With the 2010s wrapping up, Joe and Kathryn focus on all the law firms we’ve lost over the last decade. Industry pressures, bad strategies, and fraud allegations managed to put several former mainstays to rest over the last 10 years. What lessons can we take from the demise of these once-proud firms? Where is this whole profession heading? Will this next recession finish off what 2009 started?
Special thanks to our sponsor, Logikcull.
Above the Law – Thinking Like a Lawyer
In Memoriam… To All The Law Firms We Lost Last Decade
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’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law, with me is Kathryn Rubino, my colleague here at Above the Law. How are you?
Kathryn Rubino: I’m well. How about yourself? Happy New Year.
Joe Patrice: Yeah — no.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s the first podcast of 2020.
Joe Patrice: That’s true, it is our first 2020 cast, we capped off 2019 which we pretended was the end of the decade even though technically.
Kathryn Rubino: Don’t be that guy, don’t be that Year Zero guy.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, but we capped it off with a quick recap of the year’s top stories. We also have if you read Above the Law, you also saw that we put up an attempt at the decade’s top stories even though our traffic numbers kind of didn’t bear that out.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean separate and apart from what was the most popular, let me ask you, what was your favorite ATL story of the decade?
Joe Patrice: It’s a fascinating question that I didn’t really think of.
Kathryn Rubino: Sorry, I didn’t mean to spring it on you just kind of conversation being what it is.
Joe Patrice: Yeah — no, I mean right, it’s the problems with a non-scripted discussion. I feel as though huh —
Kathryn Rubino: It doesn’t happen to necessarily be something you wrote.
Joe Patrice: Oh no, I mean, if it’s good then I would assume it wasn’t. No, I don’t really remember I enjoyed — I enjoyed like I don’t know, what do you think?
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I don’t know about the decade I suppose, it’s a long — been a long ten years.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Especially I think in the legal industry a lot of things have radically changed since 2010.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that was when we were — 2010 we were just coming to grips with recession because the recession is a little bit — the legal industries as we said on previous podcasts, a little bit of a lagging industry so you’re dealing with — we were just processing kind of everything.
Kathryn Rubino: Right, layoffs are still happening people are out of work, thousands of lawyers were, obviously all those stories I think did were very important ones that really exposed what was really going on in big law, so that people who were on the receiving end of pink slips didn’t feel alone, that was somehow their fault or a problem with them.
But I also think and probably recency bias, but I think that the way MeToo has implicated the legal profession has been pretty profound. I mean think about who Judge Kozinski was in terms of Above the Law in 2010 versus 2020? I think that that is a radical difference, he was respected and particularly on the pages of Above the Law obviously predating our tenure at the blog a very revered figure and now whenever I write about him, the headline is “Disgraced Former Judge”.
Joe Patrice: Right, yeah – no, I mean there have been several stories that we’ve done that have had some social significance and those aren’t always the ones that receive the most traffic but we get our warm fuzzy feeling when we go to events. I think Elie went to an event fairly recently where he was listening to a panel discussing sexual harassment and MeToo discussion — MeToo issues and the head of the panel, the moderator, that’s the word for it.
Kathryn Rubino: Actually you have a title.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah, the moderator made some point about within the law school setting we often don’t see these problems in the only outlet that allows us to know the stuffs going on is usually Above the Law because they’re the only ones who are a place that people feel comfortable telling their stories to and we can’t tell all the stories because obviously they’re — we’re a small group. We aren’t able to investigate independently a bunch of stuff.
But if there are complaints out there we can bring some attention to the discussions going on and that’s something that’s valuable, and yeah, maybe not our best traffic but probably the most important thing that we have got.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean they don’t get bad traffic. I think people are very interested to see how those issues are playing out in the legal sphere as well.
