As pressure mounts on Trump’s election attorneys, Jones Day has doubled down on the sinking effort. While declaring that it is not representing Trump per se, the firm is behind the Pennsylvania “stop the count” effort and with advocacy groups urging corporations to pull business and reports emerge of internal strife, the firm seems willing to stay the course. It worked for the Titanic after all. Meanwhile, a family law attorney pursuing the case makes an interesting complaint about the size of Kirkland & Ellis. In more heroic news, a lawsuit takes aim at Confederate monuments and we talk about the state of annual bonuses.
Special thanks to our sponsors, Paper Software, and LexisNexis® InterAction®.
Above the Law -Thinking Like a Lawyer
Jones Day Bets On Donald Trump As Half-Baked Election Challenges Crumble
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. I’m joined by Kathryn Rubino. How are you?
Kathryn Rubino: I’m doing well. How about yourself?
Joe Patrice: Excellent. So, yeah. So, it’s been another week.
Kathryn Rubino: So, did anything happen in the legal world in the past?
Joe Patrice: Not that I know of.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s pretty quiet.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Right.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah. No. So, what all did happen? I’ve been hearing a name for the last week. I’m not sure is there a place called Jones Day. Is that a law firm?
Kathryn Rubino: I think you’re pronouncing it wrong. I think it’s Jonas.
Joe Patrice: Jonas, yeah. No, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, Jones day has been in the news quite a bit —
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Over the last week. I did wonder for a hot minute like, “Oh, what are we going to talk about on today’s podcast, and then I was like, “Oh, the 75 stories I’ve written about Jones Day is probably something we can chit chat about.”
Joe Patrice: Jones Day for those who don’t know, I can’t imagine many people listening to this don’t know who they are.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I imagine the sort of the diagram of folks that know what Jones Day is and who listen to us are a perfect circle.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, or at least the listening to us one is a subset of the other circle.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure. Yes, obviously.
Joe Patrice: I’m not going to go ahead and assume that we’re the whole circle.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure.
Joe Patrice: But, we should be and that’s why you should be telling all of your friends to listen.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re getting the plug in early today.
Joe Patrice: Like yeah. Well, I mean you gave me an opportunity.
Kathryn Rubino: Good job.
Joe Patrice: So, listen. So, Jones Day is making themselves famous and not in the best of all ways right now. They’re in even the mainstream news source. New York Times wrote an article about them. Tell us a little bit about what put Jones Day in this.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Well, it all started with that New York Times article. It was about Jones Day and Porter Wright, two big law firms. Obviously, Jones Day is significantly larger just in terms of number of lawyers, number of offices, et cetera. And so, there was a Times article that quoted several partners and senior associates anonymously that complained about Jones Day’s representation in election litigation cases. So, Porter Wright, lots of things have happened with them. They’ve since withdrawn from their election litigation representation, but Jones Day has not. Jones Day was very, very clear that they do not represent President Trump.
Joe Patrice: Oh, okay. So, they don’t really represent anybody in the election stuff.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, —
Joe Patrice: Oh, okay there was a pause.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, no. They represent the Pennsylvania GOP in that case about uh Pennsylvania litigation about whether or not which votes should be counted, whether or not, you know, all that kind of stuff that’s going on.
Joe Patrice: So, they said that they weren’t representing the Trump campaign, but they’re doing is representing the Pennsylvania GOP in the lawsuit that is the basis of all of the Trump campaign’s complaints.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Joe Patrice: So, kind of a distinction without —
Kathryn Rubino: Difference.
