Joe and Kathryn do another rapidfire rundown of the biggest stories in legal news this week. Bar exam horror stories! Jones Day’s salary and discrimination suit woes! The imminent collapse of a national Biglaw firm! All that and more. Plus sound effects!!!
Above the Law – Thinking Like a Lawyer
What A Week In Legal News
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. Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer. I am Joe Patrice from Above the Law. With us this week I have Kathryn Rubino also of Above the Law. How are you out there?
Kathryn Rubino: I am good, how about you?
Joe Patrice: I am good. So for those of you who are longtime listeners of the show, you know that Katherine being on means we’re going to have a PTI style, ESPN roll through hot topics roundup of the news. So —
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I mean that’s the plan you know unless there’s anything important you want to discuss before we get into these hot topics but we can just jump right in.
Joe Patrice: No, I mean the only things I would discuss. Just — how about I do this because we never do it this way. At the end of the show, I’m going to say all these things again but sometimes people quit listening before the end of the show. So I’m just going to go ahead and say, this is your opportunity to subscribe to the show, give it reviews so that people, more people can hear it. So there you go.
Kathryn Rubino: There you go, okay. So, bunch of stuff is happening in the legal world, so I’m going to go through a couple of hot topics, we’ll talk about them for maybe a couple minutes each. You got a timer going Joe?
Joe Patrice: Sure.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay. So the first thing I think we should talk about is the bar exam. It was this week and but it was preceded by a bit of controversy at least in California on Saturday, test began on Tuesday but on Saturday evening, they sent out the list of the — what each of the essays would be about, I mean in very general terms., constitutional law, nothing more specific than that but it’s very much a change in standard protocol, turned out that they had inadvertently disclosed that information to a list of law school deans and an abundance of caution decided to share that information with everyone who is taking the test.
Some people were happy with this result, some people were very much not. Do you think that the remedy for inadvertently disclosing it to law school deans and the remedy being sharing it with everyone was appropriate? Do you think it was a good idea? Do you think it was a bad idea?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, no, I think that was the appropriate response. If you’ve given some people access to the questions and –
Kathryn Rubino: Or potentially there’s no information that anybody got it, who’s taking the test.
Joe Patrice: Right, but you’ve given dean’s access to it which raises the possibility that some people know what’s going to be on the test and if that’s the case, then the right answer is to provide it to everybody. I also have never really understood the — I’m not one of these people who really buys into the Cloak & Dagger, making us spend hours and hours trying to memorize commercial paper and they’re never having it show up on the test.
Right like, and especially that it happened as late as it did. It’s not like people blew off topics for the whole period of studying for the bar, they blew off — at the very end, they were able to having studied commercial paper or whatever it was, throughout the summer they now know that they’ve got a hunker down on the subjects that really matter and that seems fair to me.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure and again, this was just the essay portion, the multi-state things, part of the exam is unbothered by any of this nonsense.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: And there you go. So speaking of the bar exam, was this week, do you have any bar exam horror stories. I know that we found out from some folks in Minnesota that the PA system came on repeatedly and was broadcasting all manner of just random stuff. Do you have any stories like that or do you remember anything from your time as an ATL editor of really memorable bar exam horror stories?
Joe Patrice: I mean yeah, right. Like we had — several years ago, there was the time when the power went out at the bar location. So no one had any lights for several hours.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s not great.
Joe Patrice: There was a time when the exam software itself crashed during the middle of the administration of the exam that obviously caused some trouble. I remember that one coming across the wire because I remember I was out of town when I got the message so yeah, no, I mean there’s always stories like these. My personal bar exam was fairly uneventful. I don’t know about you.
Kathryn Rubino: Well that’s good, I guess I mean.
Joe Patrice: Yeah I mean –
Kathryn Rubino: Did you do anything fun after the bar exam?
Joe Patrice: I mean I went to a bar.
Kathryn Rubino: I meant like a bar trip but sure.
Joe Patrice: Oh no, no, no, I did not do any of that. I sat around and just prepared for starting work, which I would have done.
Kathryn Rubino: Well that seems very diligent, but I am pretty sure what that means is you just spent a lot of time in a bar like an actual, like alcohol establishment and not.