Joe Patrice: So with all that said, before we get into our main topic of the day I want to thank our sponsors and point out that today’s episode is brought to you by your hamster who’s mad and thinking of moving out on you because you’re still at the office slogging through an endless doc review project. Make better decisions, keep your pet and work smarter with Logikcull, eDiscovery software that gets you started in minutes. Stop spinning your wheels, create your free account today at logikcull.com/atl.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s pretty good, it’s pretty good, it’s pretty good.
Joe Patrice: And you can vouch that in real-time, it took me maybe 10 seconds to come up with something once I got the was sort of an improv I said –
Kathryn Rubino: “Give me an animal.”
Joe Patrice: “Give me an animal” and hamster came up, and yeah, so I’m — in the previous podcast you weren’t on, there was a discussion of, do I have some sort of pun book for animals? And I was like, no, I think it’s better that it’s organic and we come up with this on the fly.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh you did it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah – no. So with — and now we reset the clock for me to come up with the next one. So what are we talking about today?
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean, it’s the early days of 2020, I thought we could do a little bit of a retrospective and pour a little out for all the big law firms we lost this decade.
Joe Patrice: Nice.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean obviously law firm dissolutions were not created in the tens, right, there were obviously quite — there are a few big-ticket law firms that collapsed before 2010.
Joe Patrice: Do we know any?
Kathryn Rubino: They collapsed in 2012 so that does not count, Coudert Brothers fell in, Heller Ehrman, there are some big firms that collapsed in before we actually started 2010. But in a lot of ways 2010 was characterized by big law firms collapsing, most notably, do we know who we’re talking about?
Joe Patrice: Yeah — no, so for those of you who are maybe new to the Above the Law universe, the dumbest repetitive joke that this publication has ever stuck to, and one of those jokes that I think we didn’t come up with it, it was incredibly dumb but it became something so dumb that when it was repeated enough it came up back around to being kind of funny.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean, if there’s a joke that you can —
Joe Patrice: Grind into the ground enough, yeah — so Dewey & LeBoeuf went out of business and the decision ATL editorial was to begin all stories regarding this collapse with the question using the word “Dewey” as though it’s a question so you’d say like, Dewey know how this firm is going to survive bankruptcy or whatever?
And so, it’s certainly not as good a pun as that hamster joke, that hamster gold that I just gave you, but it’s something that we did and at this point I have a bit of warm reverence for it because we’ve done it for so long.
Kathryn Rubino: And Dewey was once a quite prominent law firm, it was actually created by a merger of Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf, Lamb.
Joe Patrice: Well, right, I would go even further back. The Dewey firm was actually kind of the progeny of Root, Clark which is one of the more famous old-school firms and its name became Dewey because Thomas Dewey who did not in fact defeat Truman came on as a partner and demanded they name the firm after him which caused some hurt feelings among those folks.
Kathryn Rubino: I can imagine.
Joe Patrice: Which is why several of them fled to the progeny firms and that’s how some of those folks ended up being Cleary Gottlieb personnel because a lot of the Cleary people had come out of Root, Clark. It’s a fascinating law firm history discussion but we will —
Kathryn Rubino: Table that for another.
Joe Patrice: We’ll table that, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, so that was a once giant firm that went bankrupt in 2012 and I think that was a really big moment I think for the legal industry when all that kind of happened, you were actively practicing —
Joe Patrice: Sure was.
Kathryn Rubino: — then and it was absolutely a topic of thought of gossip and speculation for a lot of years.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, you’re talking about one of the mainstays, a place that people I knew worked there and at both sides of that merger. When that merger happened it didn’t seem like a logical fit, it seemed something was off.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure. It’s a turned out, it wasn’t.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it felt like something was off the whole time and spoilers for those who haven’t caught up something was off the whole time. The case — I say case I’m jumping ahead of myself, the fallout of this firm’s demise resulted in criminal prosecutions which — of the folks running Dewey who they were alleging had kind of cooked the books.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, the Chair, Steven Davis; Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine; Chief Financial Officer, Joel Sanders, and Client Relations Manager Zachary Warren were all charged in connection with the collapse although only Sanders was convicted on felony charges but he’s appealing the conviction. So I don’t really have a resolution there.