Joe Patrice: Much difference.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, yeah. No, for sure. That is definitely what’s going on here and that’s why — I mean, you wrote about that as well. It was kind of a funny response that they had and they’re like we expect a retraction immediately and I was like I actually didn’t even say in the original article that they represented the Trump campaign or Donald Trump specifically. To be fair in this particular election litigation, there are obviously other cases. They get a lot of money from the Trump campaign generally, but any of these election litigations. But, you know, I mean at worst this is satisfied by the Trump campaign or its allies —
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Parenthetical, you know. So, it’s not a bunch of nothing. So, yeah. So, there was an article in the Times that quoted a bunch of senior attorneys at the firm complaining about the representation of this sort of election fraud claims, and the concerns I think a lot of us share is that these sorts of litigation is extending the election process without any having real basis in legal theory having kind of a specious claim in the first instance, but even if you were to grant the full weight of their arguments are not large enough to turn the election.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: And so, extending these really undermines democracy. You know, there’s disturbing polls about the number of people who believe that the election was rigged or that there is some sort of impropriety or there are somehow illegal votes where there’s zero evidence that there are any illegal votes. So, you know, all these things have become a real problem for the firm. I think in one of my early articles about Jones Day’s representation in election cases, I said you know the reason why I went to law school was not to undermine democracy and the peaceful transition of power, which was characterized American democracies since —
Joe Patrice: Some people do go for that reason. I mean, I don’t think you should cast aspersions on everybody. There’s a lot of reasons to go to school.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure. I mean, listen I have not read their law school emission essays, but listen. Your mileage may vary. So, there’s been a lot of controversy internally and that has spread beginning with that Times article. The Lincoln project, you may remember them. They’re a pack that has raised money. They’ve said that they are going to spend upwards of $500,000 on ad campaigns directed at, not only Jones Day, but their clients as well.
Joe Patrice: Well, this brings me to the interesting question, which is — so, there’s this pressure campaign on the firm to get out of these sorts of cases largely because there’s, you know, and targeting clients. So, it strikes me and we have reason to believe and some tips that we have received that there’s internal strife about this that there are many people in the firm who are not happy that this is going on.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure.
Joe Patrice: At this point, why would a partner who has a book of business that is wholly unrelated to these political stuff that’s corporate clients and just general corporate clients, what’s their motivation to stay there?
Kathryn Rubino: I don’t know. I’m not sure what that is. Maybe, there’s some inertia moving firms is a lot of effort, but I’m not sure. I don’t know why anyone who’s not a sort of true believer is excited about this representation. I think it’s hurting the firm’s brand. You know, I mentioned the Lincoln project might has touches another pack that actually put out a video, which is quite damning about Jones Day itself. There have been boycotts that have been circulated. The people’s parody project, a group of law students who are advocating that other QLs in particular, but anyone avoid interviewing with Jones Day, so that they’re not necessarily having access to sort of the best and the brightest anymore if this actually holds. There have been a bunch of direct action, campaigns that have started protesting in front of the offices of King and Spaulding they did in D.C., as well as Jones Day’s New York office. So, this is definitely more than just a kind of a niche lawyer issue. This is very much spiraled above and beyond and, as you said, there are definitely folks internally, and I wrote a story on Friday about an associate, not a partner mind you, but an associate who sent an all-office email. There had been an associate town hall about the representation. They were told that they would get to answer questions and then that did not happen. So instead, there was somebody sent an email complaining about the representation. And so, we know that there are folks internally.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, I ask because some people know I also have a consulting job with folks who look at, you know, who help move partners and stuff around, and it’s weird that I found that I haven’t been contacted by anybody vote for that particular reason, you know, like who is just reaching out saying like I’ve worked hard to build several million in business, and I don’t want it to go away.
Kathryn Rubino: I don’t want to get by.