Joe Patrice: Well sure, but I mean that’s also most of the legal career. But no, I — I, no, I would have started work a few weeks later, but then that was delayed a little bit because my office had to be evacuated because there was something of a terrorist attack, I don’t know if you’ve heard about that.
Kathryn Rubino: You graduated in 2001 is what you’re saying.
Joe Patrice: I did so —
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and you were working, you are scheduled anyway to work downtown, so it’s a bit of a commotion.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, the building next door. So, it was a little — that delayed the start of my legal career slightly.
Kathryn Rubino: Fair enough.
Joe Patrice: All right. Well let’s try another —
Kathryn Rubino: Something maybe a little. Oh, right that one.
Joe Patrice: There, I’m trying other ones, mostly because the air horn sounds more right from the what we’re going for, but I feel — I remember that we had somebody write us in and say that the — they listened to the show in the car and started thinking that they were getting honked at, so I am trying to come up with other.
Kathryn Rubino: Trying to be mindful of how people consume the product.
Joe Patrice: Sure.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh there you go. Okay, so next topic. Jones Day, we’ve talked about it on multiple occasions has, it finds itself a defendant in a gender discrimination lawsuit, an unequal pay lawsuit, which you know is an interesting thing we can talk about separately, but one of the things that in their most recent answer to the complaints, it’s an amended complaint. They say that their compensation system is not a black box and in fact they’re very upfront about what people make.
Given Jones Day’s reputation as someone who has covered both Jones Day and the compensation landscape for a number of years, what’s your gut reaction to that information?
Joe Patrice: I mean, you can — I’m sure they object to the term black box. So maybe we shouldn’t use it, we should instead say that their compensation numbers are very opaque and put in a little container that is completely covered and shielded from any transparency.
They are notorious for saying that they pay — they pay the standard going rate for like first years, maybe second years and then after that you know it’s individualized, and what individualized means is we’re not telling anybody what they make, it’s all kind of behind closed doors. We know, you know and you’re kind of under a peer pressure situation do not divulge that you’re above, or below, or what have you.
And that’s — it’s a way in which employers can exert leverage over employees and make them and systematically undercompensate them. That’s not the way in which employers like to think of it, but that’s what it is.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah I think that part of the problem and why some firms and note Jones Day is by far the most notorious of these in terms of not being clear by their lockstep — whether or not they have lockstep compensation, I think like that is that when you say something like individualized compensation, you’ll be paid based on merit. There’s this kind of puritanical hard-working work ethic that I think people say, well I work hard. I’m sure that I will be one of the people who get paid above the market, but that is never how any of this works, right?
Joe Patrice: Or very rarely.
Kathryn Rubino: The lack of clarity is always used by the people in power, by the employer in order to underpay.
Joe Patrice: This is literally what the Lilly Ledbetter issue was all about right, that was — that was a legal response to litigation where a woman was systematically underpaid for years because they — because she didn’t know that she was being underpaid, because they didn’t allow people to discuss and learn what their salaries were and then she was not allowed to pursue her claims for being underpaid in a discriminatory fashion because they were time barred, she should have raised that before but she never knew about it before and that’s why we have a law address that.
That’s what these opaque pay systems are set up to do.
Kathryn Rubino: Right.
Joe Patrice: Whether or not you intend to as an employer and let’s give employers the most benefit of the doubt.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure.
Joe Patrice: Even if they aren’t intending to be discriminatory, discriminatory results can exist in the system. So you’re far better off if you don’t want to get sued, like Jones Days getting sued in being transparent and that’s what the more genteel firms do.
Kathryn Rubino: I think that if you look at the industry as a whole, obviously the Jones Day lawsuit is associates who are suing because of the Black Box Compensation System, but the majority of the lawsuits that we are seeing in big law are from the partners which are not paid lockstep at most places that — there’s a lot more unknowns as to what you should be making, what your peers are making and what not and that’s where we’re really seeing the majority of those lawsuits, while we have — occasionally we will have some associate ones, that’s really only in instances where they are not paying lockstep compensation.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that makes sense.
Joe Patrice: And that was a gavel bang attempt, I don’t know if that worked.
Kathryn Rubino: It didn’t really –
Joe Patrice: It didn’t really sound as good, yeah all right go on.
