Welcome To Four Seasons Legal Podcast

Episode Notes

Transcript

Above the Law -Thinking Like a Lawyer

Welcome to Four Seasons

11/13/2020

[Music]

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: Howdy everybody. This is another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer which I assume you already are a listener of. If not, welcome to the show. We are going to do our little rundown of legal news of the week from the perspective of Above the Law. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I am joined by my co-editor, Kathryn Rubino.

Kathryn Rubino: You sound so hesitant.

Joe Patrice: Well because technically you’re a senior editor, so it’s technically like co-senior editor, but I felt like that was a little awkward to you know, like it was a mouthful and I didn’t want to have to do that. The point is, you know, we’re here.

Kathryn Rubino: We’re here. We’ve made it. We’ve made it on the other side of election day, so everyone deserves prizes.

Joe Patrice: Well, I mean we’re not really on the other side of election day because all of the ballots haven’t been counted.

Kathryn Rubino: Sure.

Joe Patrice: Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: But time is linear, right?

Joe Patrice: Yeah, no, yes. Any linear and quantitative universe.

Kathryn Rubino: Yes.

Joe Patrice: We are on the other side. However, that’s not the universe everybody appears to be living in.

Kathryn Rubino: Well, okay, there’s Dr. Who obviously for whom time is wibbly wobbly timey whammy.

Joe Patrice: Yes, and apparently that version of time is one that is shared by several people. Yeah, so the election is over. This is our new format version of the show which is kind of the same as our old format if you are one of those returning listeners.

Kathryn Rubino: So today later.

Joe Patrice: Except it’s going to be a day later which allows us to record a little bit closer. So, we’re going to be a little bit more timely. So, for those of you who’ve sent us things, making fun of the fact that we say something that it becomes untrue, that still could happen, but it’s far less likely.

Kathryn Rubino: Yes, Yes.

Joe Patrice: So, here we are. So, we did this for you.

Kathryn Rubino: You’re welcome.

Joe Patrice: It’s always for you.

Kathryn Rubino: They’re for you Damian.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, and I don’t know. We don’t have comment boards Above the Law anymore but based on the comment boards, Damien is not a bad descriptor for the average Above the Law reader. But yeah, so anyway.

Kathryn Rubino: Well we survived election day.

Joe Patrice: We did. We did. We did.

Kathryn Rubino: We appear to have a president-elect.

Joe Patrice: We do. We do. We do.

Kathryn Rubino: And you had actually done some research about how one actually gets determined to be the president-elect.

Joe Patrice: Yes, actually this is one of the more fun facts about the election process that I certainly never knew and this one came to me from Steve Vladeck, the Texas law professor. He worked out, so part of this was that there were some people saying, well the president hasn’t conceded. Should we be able to call somebody president-elect and that you know, it doesn’t actually matter whether somebody concedes an election. They win or lose and that’s what happens.

Kathryn Rubino: Sure.

Joe Patrice: So, a lot of folks said, well actually you should just start calling Biden the president-elect now. But here’s something insane about the way in which the United States government operates. According to Steve Vladeck who tweeted this the other day. For the purposes of section 3c of the presidential transition act of 1963, president-elect in quotes, is the apparent successful candidate as ascertained by the administrator of the general services administration. So, the administrator of the general services administration which is a job that you probably didn’t know existed.

Kathryn Rubino: I didn’t, but I would assume it’s some sort of a career position.

Joe Patrice: It is not, this is a political appointee and this person’s job is basically to administer federal buildings and stuff like that. But, for the purposes of this law, this person has the job of saying there’s a new president-elect therefore we can authorize federal money to be spent on the task of transitioning the administrations. Because we use federal money to do stuff like bring in the person who will be the next secretary of state to meet the old one and learn what’s going on and get a handle on things. It costs money and that requires government to come in and make determinations. It requires resources or whatever. As it turns out, when professor Vladeck put this up, this was just kind of a fun FYI for people wondering about the words.

Kathryn Rubino: It’s going to get ugly isn’t it?

Joe Patrice: Unfortunately, the administrator of the general service administration is currently not authorizing the release of funds and is towing the line that they don’t know who won the election and therefore won’t spend any money.

Kathryn Rubino: Well can’t the Biden campaign sue for specific performance in this instance? It seems to me like you know, the election has been called by every news organization. Fox News called it. We’re done, go home.

(00:05:02)

Joe Patrice: Yeah, but at this point we don’t have a way to force anybody to do anything.

Kathryn Rubino: Well that’s literally what our court system is for, right? Am I wrong?

Joe Patrice: Yeah, one would think that would be what you could use a court for.

Kathryn Rubino: I mean maybe they’re just trying to wait her out.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, but that is where we are, so you learned something today.

Kathryn Rubino: I learned something today.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, there is a person whose job it is to do this.