Joe Patrice: But, it is weird that I haven’t heard as much in that world of people trying to get out especially because, as you said, there’s lawyers with a few exceptions — lawyers don’t like to be famous in these sorts of ways. You don’t really want to be the people talked about in the New York Times. You want to like put your head down and be mentioned maybe in one line of a Wall Street Journal article about some murder. That’s kind of where you want to be, and this is not great for them.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, it’s that kind of little ‘c’ conservative that especially big law firm lawyers tend to be where they don’t. They aren’t seeking that attention. They want to do their job, be the best at it, but —
Joe Patrice: When we see also this has been, you know, to parallel to another story that has been percolating for years, but was recently featured in the mainstream media again, which is the drive for improving diversity within law firms is being driven by the clients. The client is saying we’re the ones out here who get attention and we don’t want to keep seeing the law firms that we hire be predominantly white male partnership teams, and they’re making that pressure, which is proof that the way to make reforms within law firms is to go through the pocketbooks by going to the clients and pushing that. So, given that that’s going on at the same time, you know, you see how if the clients start seeing it as toxic to be related to a firm. It snowballs.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and that’s certainly what Lincoln project has taken away from a lot of those stories. They’ve gone – they haven’t produced any videos or any ads as of yet that I’m aware of, but in their initial tweeting about it, specifically called out the Ford Motor
Hey, Ford, why are you hiring lawyers that are trying to undermine our democracy? Why are you trying to buy your pocketbook undermining free and fair elections?
Joe Patrice: And I think if anybody knows anything about Henry Ford, they know that he would not support a fascist takeover of the country, right? Perhaps, a bad example, but yeah. So, Jones Day has got in a weird place and, as you said, Porter Wright, withdrews, you know, Wilmer withdrew, like various of these firms already have said, “Okay, that’s it. We’re out. We don’t want to do this.”
Kathryn Rubino: The cost is too high.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and Jones Day is holding with it, which is –
Kathryn Rubino: Very on brand for them though, right?
Joe Patrice: It’s on brand, but it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out, you know, because things aren’t necessarily great out there economically for a law firm. And so, why would you put yourself in this sort of position? So, how have law firms weathered previous economic downturns have come out stronger on the other side? LexisNexis interaction has released an in-depth global research report confronting the 2020 downturn lessons learned during previous economic crises. Download your free copy at interaction.com/likealawyer to see tips, strategies, plans, and statistics from leaders who have been through this before and how they’ve reached success again. So, —
Kathryn Rubino: Am I allowed to talk now?
Joe Patrice: You see, now this sort of blaming of the victim here —
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, interesting.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I’m not comfortable with you taking that particular attack.
Kathryn Rubino: Speaking of victim blaming and relatedly to this story that is blowing up at this point, aside from Jones Day, there are several lawyers who are involved in this sort of litigation. One of which is a small family law practitioner in Philadelphia who’s representing the Trump campaign, and she would like to speak to a manager. This woman, Linda Kerns, filed a Motion complaining that a Kirkland & Ellis Associate left a voicemail saying things like what we’re saying why you try to overthrow democracy, and she feels hurt by this, but more importantly, she says that because Kirkland & Ellis is involved in litigation on the other side that this is a breach that they should be sanctioned for.
Kathryn Rubino: It seems like a bold move.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean, look. She says that the voicemail was abusive. Kirkland & Ellis is like we don’t think that’s true and we will give you a transcript, so that you know that’s not true. So, she views it as abusive, and yes, if the opposing counsel is being abusive, that is something. In this instance, not only as Kirkland is saying that this call was in no way abusive, but also this person is just not in the litigation department knows nothing of the case, didn’t even know the firm was representing anybody in this case, just somebody who called —
Kathryn Rubino: Well, that’s kind of —
Joe Patrice: Back to the Lincoln project.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: You know, it result to some of the things they’ve been calling for.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, there’s a lot of direct action, folks who are putting out phone numbers of folks and saying, you know, please let them know that this is unacceptable undermining our democracy yada yada yada, and it seems to me like this is sort of a real risk when your firm is involved in these big political cases especially a firm like Kirkland, frankly even like Jones Day that has thousands of lawyers, right?
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: Not every lawyer is plugged into all these cases. Not every lawyer even is aware of what’s going on, but they still have their own personal individual civic rights and civic sense of responsibility that I think is being —
Joe Patrice: Well, so one of the questions that this lawyer raises in not giving it – obviously, I don’t think that this is a particularly compelling claim, but let’s tease this out. This is the whole process.