Kathryn Rubino: No that was good. Well, we’ll continue on the big law train for a minute here. We’ve been reporting about this extensively, but the firm of LeClairRyan appears to be in its death throes. Some reporting that they’ve begun the process of dissolution and this comes after a couple of years of losing partners and senior attorneys to lateral moves, their headcount has been decimated.
We reported that they sent out WARN Act notices to staff of impending mass layoffs. They’ve been unable to pay back capital contributions made by former partners. They’re reportedly being sued by their landlord of one of their offices. They have got lots of problems, so the fact that they’re pursuing potential dissolution is not really surprising.
But do you think that this is a sign or a harbinger for other firms in the bottom half of the Am Law 200?
Joe Patrice: I don’t know, that’s an interesting way of putting it. I don’t really know as though that’s what is going to happen. The bottom half of the Am Law 200 has faced issues for years, right.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure.
Joe Patrice: We know that there is increasing consolidation at the top, there’s stronger competition for a variety of reasons from both alternative legal providers and the boutiques which are now able to leverage with the help of technology leverage themselves a lot better because they don’t require armies of attorneys to do some tasks that used to.
For that reason, those firms are kind of in a weird place. Do I think that a lot of them are going to spiral out of control and disappear like this? I don’t know. I do think that there’s going to be increased pressure on consolidation where firms merge for instance, I think that’s something that will happen. I think there’s going to be more of these regional firms that lock, stock, and barrel join up with national firms that want a presence in that region.
Those sorts of ends I can kind of see. But this one really kind of came out of nowhere. One wouldn’t have thought that LeClairRyan was the sort of firm that was the next one to go. There seemed to be at least, from my perspective, it’s I felt like there were other firms, there were bigger candidates for a collapse, but appears as though.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, one of the interesting things too is that LeClairRyan sort of tried to launch law firm 2.0 and had a strategic partnership with an alternative legal service provider UnitedLex. So they are very much I guess aware of these sort of external pressures that exist for a lot of law firms, but it doesn’t appear to have been the sort of lifeline that they might have hoped.
Joe Patrice: Yeah no, certainly seemed like there was some chance of a Nuvo firm, but right now it looks as though at least monitoring the moves, it looks as though they’re moving towards more of a — as opposed to being taken over, but more like what happened with Bingham going under which is more of firms that are just kind of picking and choosing the partners that they want and it appears though Fox Rothschild is doing a good deal of that.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, okay I like that one.
Joe Patrice: Okay, all right, the Boeing sound, we will stick with that.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah and it doesn’t sound like a car accident at all, so that’s good.
Joe Patrice: Right okay.
Kathryn Rubino: So former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was recently released from prison. You covered this story. For those people who may not remember 2015, the innocent days of 2015 and the political scandals that existed then, can you recap the case and why was an attorney in jail?
Joe Patrice: Sure, actually all of us wrote on this case back then. I was looking back at the archives even you were heavy on this one.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh look at that.
Joe Patrice: It was one of those cases that it just doesn’t come along very often. It’s a State Attorney General who manages to find themselves on the wrong end of a criminal probe and ultimately serves eight months I believe in jail. She, the way it all starts to – and it’s really sensational Above the Law worthy stuff.
So the way it starts is she — my guess not allegedly, she puts a stop to an investigation that was targeting Philadelphia lawmakers for corruption. The prosecutor who was behind that decided to make a stink about how this — she’s like shielding her political allies and abusing her office. This claim then gets in the newspapers.
Kane gets angry about this and chooses to kind of retaliate against everybody for pushing this.
That’s the problem because that also results ultimately in her having to lie to a grand jury about how she wasn’t trying to retaliate –
Kathryn Rubino: Well that’s not great.
Joe Patrice: So now you start getting lying under oath along with the corruption stuff and it just — it just spirals out of control meanwhile –
Kathryn Rubino: And I remember there was something about a twin sister or some mistaken identity.
Joe Patrice: Oh we’re getting there. Oh we’re getting there.
Kathryn Rubino: I love it.
Joe Patrice: We’re not even there yet, because in the middle of all this is when she comes across a bunch of porn emails that were being sent around the Supreme Court of the state. This whole controversy is kind of a sub controversy within what she’s doing. This ends up resulting in multiple — a couple of the Supreme Court justices having to resign tearfully for running a weird porn exchange basically on the Supreme Court’s dime.