Kathryn Rubino: And they’re not doing it.

Joe Patrice: And they are not. It’s kind of a metaphor for the last several years.

Kathryn Rubino: Yes, yes, yeah, it is 100% unsurprising and yet surprising all at the same time.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, actually who is the administrator? It’s a lawyer from Saint Louis, University of Virginia.

Kathryn Rubino: So T14 law school.

Joe Patrice: T14 law school.

Kathryn Rubino: T14 law school grad refuses to do their job.

Joe Patrice: Appears to not have worked in private practice at any point. Appears to have gone directly into working for the Republican National Committee when she got out. So, Emily Murphy, the lawyer who’s holding everything up. So, with that —

Kathryn Rubino: Actually, that’s a great title for T14.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, so there we are. You know, before we talk, I think we should talk a little bit more about the lawyers as they are involved in everything going forward, but before we do that, it’s important to know that the economy is still not great.

Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, well I mean the stock market did take a big jump up today, the first day since Biden was declared the winner of the election.

Joe Patrice: I mean stability is good for markets and vaccine that appears to have 90% effectiveness is also good. That said, with the economic ongoing crisis, have you ever wondered how law firms weathered previous economic downturns and came 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.

Kathryn Rubino: You know, I saw somebody on social media who said you know, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories but Pfizer waiting until a week after the election to say that they have a vaccine with a 90% efficacy rate was —

Joe Patrice: Yeah, well because you’ve got to assume, they had at least an inkling that this was what was going to happen.

Kathryn Rubino: Sure, these things do not come out of nowhere.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, and they didn’t do it because they didn’t want to have an impact and I think that’s —

Kathryn Rubino: Or maybe they didn’t have enough data until whatever. I don’t know the specifics, I don’t want to speculate but for once, timings appear to have worked out for us.

Joe Patrice: So, the lawyers who are now involved. There are some people who would say that we’ve now reached the phase of the election that is in the hands of the lawyers and courts. In reality, we’ve reached the phase of the election that it’s over.

Kathryn Rubino: That is not a phase, that is not a thing.

Joe Patrice: I mean this is not remotely close enough based on the data we have to suggest that this is about lawyers, but nonetheless, I want to talk about a place that is really a symbol. From an intellectual property perspective, a symbol of class and luxury and of course I’m talking about Four Seasons landscaping in between a crematorium and an adult bookstore.

Kathryn Rubino: That has been one of — no, no, no. Gritty has been my favorite part of the post-election.

Joe Patrice: Gritty is amazing, isn’t he?

Kathryn Rubino: I mean you know, listen, we are both hockey fans anyway, so I think that we have much more of an appreciation for that world even though I’m not a Flyers fan.

Joe Patrice: Right, because the Flyers suck.

Kathryn Rubino: Let’s go Rangers. I hear you, but there’s an appreciation. There’s an ethos of hockey fans that i think Gritty was born of that I really do like and I really do appreciate.

Joe Patrice: I agree.

Kathryn Rubino: So that’s been my very favorite part of the post-election. But, Four Seasons landscaping is not a bad one.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, Four Seasons landscaping is where Rudy Giuliani and a bunch of republican lawyers decided to hold their we’re going to challenge the vote in Pennsylvania meeting.

Kathryn Rubino: But the location actually is what became the story.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, the location became the story because it was originally, we’re going to do this at the Four Seasons and everyone somewhat assumed that they meant the hotel.

Kathryn Rubino: Because that’s a traditional location.

Joe Patrice: Although I don’t know why people did to think that. I find it hard to imagine that this administration would give money to a hotel that wasn’t owned by Donald Trump, but still, that was what people thought. It turned out to be like a more or less abandoned parking lot.

Kathryn Rubino: Just fantastic.

Joe Patrice: You know, Kansas law professor, since we’re just going through law professor tweets, which I got to admit is something we’ve spent a lot of time doing over the last few days. Kansas law professor, Corey Rayburn Young tweeted out, does this maybe make Four Seasons Hotels, wonder maybe we should have been more aggressive in protecting our IP. And it’s true, right? Like from —

Kathryn Rubino: Although it makes total sense that a landscaping company would be called Four Seasons.

Joe Patrice: Right.

Kathryn Rubino: Because you literally have to winterize your yard.

(00:10:03)

Joe Patrice: Yeah, and you know, let’s be fair. Intellectual property is not a license for somebody to own a name across every possible industry.

Kathryn Rubino: Of course.

Joe Patrice: Four Seasons Hotels do not do landscaping and theoretically this mark should be allowed for people who do, do landscaping. That said, yeah that said, it does feel like what happened here. And you know, honestly, if I were Four Seasons the hotel, my argument would be yeah, we don’t have a claim to this vis-à-vis landscaping but we certainly have a claim to this vis-à-vis events hosting. And at the point that you’ve now entered into the advanced hosting business, this is our business.

