it’s things like that, but on the opposite side of that coin, you’ve got restorative because, man, you can spend a lot of money on preventative and they are still going to get in. You are one click away from someone clicking on the wrong email, clicking on the wrong website, and all of a sudden all your data is gone or at least encrypted, so you’ve got preventative on one side but you have to be able to recover once that happens.
And then you’ve also got to have that bridge in the middle of detection, being able to understand when you’ve been hit by some sort of cyber attack or some sort of event, so that you know that you can then move into response and recovery mode.
Kathryn Rubino: Jeff, you mentioned that the legal industry is more vulnerable than some other industries such as the finance and healthcare, I think you mentioned, do you have any insight as to why that is, why is legal lagging behind the other industries?
Jeff Ton: Well, I think part of it is because they typically run with a very small IT shop so they are running very lean and therefore they don’t have all the resources available to continue to do active log monitoring and watching for the threats as they come at them, and then the other part of it is, they are relying on technology for the restorative side, that’s pretty old. They’re relying on tape backups predominantly for being able to have copies of their data, and so they may not even have the ability to recover because those tapes may be old, they may be unreadable, they need another data center where they can recover the information too. So it’s just that there are lot of companies but law firms in particular have not kept up with some of the most recent advances in those types of technologies and the hackers are always looking for the weak link, right? They’re always trying to find where in the supply chain, they can get in.
You look at the famous Target hack several years ago. It was a guy that worked for a heating and cooling vendor whose credentials were compromised and that was the way they got in and got to all their point-of-sale information. So they’re looking for any way and so they’re working through the supply chain, they’re looking through the vendors, and they’re finding that the law firms are a weak link.
Kathryn Rubino: We always kind of joke that lawyers tend to be luddites and slow and conservative when it comes to technology but it seems like this is moving beyond the joke and coming a real issue for the industry.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, I think that it is and what’s happening to a lot of firms is they’re getting pressure from their clients to really pay attention to their technology, their compliance, so we’ve had instances where we’ve talked to firms and it’s like we were talking to them about the cost of the downtime, and they’re saying, well, gosh, that’s really never been something that got us interested in spending money to try to mitigate that risk. What really got us to move was our largest client came to us and said, thou shall 17:16 and thou shall prove it and thou shall do it by September, and that’s really what got them going was all of a sudden they see the clients bringing that to them and saying, we need you to protect our data like we would protect our data.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I think there’s also probably a risk that lawyers could find themselves guilty of malpractice too if they’re not coming out to the industry standards in a lot of these areas.
Joe Patrice: Oh, industry standards, like we have those.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, I think there’s a case that’s going on in the Chicago area right now. I don’t have the exact case but there’s lawsuits in progress that they’re trying to hold the law firm accountable for data loss.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I think that’s Shore v. Johnson & Bell.
Joe Patrice: Oh, look at you.
Kathryn Rubino: Ooh, I remembered something.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, in fact I did 18:04 the ebook action.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, oh there we go.
Joe Patrice: Well, so we’ve talked a little bit about this and it’s kind of led into a discussion of cybersecurity. So looking through the predictions, one thing that struck out to me was of all the cybersecurity risks the panoply of cybersecurity risks out there, lot of the experts that you talked to really felt ransomware was where the direction that the attacks are going to start going.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, that’s what we’ve seen, it’s growing exponentially and it’s almost become more than just trying to hold someone ransom. You have the recent case that caught up DLA Piper, my understanding of that particular attack was the cyber criminals were really trying to disrupt the entire economy of the Ukraine and DLA Piper just happened to be caught up in all of that. So it’s becoming even more nefarious than just the ransomware itself is becoming destructive and disruptive.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, the whole idea of ransomware. What’s interesting about it is it’s kind of the blessing and curse like it at a certain point attacking somebody and demanding ransom exposes you to people being able to find you, but I mean, I guess, with cryptocurrencies and so on these days, you might be able to get away with it.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, makes it a lot harder definitely to find the source of the attack and who’s gaining from the ransomware. You start getting into Bitcoin and Blockchain technology, it makes it pretty difficult to track down who the end perpetrator was.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I guess this is a good place to kind of pivot the discussion to Blockchain technology because we are now talking about all the risks to the extent that it makes ransomware an option and so on and so forth, but there’s also some predictions in the piece about Blockchain and the advantages that it could have for legal practices.
So I guess maybe the first thing is if we can go through like what is Blockchain for people who just have heard those words and don’t know what it is, but then also like what are your folks saying might be the applications and the future of it within the legal industry.