Then we have the fact that she has a twin sister and Kathleen Kane really does kind of sound like a soap opera character, doesn’t it. She has an evil twin or maybe a good twin, which whichever it is, she has a twin that she utilized as a decoy when she was not wanting to answer reporter questions.
So she would send her sister through the courthouse during the hearings so reporters would mob her so that she could sneak around. So we’re assuming she’s the one who was in jail the whole time and that it isn’t some man in our masks situation with her poor sister has been there, whatever.
No, it was bonkers, one of those things you didn’t really expect, but we’re happy to report because of good behavior she is now out of jail and ready to take on whatever career one does after they’ve been disbarred.
Kathryn Rubino: Fair enough. Well, thanks for that. Oh there you go. Okay, next topic.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: The Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann lost his defamation case against the Washington Post. If you recall he was that MAGA headed kid who was at the protest. Are you surprised by this verdict?
Joe Patrice: No yeah, exit Sandmann he made a case say multiply.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean you are sitting on that.
Joe Patrice: I mean it’s in the story I wrote about it, but yeah. He put together a multi-million dollar claim against the Washington Post which many – became kind of a Cause Celeb among the right-wing Twitter. If you were a lawyer it never made any sense. There were no real defamatory statements in any of the Washington Post’s coverage.
The only things that they — the only thing with specificity they even said about him was a peer opinion claim where both sides were presented of the interpretation of the event and then everything else was just generically covering what happened and you can’t plead with particularity when the term that the complaint most often uses is that the Washington Post gave a gist of defamation.
That is not how the rules work and so quickly that got –
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, yeah, and put that in your practice manual, stop using that word if you are trying to write a complaint.
Joe Patrice: Yeah gist in your complaints. Yeah so he got kicked to the curb pretty brutally. They’re going to try and appeal it and okay who knows, like the way these courts are being set up, they might find some wacky argument to like let him stay on but as a somebody who has a passing understanding of defamation law, this was not only an easy win for the Washington Post.
It’s when I read the gist thing the first time, I thought it was Borderline Rule 11 discussion. It was just so far away from the actual elements of a well pled defamation claim that I was really thinking this could be one of those rare instances where somebody seeks sanctions.
But good for him and his lawyer they managed to avoid that at least, but rather than take their win on not getting sanctioned, they’re going to appeal and so this will go on a little bit longer.
Kathryn Rubino: All right, moving on to the world of law school, the GRE is continuing its creep into law school admissions with most recently Yale saying that they will now accept applicant’s GRE.
Joe Patrice: I missed the sound, so I put that in, yeah go on. So yeah Yale’s taking the GRE now, right.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, what’s up with that? Do you think it’s a good idea, bad idea what’s your opinion?
Joe Patrice: I’m one of these people who actually has always supported the GRE as a test. I think that it’s not like there’s lawyers have this haughty attitude that the LSAT is amazing and every other standardized test is basically a crayon filled out back of a kid’s menu. It’s not like the GRE is a real test, it’s how we determine who is qualified to get into all manner of grad programs.
There’s no reason it isn’t indicative of somebody’s intelligence and by-proxy ability to be in law school.
I think that the LSAT is probably better tailored to the skills that go into being a lawyer, but the GRE isn’t ridiculously far off. And when you start taking into account that the GRE is a test that covers a broad range of postgraduate options, whereas the LSAT is very limited, what was happening is students were saying well, I’ve got to pay to take the GRE if I want to go into any number of grad programs, I’m not going to pay for a second test, and you know that was limiting law schools from potential people.
Kathryn Rubino: See, that’s actually the area where I think where it kind of falls off the rails for me. Even accepting that the GRE is a finding test or whatever, I think that the point, a lot of people wind up going to law school not because they have a burning desire to be a lawyer, but because it seems like a good option at the time or there’s no better option, right.
You go to the school for three years and then you’re immediately on the job market and the high-end salaries for associates are eye popping when you are 22 years old and have no real marketable skills.
So I think that a lot of people turn to law school in lieu of sort of uncertainty and I think that making it easier for people who are not committed to being a lawyer and going to law school and taking on that debt, and practicing law on the back end, I think is problematic.