Joe Patrice: True.
Kathryn Rubino: But that was definitely a big one that happened, but it was not the only law firm that collapsed this decade.
Joe Patrice: Oh.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Do you remember Howrey?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No obviously I do, I just feel like I’m trying to make this banter make more sense if I don’t know who these people are.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure, I mean there were over 700 lawyers, and 18 offices worldwide, not just nationwide, and actually had recently a couple years before acquired a couple of boutiques and it was an total expansion mode, but it missed its budget projections for 2009 and then set off a wave of departures.
Joe Patrice: So this is a good point to raise and maybe I’ll hold off on this point till a couple more of these get discussed but I think I’m already seeing a theme that we will discuss down the road about the wisdom of expansion modes but —
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, well, it’s good to come up, yeah.
Joe Patrice: That’s why I think. Well, let’s wait till we’re done with this trend here.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean, I think it’s pretty much all of them.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, fair enough.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, there’s also Bingham McCutchen.
Joe Patrice: Well, Bingham is slightly different because they — well.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay, so what you have to say?
Joe Patrice: So one thing that I’d say about the expansion, it will come up again, but a lesson to be learned is that growth and expansion is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact we see — I think it’s fair to say that if you are not one of the elite firms right now, there’s a good chance that you’re going to be squeezed out if you don’t find some way to write a synergistic merger with somebody else to move yourself revenue-wise into the big leagues.
The problem with that is, there’s kind of a pan — and certainly this was true before the recession. There was some sort of panacea view of these mergers that if we just merge everything’s going to turn out fine and there was not enough time and attention paid to how you deal with the redundancies that get created, how you settle with conflicts that start to come up? How you bring two different cultures who may have different views of how important it is to maintain this client versus that client, get settled and these sorts of divisions can fail to materialize in a successful firm. This isn’t always true. Obviously there are several firms who have undergone successful mergers and are now — I mean.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I would say another big —
Joe Patrice: DLA Piper seems to be doing well.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure, sure.
Joe Patrice: These are — there are places that do well with these mergers but I mean it takes smarts.
Kathryn Rubino: And one of the things that I think is — what was behind the Bingham McCutchen collapse was they had — obviously the merger between Bingham and McCutchen, but also then in 2009 it merged with McKee Nelson and I think that part of the strife was also the compensation models that were involved here and I think we also played a role in the Dewey collapse as well. Is that certain big to get rainmaking partners were promised these guaranteed numbers and guaranteed compensation and whether and how the firm was able to pay them and who they were not going to pay in order to pay these guaranteed monies all caused a tremendous rift within the firm. And my favorite little factoid about Bingham is that 750 lawyers all left the same day.
Joe Patrice: Well, so and that’s the next trend that I was going to raise which what makes Bingham somewhat of different story, as far as you’re trying to identify themes of the last decade, is mergers have issues. We just kind of outline the issues that they might have, what the Bingham discussion introduced was the non-merger, merger. It was a situation where Morgan Lewis looked at the cow and said maybe I can get the milk for free and instead of taking on Bingham they just — they just on a massive scale carried over laterally most of Bingham and so these partners and associates moved over laterally and that left the husk of Bingham and its liabilities and problems outside of what anything that Morgan Lewis had to take on.
And that’s something that I think — it is not like taken over as the preferred way of doing things but that’s a way in which I think a lot of firms are going to consider when they look at firms to raid in the future is maybe instead of merging I can just steal some folks, and I think we’ve seen maybe not on the scale of what happened with Bingham, but we’ve seen since then —
Kathryn Rubino: I mean that’s bigger than a lot of firms.
Joe Patrice: Right, we’ve seen since then though firms that have gone into decline where multiple firms are pulling laterals out, but you can point to one that’s pulling 35-40% people out.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, do you remember the tale of Dickstein Shapiro?
