COVID-19 Resources for Lawyers
Your Hosts
Joe Patrice

Joe Patrice is an Editor at Above the Law. For over a decade, he practiced as a litigator at...

Kathryn Rubino

Kathryn Rubino is a member of the editorial staff at Above the Law. She has a degree in journalism...

Episode Notes

Examinees across the pond give us a preview of the October exam process by urinating in bottles as proctors refuse to allow bathroom breaks. In case you were wondering if the bar exam fiasco could get any worse, there’s your answer. Meanwhile Kirkland & Ellis faces a new discrimination suit, and we chat about the Supreme Court and the election a little bit.

Special thanks to our sponsor, Paper Software.


Thinking Like a Lawyer – Above the Law

Becoming A Bar Exam Whiz… Literally





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.  I’m Joe Patrice from Above The Law. I am joined as I usually am by my co-editor Kathryn Rubino. How are you?


Kathryn Rubino: I’m doing pretty good. How about yourself?


Joe Patrice: Excellent! Well, we have had a jam-packed week of news that we were prepared to go over and then we had a jam-packed day of news that is happening to us right now. So, if we sound a little frazzled, it’s because you’ve caught us recording as we’ve been pulled away from trying to figure out exactly what’s going on in the world right now. By the time you hear this obviously, this will be old news but we’ve gotten the other shoe falling in the Supreme Court case from a month ago about Trump’s subpoena by Cyrus Vance, that New York District attorney subpoena for his financial records, which was kicked back down to the District Court and the District Court has now turned in their 103-page opinion that sums up, “No, no. We’re right. You have to turn all that over.”


Kathryn Rubino: So I didn’t realize how long the opinion was. I feel like that’s weirdly noteworthy.


Joe Patrice: It is weirdly noteworthy. Judge Marrero is arguable — so you could take different stances on this. I know Mark Joseph Stern from Slate took the stance that it was very scholarly and academic the way he did it and thoughtful and I kind of took the stance that it was almost unduly indulgent of the arguments. That said I mean —


Kathryn Rubino: Judges are allowed to be indulgent from time to time.


Joe Patrice: Obviously, this is a case involving the President of the United States, so that is an issue and it’s a case that is going to be highly scrutinized, I get that and obviously I’d rather have a judge do that than to ignore arguments that are being made, which is certainly something we’ve been seeing and writing about regarding the California Bar Exam, for instance.


That said, the claim — well, this can’t be a valid request because it requests the same things that Congress requested and if Congress requested them for impeachment purposes, then it can’t be the same thing as a criminal hearing in New York and the judge making the claim, “No, your tax records could prove multiple things,” was pages of citations and analysis.


Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean, part of me wants to just sort of stand up and clap because just because somebody advances a silly argument doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be dealt with in full, right? I would say obviously that it does, a tax record reflects many different things and can be used for lots of different things in a bunch of different proceedings. There’s lots of information there. I think that’s a pretty obvious point but if you’re going to make it, the judge is pretty clear that he’s going to have an answer.


Joe Patrice: Yeah. Very interesting opinion, obviously, this sets us up for the second circuit to be asked what’s going on from which they will awake from a slumber and go, “Didn’t we already do this?”




Kathryn Rubino: It’s like groundhog’s day up there.


Joe Patrice: And a potential return to the Supreme Court though, it seems as though that would be a fruitless endeavor given that it was a 7-2 opinion the first time, which while they didn’t rule explicitly on this application of the various allegations to these standards, it’s hard to considering they could have summarily accepted Marrero’s original decision, the fact that they sent it back down suggests that they were tacitly admitting that they already agree with all this. At best, I think all that he can hope for is that they set it for a perfunctory hearing after the election. But even that may not be.


Kathryn Rubino: But we are getting pretty close to a point timing-wise where this information may not be released before the elections.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Kathryn Rubino: Seems pretty unlikely.


Joe Patrice: And obviously and one of the arguments made in the opinion is this is not going to be released per se. Grand jury testimony is stuff that you can’t get your hands on. It’s a crime to release it. So, this is information that will stay with the grand jury and we will never know what’s in any of this unless of course the grand jury defines that there was some sort of criminal activity involved.


Kathryn Rubino: That seems like a pretty —


Joe Patrice: So we will inevitably see what’s in all of this. So, that’s going on.


Kathryn Rubino: There’ve been some other criminal stuff going on.