Jeff Ton: Absolutely. So Blockchain is a distributed ledger system at its most basic. So think about today when you have a financial transaction, you have your accounting system, Kathryn has her accounting system, and I have my accounting system and they could all say different things.
Under a Blockchain, we have entered into some sort of agreement that we are going to all share a single source of truth, the Blockchain, and so when a transaction occurs, all three of us get a copy of it and we validate that it is the correct copy. In other words, because of the way the Blockchain works, every block that gets written is linked to or chained to the previous block and there’s a hash associated with the content, so that the computer systems that are processing these transactions know that this block is connected to that block and it knows that previous block didn’t change because the hashes are the same.
And so basically what that means then is we all have a single version of the truth and we can all verify that transaction much more securely and much quicker. The first real big implementation of Blockchain was Bitcoin, which has got kind of a negative association with it because that’s typically what the ransomware attackers are wanting you to pay with is Bitcoin, and so your first step when you get hit by ransomware is what the hell is Bitcoin and where do I get one, right?
But Blockchain really goes far beyond that and that’s where I think the real interesting part of it is, because really there’s no industry that at some point won’t be disrupted by Blockchain technology. So for an attorney, for a law practice, there’s really two sides to the Blockchain coin; one is your clients are going to be impacted by it and so you need to really understand what it is and how it can impact their business, so you can consult with them and be that trusted advisor in, first of all, how do you set it up, how do you manage it, how do you process it, but then there’s also going to be impacts on law firms themselves in how things get processed. The whole concept of, I call it a smart contract.
So because of the way the Blockchain works, you can actually embed code in a transaction and so the code can execute based on transactions that come in. So at its simplest form think of the contract between a buyer and a seller. The implied contract that, hey, if I give you money, you are going to ship me product.
Well, you have to wait until my money has cleared through whatever clearing mechanism you use, whether I am using my credit card or whatever, before you want to ship me the product, because you want to make sure that you are paid for it and I want to make sure you are going to ship me the product if I pay you the money. So we have got that element of almost mistrust in that transaction.
But what if it was using Blockchain technology and the minute that the financial value transferred, it sends a signal to my shipping system or your shipping system to send me the product. So it automates that part of it and you can begin to see where you can build smarter and smarter contracts between companies, between companies and individuals that will execute code or execute the terms of the contract based on what an external event might be.
Think of vacation travel and vacation insurance. You buy that insurance in case your cruise ship has to stay in port and you can’t go on your cruise. Well, there is technology that knows that, so you pay that fee and the minute that that cruise ship doesn’t leave, the Blockchain can execute that smart contract and pay the recipient or the insured. So it’s got lots of different applications to it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I have heard some people talk about the smart contracts. We are all litigators here, so this is above our head, but from the transactional people I have heard a lot of what happens is you get these complex banking agreements where it’s like, if LIBOR hits this, then you get this; if it goes back down to this, then this, and they are doing hundreds of transactions between these institutions based on fluctuating things in the market and you can set this up to make sure that the money is going instantaneously as opposed to —
Kathryn Rubino: Having actual people.
Joe Patrice: Well, the way it used to work is basically somebody’s job was at the end of the quarter to count up how many times it had gone back and forth and figure out the lump sum and now you can just actually ship this stuff all the time, which is kind of cool.
Jeff Ton: Exactly.
Joe Patrice: So I guess the final topic to talk about which we have got to, because I think in the field of legal technology there’s a law that requires like a five-year penalty if you don’t discuss AI or machine learning in any of the tech conversations.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean I think a part of it is that it’s so poorly understood by the majority of lawyers. They are aware that it exists because they have seen dystopian movies before; otherwise, they are not really sure how it will wind up applying to the legal industry.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean I guess. I just am doing it because when the robot takeover happens, they will hear this podcast and know that I was always on their side.
Jeff Ton: You were on their side all along, yes, yes.
Joe Patrice: I will be helpful in the salt mines. So I guess we should talk about what’s on the horizon in the AI-ish world. There were some predictions about that in the piece. What’s up for 2018 in machine learning and AI?
Jeff Ton: Well, I think, first of all, AI and machine learning kind of get blended together. AI, I kind of see it as the programmatic implementation of intelligence, but then machine learning is the ability to feed data to a compute device and it learns or it begins to see different insights in there.
So I think where I really see that starting within the legal profession and then growing are things like e-discovery, where you have to churn through so much data, looking for correlations, looking for things that are related, throwing out the things that aren’t related, and so bringing AI and machine learning into that will really speed up the process, and I think it would also over time increase the accuracy of doing that.