Joe Patrice: Obviously, but go on.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, they had some trouble following the 2008 recession as lots of firms did, but they held on for a while and the interesting thing about Dickstein is also a lobbying arm. They do more than just or did more than just legal work. They also did lobbying and in 2003 they hired former Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert.
Joe Patrice: Has something happened with that guy, didn’t it?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. You want to talk a little bit about the political scandal?
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean he was indicted.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s the short story on bribery charges.
Joe Patrice: Right. And that bribery is the Statute of Limitations level. The Statute of Limitations issue of covering up the bad stuff.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so the bribery, I’m intentionally kind of bumbling about this because it is uncomfortable, but while he was a wrestling coach, which was his qualifications to be the Speaker of the House — while he was a wrestling coach there are some folks who said that he sexually molested them, and he was paying those people and what he got indicted on was bribery for paying these people, not to bring their claims which were barred but the bribery isn’t, was the argument.
Kathryn Rubino: So, he resigned. He was the Head of their lobbying wing and he resigned in 2015 when those charges became public, and then the firm was already kind of in straits and started searching for merger partners. And as you noted earlier it becomes a bit of a theme, Blank Rome was able to get the milk for free or in the form of more than 100 lawyers and staff.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so you’ve got these ordered kind of perfectly actually for a theme. We did not discuss the order, but yeah, you’re —
Kathryn Rubino: Roughly, roughly time-based, but you know. And then comes to some of the more recent, well, those were all if not directly related time-wise, a lot of those had their footings in the recession, the 2010 Plus kind of era caused a lot of problems, caused people to expand and they maybe weren’t ready for it.
But then we have a couple more modern, more recent ones, Sedgwick, I believe it was actually in the beginning of 2018 that they announced that they were going to close their doors, but for all — pretty much most of 2017 a big story for me in Above the Law was sort of paying attention to all the ticks of partners that were leaving the firm in taking associates in cases and clients with them during that whole time, and actually one of the interesting things about Sedgwick is I actually went to a Panel discussion several months after they announced that they were closed from their former Communications Chief, and she talked about what happened when the firm collapsed? And I thought that was really interesting, and one of the things she pointed to was taking too much time to have a good message to the people who were still at the firm.
When big rainmakers start to leave and lots of partners start sending in their departure memos, really one thing that a firm has to do is to know what their message to the people who are still at the firm are and people want to feel secure, want to feel that they are going to have a job if they are one of the ones who stick around. They don’t want to be like the sucker holding the bag and internally at Sedgwick it felt like there wasn’t a very clear message. It took too long to come up with a good message. I know, well, and that just led to more-and-more people feeling that their jobs weren’t secure and trying to find their own exit route. So that’s kind of what happened there.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, the — it’s reminiscent of previous decade demise but when Brobeck went down there was the — like the court cases that spun out of the demise of that firm. There was a discussion about the early adopted like the court cases even used the language, like the early adopters of the late adopters and what partners — the partners who left when they saw problems before anything else got different payouts than the people who waited till the bitter end and just refused to see the problems.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and I think that those lessons are being learned by the profession at large and that was one of the problems for Sedgwick is that no one wanted to be left without an escape route.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: And so that’s not a firm anymore.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and that’s the thing, like everybody is a little bit more skittish which — there’s pros and cons to that. Obviously if you’re an early adopter you shouldn’t be stuck with the mistakes of others sincerely.
On the other hand it creates a situation where there’s almost like a bank level panic, one of those 1800s bank panics where if you start seeing rainmakers leave the rest of the firm even if the firm is still potentially solvent without them the rest of the firm might start saying I don’t want to be caught as the late adopter and a run happens on that firm, which is unfortunate.
Kathryn Rubino: Absolutely, and that’s what kind of the message hearing from those who were internal to say at the time, that was very much my takeaway was that, there was a run and no one wants to be left and the firm management wasn’t quick enough to settle those fears and to prevent that run from happening and really that’s what did that firm in, at least from their internal perspective.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: And then in 2019, we saw the end of LeClairRyan.
Joe Patrice: Yes.