Kathryn Rubino: This is our — pretend we’re a law professor such thing as that?
Joe Patrice: Thinking like a lawyer, yeah. One point that is made in the reply brief, which it has some ring to it, which is that the size of a law firm should not be able to be used as an excuse to get out of ethical obligations. You shouldn’t be able to say, “Well, I have 2,000 lawyers. So, therefore, can’t really be held to the same standard of every lawyer is responsible to every client within the firm.” Yeah, I get that, and I think that that’s probably true for some things. Yes, we have to have complex conflict checks to avoid somebody from a different far-flung area of the firm representing an adverse party something like that, you know, like that is something that’s necessary. It seems as though something like this just like vague complaint about civility is the sort of thing that — yes, the size actually does matter.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, it insulates you from some of those claims. Also, you know, I think that Kirkland’s fundamental argument that this is not an abusive –
Joe Patrice: Right, which that’s the real.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It seems to me like that is — that wholly answers the issue.
Joe Patrice: Totally, look. Yeah, they said it was discourteous. That’s about it.
And that’s fine. But, I mean that we’re doing the thinking like a lawyer part.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure. Well, I think that both of those things are true, right?
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: We’ve kind of answered the first one, which is that when you’re talking about a very minor potential violation, even assuming all the facts, you know, and was her name, Linda Kerns, favor. Even assuming everything in her favor, I think that in this particular instance, no, it doesn’t rise to that level, and I also think that when you’re dealing with matters of — this is not some sort of individual right that doesn’t impact of the country, right, and that focuses individual opinions about the running of our country or obviously something that is protected, and people don’t give up those rights just because they work for a giant law firm.
Joe Patrice: If there needs to be a rule saying that Kirkland & Ellis Associates should not call opposing counsel and leave an abusive voicemail, then all hope is lost.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, —
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It seems a little crazy.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, this does have some real hyperbolic tendencies. And look, I don’t know about you. I was involved in a litigation where the opposing side was actively abusive, frivolous motions all the time in your face, mean-spirited like one of those lawyers. I mean, like you know of those lawyers, but you just kind of especially in the big law world, you know that you rarely run into them, but in this instance, we did and it was unpleasant at all times and at no point did we file a Motion complaining that he was a meanie.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I mean, —
Joe Patrice: Because, you know, you just suck it up for a lot of stuff.
Kathryn Rubino: So, like how many voicemails did she go through to find the one from Kirkland?
Joe Patrice: Right, right.
Kathryn Rubino: Because I would be gobsmacked if this was the only voicemail that she’s received saying, “What are you doing? Why are you undermining our democracy?” Yeah, I mean —
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean —
Kathryn Rubino: I’d be shocked that this is the only person who’s done that.
Joe Patrice: Right, which makes it feel a lot more like this was an active attempt at setting up some sort of martyrdom motion.
Kathryn Rubino: Yep.
Joe Patrice: Just trying to find anybody who has any connection to the other side and say, “Oh, look at this. I need sanctions.” Yeah, it’s real problematic, but hey, this is where we are these days.
Kathryn Rubino: This is the world we live in.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. But, these are litigation things. For those of you in litigation, you’re familiar with people who are jerks like this and for the poor person who called who wasn’t even in the litigation department from what I gather from the Motion.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Maybe, they don’t know that.
Kathryn Rubino: Someone like trusted estates just slaving away being —
Joe Patrice: Yeah. And they wouldn’t have had an idea to — of how did you work with it. Now, I don’t really understand that world because I was on the litigation side, but I mean, it’s out there, and if you work with contracts and don’t use contract tools, you’re missing a lot. Save time, make money, and do a better job for your clients with contract tools by paper software. Contract tools is the most powerful word add-in for working with contracts. Thousands of lawyers all over the world rely on contract tools every day for every kind of deal. Visit papersoftware.com to watch a demo and get a free trial. As a special offer to podcast listeners, use coupon code LTN2020 to get one month free. That’s papersoftware.com and LTN2020.