I think that – I understand why law schools are doing it, they want a bigger, a broader pool of applicants, particularly now because of the Trump bump and whatnot law school applications are up, but it was definitely a struggle for a lot of years when a lot of this — when the beginnings of this trend began and I worry that it’s going to encourage people to, oh I might as well put my name in for law school while I’m at it, I am already taking the GRE and that all winds up with people being in law school that don’t really want to go suddenly saddled with debt and into a profession that they think will be very lucrative but has a lot of problems associated with it and they made that decision without researching it, without being aware of what it really will be like.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, because being a 17th century French poetry professor is so much more lucrative a career move, right, like these folks are looking for postgraduate studies, they’re not going on the academic job market versus going to law school, but they’re both bad ideas.
Kathryn Rubino: But there is a lot of different assistance for if you are going in for different graduate degrees, the calculus is different and you got a two-year degree at least in the instance of — the first instance in terms of the Master’s versus paying for a third year, there’s a lot of different elements there I think.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. My only concern is whether or not the test adequately gauges somebody’s capability to deal with the intellectual rigors of it. I think this does, it’s fine. I also think that we haven’t covered and we’re not going to end up having time in this little section to cover, but there’s also the fact that the LSAT is not administered as often and is administered in person for folks in the middle of nowhere, long ways away, whereas the GRE you can take almost all the time, and it’s a lot easier.
Kathryn Rubino: Well that actually leads right into my next topic, which is what I think is part of the LSAT’s response to the GRE’s encroachment on its turf, which is the LSAT is now digital, it’s all done on tablet computers and they did the first administration of a digital exam recently and going forward, it will be offered exclusively in the digital format and they are also increasing the number of times that the LSAT is offered per year.
Do you think that this will help them fight off the GRE?
Joe Patrice: I mean it certainly helps, but then again this – in a lot of ways this comes back to the whole point of why the GRE is good, right. If the GRE had never been accepted as a possible test by some of these top-tier schools, then we wouldn’t be seeing the LSAT make any of these progresses.
When they felt they had a monopoly and they were the only game in town, they didn’t care about any of these long-term problems. They’re making these reforms only because the GRE is now encroaching on their turf, which is more reason why it was a good thing.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that’s a fair point, although I still maintain that there a number of issues with widespread use of the GRE in lieu of the LSAT.
Joe Patrice: Yeah because, because I get it lawyers want to be all snooty, but you don’t have to be.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean I think I need several arguments none of which were me being snooty, but that’s cool.
Joe Patrice: I felt, I felt that was — that was a good time to tell you.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure you did, I’m sure you did. Okay another scandal I want to touch on, Larry Klayman is facing a bunch of allegation, what’s going on there?
Joe Patrice: Larry Klayman is a well-known conservative gadfly, he started a group called Judicial Watch, then later sued them, and another one called Freedom Watch, which because he doesn’t really have a lot of creativity.
Anyway these are those kind of like — they’re just kind of like press communications offices posing as legal stuff, but they talk a lot about courts. He has been long term a — one of those serial litigator for right-wing causes. Anyway, he has been slapped by the DC Disciplinary folks and he’s appealing this decision. He says that it’s wrong, but among the things that are kind of in the discussion and largely uncontested are that he had this weird relationship with a client that involved paying for her to move somewhere with him and then hitting on her and then she declined his advances, so he raised her rates and put her and like stranded her and took away her apartment.
What, there’s a bunch of stuff in there, obviously some about a good deal of it he denies, but this is the findings of the Disciplinary Committee who was sent to investigate it. There obviously is appeals processes and this is just a recommendation of what to do with him, but they recommend that he basically be suspended for some time and then have to — it’s a Show Cause Order then after that period he has to go in front of them and prove why he should get his license back.
So it’s kind of a slow-motion disbarment if it goes through.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. For our final topic of the day, I want to talk a little bit about big law again.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: Kirkland & Ellis recently launched a new benefit and new perk for their associates, they now have access to a concierge service. Do you think that these sorts of benefits really move the needle in terms of recruitment for these top-flight law firms?
Joe Patrice: I don’t. I do think they are useful. If you are the sort of person who is billing hundreds of hours, you’re going to have times where somebody needs to get your dry cleaning or you need to go cross town and get something and firms that are in a position to say, we have a group that is prepared to go do those tasks for you, that’s useful, it makes your life easier.