Kathryn Rubino: That was another firm that had done a ton of rapid expansion and some folks have complained that there was not a lot of support for some of this expansion and then at one point, they were 25 offices across 13 states in DC, there were a lot of people and a lot of folks and they tried really hard to keep the firm together for a long time, they started what they branded as law firm 2.0 when they had a massive deal with an alternative legal service provider, UnitedLex, in which it was a joint venture where the firm’s professional staff were changed, switched over to being ULX employees and leased back to the firm, but it wasn’t enough really to save the firm.
And it was actually in August — August-September of 2019 that it eventually collapsed, dissolution was voted upon.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I know.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: I can’t really say much about. I will clarify, I can’t say much about this particular one because I was tangentially as a consultant somewhat involved in helping a few of the partners who left and so I can’t say a lot of what I heard about that while I was working on that.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay, well, I mean, I covered this story extensively.
Joe Patrice: But you covered it, so what you said is not incorrect.
Kathryn Rubino: But it’s again another one where you see there’s a changing direction of the firm, there’s not great communication amongst all the offices and all the people and it led to a slow, I mean, it was another one where it wasn’t just like one day there’s a story, they’re gone.
It was several months’ worth of stories of these number of — 15 partners have left, 10, partners here partners there, a slow and steady drip of partners. Well, there’s a lot of stories at Above the Law. We don’t generally cover when the average partner laterals to another big law firm.
That is it’s — unless it’s truly remarkable for some reason, that’s just not something that we kind of cover in the day-to-day.
Joe Patrice: I mean it happens —
Kathryn Rubino: Occasionally.
Joe Patrice: No, I’m saying that it happens with a great deal of frequency when the partners move and unless there are huge rainmakers, it’s not necessarily of national interest. So that’s why we don’t do it every day whereas some publications have reporters who are able to do that.
Kathryn Rubino: Right, and that’s great and I love that there’s a great resource for Above the Law as well, but both with Sedgwick and LeClairRyan, those are kind of my stories and what you noticed was not — there was not one story that happened. You started looking and kind of paying attention and saying wait a second, if you add up all the partners that are gone you’re talking about 25, you’re talking about 50.
And I think that when you start seeing it’s kind of the aggregate in those instances, it wasn’t where 100 lawyers left in one day to one firm kind of thing, but it was kind of over time that you sort of saw it happening and with both of those, they were a series of articles that happened over the course of sometime before they were eventually announced.
Joe Patrice: And now, I mean, I’ll say that that’s how I got involved to the extent I did as a consultant was at the point where there were certain trends developing that’s when I started working with a group of partners and associates like an internal practice group who said that they felt that it was in the best interest to their clients to move and so that’s when I started working with them on a profile that would be a better fit and as far as I can report that worked out well, so.
Kathryn Rubino: Fantastic. Yeah, but I think that that’s another one of those cases where the bigger trends and we talk a lot at Above the Law that oftentimes big law firms are run like fiefdoms that there are kind of little groups of partners or practice areas that have their own kind of rules of the road and their own interests at heart as opposed to the overall firm particularly when you’re talking about a place that’s 25 offices, 50 offices whatever where it’s kind of hard to manage all of those different interests and have a singular culture or a singular goal, set of goals as opposed to caring about my clients or my people that work for me my associates or whatever.
And I think that’s what you see if you don’t have a really good strategy and you aren’t able to communicate that strategy to all of the stakeholders; however, many partners you may have, this is what’s going to happen. That’s one of those, you see a small trickle and it’s a floodgate that opens up.
Joe Patrice: No, it’s very true and it’s been an interesting position.
Kathryn Rubino: Definition.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and it’s been an interesting position for me to have folks because of what we do reach out to me and ask for advice and it’s been a situation has allowed me — had me have to firewall myself off of certain things and not talk to you about them but it’s been good to help people, so I’ll throw that out there. I just wanted to clarify why I don’t have things to say about this story.
Kathryn Rubino: That was fine.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough.