Kathryn Rubino: That was pretty smooth.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah. You know, I mean, not to pat myself on the back.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, you’re going to strain yourself trying to pat yourself that far back.
Joe Patrice: Wow! Okay. So, what else is going on in the world of law.
Kathryn Rubino: I don’t know man. I feel like if it’s not Jones Day, I know nothing about it. There have been several kind of big stories that have come up that I was like, “Oh, I want to write about that,” and then something else happens at Jones Day, and three articles later, I’m like I don’t even remember what that story was anymore.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: And that’s sort of been par for the course I think over this whole election cycles. Folks find themselves easily distracted by all the noise coming from it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No, I mean I think that’s very fair. I guess one thing that I spend a little bit of time working on is there’s a lawsuit in North Carolina to get a confederate statue taken down, which –
Kathryn Rubino: That sounds like a good thing.
Joe Patrice: And it’s very interesting because, obviously, the approach to confederate statues of late have kind of been divided into two strategies basically relying on feckless politicians or toppling them like Saddam statues, and this case presents a possible middle way of dealing with it by leveraging the promises of state constitutions against the maintenance of these statues because — and not all state constitutions will necessarily have these provisions, but North Carolina for instance like a lot of states in the immediate aftermath of the civil war. The reconstruction governments wrote these constitutions with some sweeping —
Kathryn Rubino: Right.
Joe Patrice: Promises within them of equal protection and so on.
And in North Carolina’s case, there was even a later provision added to the constitution of the state that mirrored and made a constitutional right, the civil rights legislation of the 50s and 60s is kind of integrated into —
Kathryn Rubino: So, this is a great trial.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, the argument and there’s a lot of lawyers on it including a former deputy attorney general of the state, and the argument is really to kind of create this model of how to approach litigation to force the taking down of the statue. And, you know, I mean one of the provisions of the North Carolina state constitution is support for secession is barred for public officials and stuff, and their argument is the statue is nothing if not support for secession movements, which is true.
Kathryn Rubino: Compelling.
Joe Patrice: So, yeah. So, they’re making this pitch that hopefully they can get this particular statue taken down, and the hope is that it if this works, other North Carolina jurisdictions could launch similar —
Kathryn Rubino: Cases, yeah.
Joe Patrice: Legislation litigation off of the same model, and other states might have similar provisions, so very interesting case to keep an eye on. I read it this morning and put some stuff up about it. It’s kind of back to your point about like you didn’t go to law school for this. I think this is exactly the sort of thing people do go to law school for.
Kathryn Rubino: And it turns out some people actually get to practice that kind of law.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and like there are civil rights lawyers involved, but there’s also consumer protection lawyers in this case. It’s bringing together a good team of folks. There’s three organizations and three or four individual plaintiffs. So, there’s a lot of lawyers who have all kind of been working together from what I gather on this to get this case ready to go.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, that’s exciting.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s good to have some good news at the end of our podcast I think, you know, makes people a little hopeful.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean, okay cool.
Kathryn Rubino: What? Are you not —
Joe Patrice: No, no. I mean, sure. That’s yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Are you just not into good news? I’m very confused by this reaction. I did not think it was a controversial statement.
Joe Patrice: It wasn’t. It was just a weird one, like I didn’t know how you expected me to respond to that just like yes or I don’t know. See, this is how the thing with conversation is when there’s no obvious cue for the next person, it becomes a mess.
Kathryn Rubino: You are a mess. That’s correct.
Joe Patrice: Wow!
Kathryn Rubino: I win podcasting.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, whatever.
Kathryn Rubino: The other thing that happened in the world of law firms last week –
Joe Patrice: Cool.
Kathryn Rubino: Bonuses started.
Joe Patrice: Oh, that’s an excellent.
Kathryn Rubino: By the way, at Above the Law the fact that bonuses started last week is not our over-the-top number one story is shocking and shows you just how much this Jones Day to buy an election debacle has dominated folks’ lives.