Joe Patrice: Meanwhile, Steve Bannon, we should have a breaking news thing although it won’t be breaking by then. Today, Steve Bannon was arrested today, arrested by the postal service, a much maligned service lately as they’ve been under attack.




Kathryn Rubino: Also lauded, depends on —


Joe Patrice: I guess a lauded attempt —


Kathryn Rubino: — which side you’re on.


Joe Patrice: I wasn’t really saying maligned as in blamed but you’re right, that is what that sounds like. I meant maligned as in they’ve been kicked around. A service that’s had some issues lately. They managed to arrest Steve Bannon because and this is — well, we’ll get into this in a second.


Kathryn Rubino: So, okay. Let’s get into the — we started with the post office. Let’s finish out the post office stuff. Why is the post office arresting folks?


Joe Patrice: Fair enough. The post office has inspectors. They have an internal law enforcement wing. This is a fraud case that deals with mail fraud, which is a sort of thing that could happen. But the reason that they’re doing it is actually one of the under-appreciated elements of this that I think is very important, like why do you think the post office is doing this?


Kathryn Rubino: Some good PR? I mean.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, well, no.


Kathryn Rubino: Certainly what it feels like.


Joe Patrice: It certainly appears as though the reason why the attorney general was trying to fire the US attorney of the Southern District of New York was probably to kill this particular investigation and it survived largely because the move was made to turn over the office to his deputy and so that continued, as Audrey Strauss took over, I believe. At which point, what we also — but then we didn’t know what the investigation was and now, this little wrinkle of it being the post office is interesting because you would normally do this through the local FBI office. However, we learned from the impeachment hearings as well as some of the fallout from the Comey firing that the Southern District of New York FBI office is the office that was dubbed in internal emails Trumpland and the office that was considered responsible for the kind of backdoor investigation of Hillary the week before the election that ultimately resulted in Comey getting fired and so, it’s viewed as a Trump-friendly leak fest and so it appears based on these charges that what happened here is that the US attorney’s office independently pursued this investigation by cutting the FBI out of the discussion and using the post office to do all the work.


Kathryn Rubino: This is deeply disturbing for the state of our government.


Joe Patrice: It is. If the FBI can’t follow orders from the Department of Justice, that is a problem.


Kathryn Rubino: Yeah and as you said, this this is not something that kind of started with the inauguration of Donald Trump. This was something that was happening during the lead up to his election as well.


Joe Patrice: Exactly. The office has theoretically, at least according to what we’ve seen, this office appears to be highly politicized and it was politicized in the last administration and remains the same way now, which is bad.


Kathryn Rubino: I think that people looking towards the 2020 election, a lot of folks are hopeful that if we have a change of administration, that a lot of the problems that we’re seeing in government will magically be changed and I think that what we’re showing here is that it’s a lot deeper.


Joe Patrice: Yes. So what you’re saying is there’s such a thing as a deep state? Uh-oh.


Kathryn Rubino: Uh-oh.


Joe Patrice: Shout out to all our QAnon listeners. No, putting that aside though, it’s very interesting that this happened. These charges relate to a fundraising effort about building the wall that Steve Bannon was running on and gathering millions of dollars from largely poor Trump people by saying that all this money going to him was going to help the effort to get a wall, but it’s not clear that it did do much other than line pockets is apparently the allegations. Obviously, people are innocent until proven guilty but he is now from what we’ve heard being looked at for money laundering and a possible 20-year sentence. It’s important to know that the group that he fronted that is facing this could spawn some other interesting indictments. The general counsel of the group was Kris Kobach, the noted Kansas voter suppression guy, the board of directors included Sheriff Clarke who rose to fame there. It also included Curt Schilling because of course it did. So, this could be a real —


Kathryn Rubino: So, this is very much a developing story, yeah.


Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, we don’t know exactly where this is all going to land but we probably do by Tuesday, which will make this seem really weird. But yeah, so that’s the busy day that we’ve been working on and we were a little worried about being done in time to record this at our scheduled time but we made it.


The other things that we’re worried about are: You worried about a contract deadline? Contract Tools by Paper Software is the most powerful, versatile, and fully featured Microsoft Word add-in for contracts. For less than a dollar a day, Contract Tools can help you navigate complex legalese, fix common contract drafting problems, and much more. See for yourself with a seven-day free trial. Go to and get started today.




Kathryn Rubino: I love it when I’m not even sure that you’re about to like launch into our sponsors. I didn’t see it coming and I was taken by surprise. Good one!


Joe Patrice: I mean, so, for anyone who’s listened to this show long enough, you remember when Elie Mystal was the co-host and he felt the same way. He was very excited.


Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, you’re very natural about this.


Joe Patrice: He’s excited about how I would try to hide the —




Joe Patrice: So speaking of lawsuits and problems that people are facing, Kirkland & Ellis, a fairly important law firm in this world.


Kathryn Rubino: Very large, lots of money.


Joe Patrice: They make a lot of money. They also have a lawsuit.


Kathryn Rubino: There’s lots of discrimination lawsuits that come up against big law firms and I guess that any large employer is going to see its fair number of employment litigation. In this particular case, it’s an age and disability discrimination lawsuit that a former paralegal has filed against the firm and a paralegal who worked at the firm for some 30 years. In statements that are not in the complaint but statements made to the media around the filing, they were very concerned — they were suing the law firm, “That place I had worked for 30 years is not a decision that I made very easily. It was a hard decision to come to.” But they alleged that they had left the firm on medical leave following some brain surgery, which doesn’t sound fun. And when they returned, they had to reapply for their job and take an online proficiency exam and several people were let go and they alleged that all of them are over 55 and that at the same time they were being let go, the firm was also advertising on its website new positions that read identical to the position they had previously held.


So, K&E has not made any real public statement about it yet. It’s still very early. They haven’t filed an answer. So, we shall see what happens. But those are the allegations as they stand right now.


Joe Patrice: That’s a new one and one that reads as pretty low. But we’ll see.


Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean it was like she had just gotten back from brain surgery and was kind of launched into this employment thing that even if everything was done by the books and whatnot, it does strike you as poor timing at a minimum.


Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, I will say to transition, if we may, the phrase — you have relatives who are English.


Kathryn Rubino: I do. My brother-in-law.


Joe Patrice: Yeah and so in England, certain terms that we use here have different meanings.


Kathryn Rubino: Sure, that is true. Sure, jumper is a sweater.


Joe Patrice: Sure, yeah. An elevator is a lift.


Kathryn Rubino: I’m fascinated to know where this is going.


Joe Patrice: Well, like normally, if you’re making fun of somebody or having some fun at their expense, —


Kathryn Rubino: Having a laugh.


Joe Patrice: There’s having a laugh, but I was saying like taking a piss on people. There’s also getting drunk is getting pissed. Sometimes though, these things have the same meaning, which would be in the UK, they took an ethics exam for lawyers, which is similar to our MPRE like we are in this country though apparently slightly more successfully than we are, they had an online administration of the exam with remote proctors. Then, these remote proctors would not let people get up from their desks or even look away from the computer camera.




Kathryn Rubino: Which is unfortunate if you had to use the restroom during that time.


Joe Patrice: And people did as it turns out. They did need to use the restroom. They were told that they would be failed if they were to do so and many of them, we have learned from social media, including pictures, took the option of dumping the water out of their water bottles while not looking at it because they couldn’t look. They had to just stare at the screen.


Kathryn Rubino: Maintain eye contact with your screen.


Joe Patrice: Right. They dumped water bottles and used those.


Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I think one person said they used a bucket, which I was like where did you get a bucket mid-exam?


Joe Patrice: Well that’s fair. I think that —


Kathryn Rubino: There’s definitely a water bottle I think on Twitter as well.


Joe Patrice: Is it possible that that’s another one of these English-isms we don’t know and the bucket means like waste paper basket or something?


Kathryn Rubino: Could be. Yeah, maybe perhaps, which that does make a fair amount of sense. But it definitely takes the whole concern about big brother always having their eye on you to another level. I mean people are peeing on camera. I mean I guess the camera’s not catching that part but it’s deeply disturbing.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I don’t know what else to say about it. That sounds real shitty. And here’s the thing, right? If it was an in-person exam, people would obviously be allowed to go to the restroom, right?


Joe Patrice: And they were. There was a corresponding in-person exam going on in that —


Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I guess it also seems like for folks who might be immunocompromised and have to take sit online because we’re not up to full pre-COVID restrictions these days that that’s really putting an added burden on folks that already have perhaps some medical issues or protections that is really problematic.




Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean it also speaks to this story didn’t really focus on this but in America, we dealt with bar exams that were particular blind spots to feminine hygiene stuff like this obviously would be compounded in these sorts of situations.


Kathryn Rubino: Oh gosh, I didn’t even think about that, right? If you needed to change your tampon, that would be significantly more difficult. That’s a rough one.