Kathryn Rubino: So those are the really big law firm dissolutions of the 2010s. I guess not quite a dissolution but I know a story you worked on not quite big law –
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: — but Cellino & Barnes.
Joe Patrice: Yes, well, for everybody who appreciates great jingles knows Cellino & Barnes, the New York firm that has one of the best and catchiest jingles of all time with a phone number to match.
Kathryn Rubino: 800-888-8888.
Joe Patrice: Yes, with that firm the partners are in a dispute and it looks like that firm may not survive in its current form. I think they’re still trying to hash out what partners are going to get what and what happens when one of the named partners departs, whether or not it keeps going, who gets the phone number, those sorts of questions.
The reporting on this is that the partners started having a lot of disputes over how the firm was being run. There was a fight over whether or not one of the daughters —
Kathryn Rubino: I would say it wasn’t a lot more personal like —
Joe Patrice: I think there was — it was a business issue at first and I think it manifested one of the daughters of the named partner, wanted to work there and that was blocked by the other named partner because like, gee, I mean, nepotism is not great but I mean come on.
Kathryn Rubino: Come on.
Joe Patrice: So that added fuel to it and that’s still ongoing as a fight. And we still see their smiling faces on billboards are acting like they still are friends, so who knows.
So yeah, so that is the Year in Review, I guess or the Decade in Review.
Kathryn Rubino: Here’s a kind of a prospective question. You will have 20/20 vision, you get it, you get it, that is good as pun is —
Joe Patrice: Yeah, you may not want to get into this business, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s fair. Do you think that we’re going to see more law firm closures?
Joe Patrice: Oh yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, because I feel like right now the trends that are between the haves and have-nots have not dissipated and the Am Law 150-250 basically are in a place where mergers are kind of critical to their ability to keep going and keep competing with the big firms because of that gap and I feel as though we’re going to see more people make risky decisions.
We’re also going to see a lot of people make smart decisions and become the next crop of elite, but there will be struggles and there will be closures and I think it’s not unheard of to believe that a recession is looming.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean that is — kind of the big question is when — and probably not if but when the next recession hits and what industries are affected first, will also probably impact which firms are impacted first.
Joe Patrice: Right, and as we discussed on a recent podcast, the immediate aftermath of a recession will be positive for law firms. They will be able to generate business off of it, but that’s why it’s a lagging indicator, that will eventually dry up as that works through the regular market and then the law firms start feeling the hit, and that’s what you should be — look forward to, and this is exciting time where we now have recessions every ten years.
So a thing that we didn’t have for like half a century, but now we’re back to the late 1800s model of every ten years having a severe economic collapse.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, it is the 20s that can’t feel good, if you’re worried about a coming recession being back in the 20s, you can’t feel great.
Joe Patrice: I mean, yeah, well although.
Kathryn Rubino: Maybe we’ll get to 29 and then we’ll consider ourselves lucky but —
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I think we won’t. So with all that —
Kathryn Rubino: On that optimistic note.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, on that optimistic note —
Kathryn Rubino: Get ready for the New Year.
Joe Patrice: Wooh. So with all that said thank you to all of you for listening. You should be subscribed to the podcast, you should be giving it reviews, stars, write up something about it, it helps us move up that algorithm of your podcast providers so that when people search for law podcasts we show up. Yay.
You should be following us on Twitter, I’m @JosephPatrice, she’s @Kathryn1. You should be reading Above the Law, obviously, you should be giving some love to our sponsors from Logikcull, you should listen to The Jabot, which is Kathryn’s individual podcast which talks about diversity issues in law.
You should be listening to the offerings of the Legal Talk Network generally, they have many different podcasts with a lot of different coverage areas. So check that out.
And with all that said, I think we’re done. I will be back next week, I guess, maybe with you?
Kathryn Rubino: Probably.
Joe Patrice: We don’t know. So that’s that for this week. We’ll talk to you later.
Outro: If you would like more information about what you heard today, please visit legaltalknetwork.com. You can also find us at abovethelaw.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.