I mean the flip side of it of course is that it begins from the premise that –
Kathryn Rubino: That you don’t have time to pick up your own dry-cleaning.
Joe Patrice: You, that you don’t have time and should not be given time to do these things yourself, which is more problematic. It speaks from an idea especially in a world where we have these mental health issues and substance abuse issues in the law driven and there was a open letter written by a Denton’s partner this week about how the billable hour itself is kind of corrosive and pushes people into these unhealthy and bad behaviors of working themselves to death.
And the idea of this concierge service, which seems like hey, here’s a perk is really troublingly a Band-Aid over the gaping chest wound that is maybe we shouldn’t run an industry where people feel like they can never go get their dry-cleaning, that’s, that’s a problem.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean I definitely remember back in my firm days, I am struggling to even like make time to like get groceries where it’s like I have to at eight o’clock because I have had nothing in my apartment to eat or drink or anything for weeks because I’ve been working so much because on some case that’s going crazy or whatever.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. The firm cafeteria was there for a reason, and it’s another one.
Kathryn Rubino: And we didn’t have one, yeah.
Joe Patrice: It’s a nice — it’s a nice thing but then you think about it, and it’s just another way in which you’re stuck there.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: I mean I’m one of these people who thinks that we sometimes go too far with the idea that, oh work is so grueling, it’s like yeah toughen up a bit. But there is a limit and I do think that a lot of times law firms are too far past that limit, and that there needs to be something to kind of rein in the level to which people are asked to subordinate their lives.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that being said, yeah it is going to be true whether you go to a firm that offers concierge service or firm that does not and having, taking a little bit of the pressure off you to like try to balance getting whatever you need from the drug store or something like that, I just need Tylenol or something, probably does make life a little bit nicer for the associates who have that perk.
Joe Patrice: Certainly, certainly true. Yeah, and that’s what makes it such a hard story to say. I mean one of the things that that the concierge service did was send somebody out in a blizzard to buy dog shoes for some associate. So maybe there are certain things you don’t need to do. Maybe there are reasons why working, you should keep working and then just not have that option. Anyway, well cool that was our final topic you said.
Kathryn Rubino: It was.
Joe Patrice: All right, let’s bang this one more time. So that’s the end see. I’m getting full use of this sound board now but that I don’t have Elie complaining about it all the time.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean why doesn’t he like it? It’s joyful.
Joe Patrice: It is, I agree, I don’t understand why he has no mirth. So this is the end of the show. You should be reading Above the Law, you should be following us, I’m @JosephPatrice. Actually and she is @Kathryn1.
Kathryn Rubino: And the K.
Joe Patrice: Well right and a K, good point. Yeah, there is lot of variations of Katheryn I suppose.
Kathryn Rubino: There are quite a few.
Joe Patrice: But you’re number one at least according your Twitter handle.
Kathryn Rubino: I am number one of all the Kathryns on Twitter, I am the one.
Joe Patrice: At least, at least on Twitter. So yeah follow that. You should be subscribed the show as I said earlier, giving it reviews, that helps out our rankings and gets more people listening to it. You should be listening to the other LTN offerings, also you should listen to Kathryn’s show The Jabot, which is another podcast out there. You should yeah read Above the Law, that’s pretty much everything. What do you think?
Kathryn Rubino: Have a good day.
Joe Patrice: All right, bye.
Kathryn Rubino: Bye.
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.
Joe Patrice: Yeah you had no groceries that was the reason you couldn’t cook in your apartment.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, okay first of all, the real story is that I couldn’t figure out how to get buy toilet paper because the only Duane Reade by me because it was downtown, they didn’t always used to be 24 hours would close at 7 and I couldn’t buy toilet paper. So I’m end up stealing it from the toilet, from the bathrooms at the firm because I was like if I have to be here and can’t find myself toilet paper, I’m taking the goddamn toilet paper from the firm is what actually happened but I thought that was like improper.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, fair enough.
Above the Law's Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.
Plaintiff-side work provides rewarding opportunities that career services often overlook.
Reviewing the fate of Kirkland's non-equity partners confirms their middle ground is no paradise.
Biglaw firms seem like they have a license to print money... until they don't.
A recap of Above the Law’s last 12 months.
So that just happened.
Biglaw firms are handing out bonuses... but some are reacting with bah humbug.