Joe Patrice: This is what happens when you reach a point where your dogged devotion to the rule, “We’ve got to take a test,” runs afoul of the fact that you can’t actually take tests in a reasonable manner under the conditions that we’re currently living in.


Kathryn Rubino: But I mean I understand that your point and you’ve been making a very compelling case for diploma privilege particularly during COVID-19, but they could also just let people go to the restroom.


Joe Patrice: Right. Well I mean —


Kathryn Rubino: It’s not like the proctored exam follows somebody into the stall and watches them at every given moment, right? Like that’s not true, I don’t know why maybe you want to set a time limit, you know you can’t spend 25 minutes in there, fine, okay.


Joe Patrice: But they can they can, at the physical exam, know that you went to the bathroom without a phone. They can know you went to the bathroom without notes that you don’t otherwise have. They can guarantee you didn’t do anything there and on a remote exam, once you step away from that camera, you could do anything theoretically. I don’t justify this but that’s the argument.


Kathryn Rubino: There’s a lot you can do with your eyes looking at the camera beyond the screen, right?


Joe Patrice: Sure. There’s other ways to cheat but that’s different than the argument you were making which is people can pee on-premises test and I was like, yes they can and that’s covered. It was more my point, but God, this is one of those moments where I really wish we had the sound effect board back because I think there’s a flushing sound effect that we could really roll with here.


Kathryn Rubino: That’ll have to be your second half of quarantine project, it’s fine.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, I’m going to get there. I’m going to get it back. So that’s what’s going on there. What else are we talking about?


Kathryn Rubino: The DNC.


Joe Patrice: The Democratic National Convention is concluding right now. There was — I did see that there were some legal tech conversations at it. I don’t know if you saw that.


Kathryn Rubino: I didn’t. What legal tech things are they talking about at the DNC?


Joe Patrice: Well, so Rocket Lawyers CEO actually spoke at the DNC as part of a panel, small business innovation panel.


Kathryn Rubino: Oh, that’s cool.


Joe Patrice: So, cool to see legal tech getting its attention.


Kathryn Rubino: Shout out, yeah.


Joe Patrice: This was actually an interesting week for legal tech and I’m not going to belabor this for too much. If you want to hear more about this, you should probably listen to the Bobby Ambrogi show that I am a panelist on because I think I’m going to talk about it a lot there but we did see this week a legal tech company do some pro bono work of their own, setting up their platform to help out police reform movement using contract analytic tools to figure out what’s in police union contracts across jurisdictions and stuff, very interesting work. But that aside, my legal tech shoutouts aside there, let’s get the DNC. They have a convention going on.


Kathryn Rubino: And they talked about a lot of big themes last night.


Joe Patrice: And by all accounts from the ratings, I see none of you are watching it. But what is happening is that they have these little videos where people are chatting and they’re talking about big ticket issues and this is to discuss our old friend Elie Mystal, the former host of the show. He feels as though they are not talking enough about the Supreme Court.


Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean they’re not really talking about the Supreme Court.


Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean it’s surprising he takes that stance given that his job is to write about the Supreme Court for a left-leaning publication. So, I feel like he might have a bit of self-interest in his complaint here.


Kathryn Rubino: Sure. The more you say, the easier it is for me to write the words.


Joe Patrice: So, we’re going to go ahead and say that’s what’s going on but yeah.


Kathryn Rubino: Sure, but I mean I think that it has been a long-standing problem with the left is not recognizing the import of federal courts and it’s something you’ve written about previously as well kind of how to make the courts an issue that gets people to the voting booth. It is on the right. The right wing is able to utilize the Supreme Court particularly in the area of abortion and female reproductive health in order to get people out and to vote regardless of their particular feelings for a candidate and that has been a much greater challenge on the left. And the speeches last night talk about climate control, talk about gun control, you talk about reproductive freedom but all of those things have sort of the Supreme Court looming over it. It’s currently 5-4 majority for conservatives and if Biden loses, there’s going to be an even greater swing on the Supreme Court and frankly, in federal courts leading up to the Supreme Court, Donald Trump has already nominated more folks to the federal judiciary than anyone else.




Joe Patrice: Part of the problem here is that the latter half of the 20th century resulted in a bit of obviously party realignment in ways that we often talk about. But in another way, it resulted in a party realignment in views of how the court operates. As a historical matter, the court has always been conservative. Whether that’s little c or big C Conservative, you can — it varies with time but it has always been little c conservative. Its job is to reign in governments.


Kathryn Rubino: Its job is not to create laws, right? It’s to interpret them.