Joe Patrice: That’s very true, like bonuses are consistently for the years that we’ve been doing this. The number one thing.
Kathryn Rubino: Number one story of the month, year, week, whatever it is. It didn’t even crack the top. I think it was like the 10th story this week.
Joe Patrice: Wow! Yeah. No, so Baker McKenzie came out with its announcement of annual bonuses. It is tracking last year’s schedule of bonuses. That is somewhat eyebrow raising to the extent that we had some fall bonuses, and the firms that did the fall bonuses said we would also do annual bonuses at least, which means Baker McKenzie is kind of suggesting, even though they do in their statement say they aren’t foreclosing more money, but they are seemingly saying we’re going to stick with last year’s and just hope you all forget that your colleagues got more.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. It seems to me like a really weird position to take such an early stance on bonuses if you aren’t going to lead the pack.
Joe Patrice: Right. Well, I mean I think —
Kathryn Rubino: And it seems —
Joe Patrice: It’s the flip side you’re trying to control the pack.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, perhaps, but also — I mean, it’s literally saying because we know that some of the people who are early on the fall bonuses Milbank I think said it. Some of the other folks early said that we will at least give you end-of-year bonuses at last year’s rate. So, that means that then that’s the rate that Baker McKenzie came out with. So, that means that Baker McKenzie’s Associates are at least down the value of the fall bonuses at a minimum. There may be larger bonuses in the offing. We don’t know, but at a minimum, it seems like they’re getting in front of the pack to say, “Hey, isn’t it good to not to be –” I mean, it’s up to over to $40,000 less.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah. That’s what it seems.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s not like chump change. It’s not like.
Joe Patrice: No.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s a lot of money.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. It is going to be interesting to see when the, you know, you hate to say this about a firm like to cast this sort of aspersion, but I’m interested in what the big kids come out and say.
When Cravath and Milbank and these traditional players —
Kathryn Rubino: Well, Cravath is already down the fall bonuses as well. They said we’ll deal with it at the end of the year, and I do think that Cravath will come out and give numbers that are — whatever the fall bonus value plus whatever last year.
Joe Patrice: That’s my guess, too.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I think that they will not take this kind of bigger McKenzie path. I think they will be at least — they will account for these fall bonuses, but who knows. And, you know, I think Milbank already came out with the fall bonuses, and Davis Polk, they are the ones who came up with the amounts for the larger bonuses.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s worth remembering. Davis Polk is — while we often talk about Cravath being the first mover when it comes to compensation, they aren’t always and one of the times that they weren’t Davis Polk moved and one of the times they weren’t Milbank moves south.
Kathryn Rubino: And both of them have already put out —
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: These fall bonuses. So, I think that – I mean, if anything, I think this is a signal for the folks that have the capacity to give more money to do it to really create this distinction between truly elite firms and sort of, you know, the rest.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No, I agree.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I think that that’s a — I can’t believe we almost forgot that there were bonuses last week, by the way.
Joe Patrice: I mean, it’s just it’s outstanding, right?
Kathryn Rubino: It’s been kind of week you guys. It’s in that kind of week.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Oh, well. Okay. Well, with that then, we should probably wrap up. So, you should be listening to the show. Obviously, you should subscribe. You should write reviews all and give it stars all of those things that always helps for more people to find out about the show. You can also word of mouth it, you know, that wouldn’t hurt either. You should be reading Above the Law as always. You can follow us on social media. I’m at Joseph Patrice. She’s at Kathryn1, the numeral one. You should be listening to the Jabot, her podcast about diversity issues. I’m also on the Legal Tech roundup podcast. You should be listening to the other shows from the Legal Talk Network, of course. You should be checking out contract tools by Paper Software, as we detailed earlier and remember that
And with all of that said.
Kathryn Rubino: Have a good week!
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I think that’s right. Yeah.
Male: If you’d like more information about what you’ve 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.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re so ridiculous.