So if you start there in the e-discovery world, then you can start thinking about, well, what about case law and the researching of the volumes and volumes of case law, can you apply machine learning to that? And pretty soon if I am a paralegal in a law firm, I am starting to get nervous because a lot of the work that I do now is being automated through AI and machine learning, so you can begin to see how it grows.
And what you really end up with is the attorney providing that top layer of intelligence in interpreting what the machine has gone through and understood and reported back and then providing counsel to the clients, which is really what you want the attorney doing anyway, not all that research and research and research.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, one of the mantras that I have heard before at a tech show, and this was about tech generally, but AI being one of it, is that its job is never to replace — it’s never to write a Beethoven’s Symphony, but it could have given him time to write another one. I heard that one once. The real thing is not like it’s going to do the job of the lawyer, but it might get rid of enough of the garbage work that lawyers do that they can do more.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, unfortunately a lot of that garbage work is employing quite a few lawyers.
Joe Patrice: And not just employing, the thing that I speak about when I get in these sorts of conversations is, yeah, there’s the employment level which is important, but there’s also a training level, like to some extent these genius lawyers and partners at the top learned how to get there by spending time making mistakes, drudging through the awful work that we all kind of presented and at a point where they stopped being able to do that, like how do they learn.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean there’s definitely a skill, especially in litigation, of going through the documents and figuring out why certain docs are hot and why they are important and all that kind of stuff, and now machines are doing that or theoretically machines could do that and it’s a skill definitely that people aren’t going to be learning.
Jeff Ton: Yeah, it’s like the argument that you hear sometimes about Google. We have students in school that no longer need to really learn because all they have to do is Google the answer. So I think that is a challenge.
And one of the things about technology that can be so interesting is there is a good side and there is a downside, and so you have to understand where that line is. And I think honestly that’s where some of the law firms can help us understand, you start getting into the implications of somebody programmed that computer, so what if the computer has a bias because somebody programmed it to have a bias, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
You start looking at Blockchain. We were talking earlier about Blockchain and smart contracts. I can see the lawyer of the future working side-by-side with a software developer because you need the software developer to help you write the contract. You bring to the table the legal knowledge and the context and the developer brings the knowledge of the software and how to write that into a Blockchain code. So I think it all starts to come together.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, thank you Jeff for joining us and talking about what’s new in the legal industry over this next year. The piece is 2018 Predictions that Bluelock has put out. We are going to have a little post about it and I think you are putting up a post probably today, I think, from what I hear.
Jeff Ton: Yes, yes.
Joe Patrice: We will put something up about it too. Great. So thank you so much for going through this.
Thank all the listeners for listening. Thanks Kathryn for filling in. Thanks to everyone who is subscribing. Importantly, if you aren’t subscribing, do subscribe. Once you are subscribing, give us reviews, not just even the stars, which should be 5, but also write something, because it just helps all those algorithms think, hey, people are engaged and interested in it, so it moves us up the search rankings when people are looking for legal podcasts that are fun and entertaining; those are actually the same word twice, but whatever. Point is, do all those things.
Follow us on Twitter. I met @JosephPatrice. She is @Kathryn1. Read Above the Law, and get the LTN App. I think that’s everything.
Kathryn Rubino: Have a good day.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Thanks. All right everybody, talk to you later.
Kathryn Rubino: Bye.
Outro: If you would like more information about what you heard today, please visit HYPERLINK “http://www.legaltalknetwork.com” legaltalknetwork.com. You can also find us at HYPERLINK “http://www.abovethelaw.com” abovethelaw.com, HYPERLINK “http://www.atlredline.com” atlredline.com, iTunes, RSS, Twitter, and Facebook.
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.
Above the Law's Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.
Joe and Elie take a dive into the college admissions scandal going on with celebrities and their children.
Jerry Buting and Jackie Maloney debate about the prosecution versus defense and how the portrayals on FOX TV’s ‘Proven Innocent’ compare to reality.
Joe and Elie discuss the US News and World Report law school rankings and breaks down who's on top and who's making big moves...
FOX's "Proven Innocent" creator David Elliot, California Innocence Project managing attorney Michael Semanchik, and real-life exoneree Jason Strong, talk about wrongful convictions and the...
Ian Bassin, the Executive Director of Protect Democracy, talks about the pressing task of defending democratic institutions from authoritarianism.
Executive producer Danny Strong talks about the new legal drama “Proven Innocent” and what drew him to the subject of wrongful convictions.