Joe Patrice: And historically, that puts it in a big C Conservative world as elected leaders have attempted to address concerns with the country, the courts exist to prevent them from doing so. The latter half of the 20th century with the Warren Court and stuff like that resulted in this weird disconnect where liberals started liking courts and seeing them as a value which —


Kathryn Rubino: And I think that in most kind of liberal artsy sorts of education, you get the sense that the courts will save us from ourselves, right? When things get really bad, the court will say, “No, we can’t segregate schools.”


Joe Patrice: Right and the problem with this is that it resulted in a realignment that is that to the detriment of liberal organization because they started to believe in kind of a — the Supreme Court is an awkward institution. It was never the sort of thing that was meant to be people being there for life. It was life tenure, but nobody actually thought people would stick around for life.


Kathryn Rubino: People step down all the time.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Kathryn Rubino: They go and do other things.


Joe Patrice: I mean, we had justices who stepped down before ever hearing cases before in the original days and that’s what people thought this would be. So, what you have is a kind of an anathema to the rest of the constitutional order. You have a life-tenured aristocracy who gets a veto power over everything that people get to do. That is something that a more progressive party, be that the early 20th century Republican Party or the latter 20th century and early 21st century Democratic Party, that’s an institution that they should not really be applauding. It runs contrary to their goals and so they’re in an awkward place. It’s hard for them to say, “Elect us, so we can have the monarchy be our people.” That seems bad.


Kathryn Rubino: Sure, but if the monarchy is the other people, it’s way worse.


Joe Patrice: Well, right. But it speaks to how you can’t really organize around a Supreme Court. You can’t really get people to say, “Vote for us so that we can screw the system.” “Vote for us so that we can ensure that future generations don’t get what they vote for or honored.” And that’s really where we are and it’s a quirk of history, but part of the reason why liberals are always uncomfortable I think defending courts is that deep down, they would prefer a world in which problems that exist are addressed by organizing voting and a result coming.


Kathryn Rubino: But the kind of flip side to this and maybe it’s unsurprising as someone who is a lawyer and kind of got that indoctrination, that I think there does need to be a greater emphasis from the left about the import of courts, not just because absent this, there’ll be a problem but there really needs to be a recognition that if you don’t like it, if there’s a problem like you say the structure of the cord is a historical problem and we need to change, then make that part of the platform. There’s a lot of talk about what we should do to the Supreme Court. Should there be term limits? Should there be age limits? There’s lots of things out there that people are talking about, but the left is not and I think that just to ebb from a pragmatic point of view, I think that lawyers as liberal or conservative as you may be, often are a lot more pragmatic about because they deal with sort of the cases and controversies as they arise, so there’s a pragmatism built into the profession and there is a moment that is being missed by not publicizing that and not making that a talking point.


And here’s the other thing too, RBG, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is you’re already — your built-in liberal star. Now listen, I don’t think she’s perfect and I think there’s actually a lot of problematic things she’s done throughout the years, but here’s the thing, she’s great. There’s movies about her. There’s swag for her, everyone, every liberal has an RBG thing and that seems like a built-in opportunity to really capitalize on it the way that the right doesn’t. There’s no kind of superstar of the right-wing judiciary the way they’re built in is for RBG and you would really think that some PR-minded individual will be able to use that and capitalize upon that.




Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, there’s always been this kind of unseemly-ness to the idea of politics.


Kathryn Rubino: Governing is unseemly.


Joe Patrice: Well, no, the idea of the Supreme Court being drawn into politics has always struck people as largely unseemly. They are supposed to be a non-dangerous branch. They’re supposed to be sequestered from it, but it’s a myth and it needs to be —


Kathryn Rubino: And I think that —


Joe Patrice: So, years ago, I actually gave a — I was at an event and I made the point that I thought that Ted Cruz had said something about the importance of making some term limit push. As a conservative, he thought that we needed term limits on the Supreme Court. Now, his argument at the time was very much guided by the idea that the Republicans would not win in 2016 and so on, but this was a couple years before this, I think 2014 but he was seeing it in the distance and I made the point that this is where Democrats should move. They should run, not walk to forging an alliance with Ted Cruz and getting a term limit system in place, which there are constitutional questions, there are also arguments that have been advanced by folks like Larry Tribe that there are ways that where the Supreme Court would largely mimic circuit courts where people would be allowed to be Supreme Court justices forever but once they reach senior status, they would leave the active panel. They could be involved to cover recusals and stuff like that.


But that sort of a world is something that was being talked about and I said we should run, not walk toward that and at the time, given that everyone assumed that Democrats were going to win re-election and it was going to go on for at least four, maybe not another eight years, I was more or less laughed out of the room by — I was at a liberal conference by all these people saying, “No, what are you talking about? We’re going to own the courts forever!” And it’s like see, you shouldn’t try to own things.


Kathryn Rubino: Well, that I think it’s totally true and I think this also is very much a parallel — is kind of well maybe not parallel, but as much as you say that, advancing this kind of lowercase c institution as a liberal idealist problem is questionable and problematic. There’s the other thing that sort of happened in modern left-wing political circles which is kind of the advancement of elitism, right? Is that it’s not good enough to just be smart on your — being a hard worker, you have to have gone to the right schooling and have the right education and sort of the advancement of the elitism that has gone hand in hand with kind of left-wing politics as such as they currently exist.


But I also think that the Supreme Court plays into that affinity for elitism, right? There’s only like what, three law schools represented on the Supreme Court and even in a world where there’s more educational diversity on the Supreme Court, there’s still a barrier because you have to have gone to college, you have to have gone to law school, you have to kind of hit these educational mark tallies in your column and I think that that really is something that is very appealing towards the elitism that has grown up and become a hallmark of the modern democratic party.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, the technocratic elitism, which, I mean there’s some of us who would suggest that that was part and parcel of the downfall in 2016, a heavy reliance on it and you’re right, the Supreme Court to the extent it is an icon among liberal circles even though they don’t talk about it things. It is very much a, “Well, we want to rule that forever so that the smart people can stop the rabble.” And it’s a very old school —


Kathryn Rubino: More people will fundamentally be more liberal.


Joe Patrice: It’s an old-school federalist world view, which seems out of step. There’s an argument to be had that the re-alignment —


Kathryn Rubino: There’s a reason why Hamilton is like the number one show on Disney+ right now.


Joe Patrice: Yeah and loved by that community.


Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and loved by that — exact, yeah.


Joe Patrice: I think there’s something that we said for the realignment that took place in the aftermath of civil rights movement impacts this but is not the only realignment happening. There is a linked but not overlapping realignment going on regarding the ways in which elitism and technocracy is interacting with more popular appeal and how that gets resolved I think is going to have a lot to do with what happens with the court going forward, but that’s neither here nor there.


Anyway, so thank you all for listening. You should be subscribed to the show. You should be giving it reviews, writing some stuff, that certainly helps when the algorithm goes around and says, “What’s a legal podcast out there?” Oh, this one where people say, “Cool story about the Supreme Court,” in the comments. That’s what they see and then the algorithm goes, “Oh, then we should promote that to people.” And that’s good because it helps all of us out.


Thanks also to Paper Software and their Contract Tools product, which you should check out. You should be listening to the other shows on the Legal Talk Network as well as the Jabot Kathryn Show about diversity in law firms and our ATL COVID cast, our special report series on COVID’s impact on the legal industry and the aforementioned Ambrogi show that I’m a guest on. You should be reading Above The Law as always. Follow us. I’m @josephpatrice, she’s @kathryn1 at Twitter, on Twitter.




Kathryn Rubino: On the Twitter.


Joe Patrice: On the Tweet box. Yeah and so with all of that said, I think we’re done. It just feels like there’s something else I’m supposed to say but I’ve forgotten what it is. Whatever it is, those of you who usually listen this late in the show, you know what it is, so it’s fine. So, we will chat again later.




Outro: If you’d like more information about what you heard today, please visit You can also find us at,, 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.



Brought to You by

Notify me when there’s a new episode!

Episode Details
Published: August 25, 2020
Podcast: Thinking Like a Lawyer - Above the Law
Category: Legal News
Thinking Like a Lawyer - Above the Law
Thinking Like a Lawyer - Above the Law

Above the Law's Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.

Listen & Subscribe
Recent Episodes
Ready… Aim… Bonuses!

Biglaw, law school, and firing squads all in one show.

What Would Be Better Than The Bar Exam?

As it turns out, there are a lot of better ideas out there.

Jones Day Bets On Donald Trump As Half-Baked Election Challenges Crumble

Could this be the beginning of a mass exodus?

Welcome To Four Seasons Legal Podcast

Sometimes, you just need to protect your IP better.

Have You Tried Editing Your Opinions, Your Honor?

Someone screwed up bigly.

Toobingate Was Only Last Week

Time flies when you're surveying the apocalypse.