Kathryn Rubino: That is not a terrible legal argument.

Joe Patrice: Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: Or just commit not to be in the event hosting.

Joe Patrice: But deep down, the questions —

Kathryn Rubino: Because you see, like the owners were like, we would accept any presidential campaign who wanted to host an event in our space.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, which may be true or may not but, frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true. If somebody called me and said we want to host a rally in your parking lot and I was you know, a landscaping company between a crematorium and an adult bookstore. I’d be happy.

Kathryn Rubino: Sure. This is a great venue for this.

Joe Patrice: I really want the oral history to come out that explains who took the call, how much they quoted. I hope they charged Four Season Hotel rates for this.

Kathryn Rubino: I mean that’s a great question but you have to imagine, was the Trump campaign staffer who booked it being like, we’ve got a great deal on the Four Seasons you guys.

Joe Patrice: I called the Hilton, they Hyatt, Four Seasons is only going to charge us two grand.

Kathryn Rubino: That just tickles me imagining what that would be like.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, and certainly they probably sat down, they got this quote, they typed up without even thinking, they typed up fast and furious some contract that’s like, okay, it’s 2000, we got to get this signed before anybody rethinks it over and you know, yeah. But if you work with contracts and don’t use contract tools, you’re missing a lot. Save time, make more 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. So, yeah, this has been an exciting time for attorneys. There have been numerous lawsuits filed. Actually, you mentioned Gritty earlier. I’ve now seen a meme that brings everything full circle of Gritty responding to Trump’s lawyers with the line, 12B6, and now the small desiccated heart in me that really just loved sub pro has finally been validated.

Kathryn Rubino: My favorite lawyer line that I’ve saw on social media was a non-zero number of republican observers.

Joe Patrice: Wasn’t that a thing? Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: That was definitely a thing, I mean in the excitement of the last few days that I think has been really blown over which is really a shame. Because you know, when a judge asks you how many Trump campaign observers are watching the vote count and a lawyer responds, a not zero number. I mean that is fantastic. At least they weren’t lying to the judge because you know, consequences.

Joe Patrice: Right, well I mean I think that’s kind of the issue here, right? So, this was a hearing about observers and the campaign.

Kathryn Rubino: I think it was the 10 feet versus six feet.

Joe Patrice: It is the decision that ultimately became the 10 foot versus six-foot limit, but the original request was like, well we need to have observers in there. And when they went before a judge and said we need observers and the judge was like, well wait a minute. So, you don’t have observers? They said, well there’s a non-zero number and when told that there actually were observers and there said, well then what are we doing here? Which makes sense, but this is like you were saying, this is the problem. At a certain point when people’s licenses are on the line, talking to a judge. They have to pull back from some of the more bold claims that you’re seeing, former ATL columnist.

Kathryn Rubino: Dark-dark period of our ATL oral history, but it’s obviously bigger than that. You know, there’s a Foley and Larder partner, Cleta Mitchell who was on Fox news this weekend talking about widespread voter fraud, talking about how dead people have voted, people who have crossed state lines to vote are really a problem. But the reality is in all of the lawsuits that have been filed, there are no allegations of widespread fraud. The best allegations are of discreet small issues.

(00:15:05)

And in every election, there are some issues that doesn’t mean someone had an intent to violate any laws or that if any laws were actually violated, right? I think that one of the examples that the Trump campaign brought up about people quote-unquote crossing state lines turned out to be military families.

Joe Patrice: Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: So military families who were transferred amongst the voting process which is a thing that happens in the military.

Joe Patrice: I hear its kind of their job, yeah. They go places.

Kathryn Rubino: You know and obviously, you know, in terms of dead people voting, there’s early voting, there’s mail-in voting. People can die within that process particularly when an unchecked pandemic is raging across our country.

Joe Patrice: Right, and even if you take the stance that voting early should still mean that if you die before, then it shouldn’t count, which I think is a bad standard. But even if you take that standard, I know Wisconsin I know does, right?

Kathryn Rubino: It’s only going to hurt the party that depends on older people by and large as a matter of actuarial math.

Joe Patrice: Generally speaking, yeah, yeah. Generally speaking, but if you take all of these things, we are talking about what? A 1,000 votes tops in a state? Probably not even that.

Kathryn Rubino: Right. Not enough to flip an election.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, certainly not at these margins. Like Florida 2000 where it was 500 some odd votes maybe. But even then, it was a bit of a stretch. The bigger problem there were ballots —

Kathryn Rubino: You needed 2000.

Joe Patrice: In 2000, yeah, sorry. Even then, it was more the votes that we knew happened that people decided they weren’t going to count.

Kathryn Rubino: Right.

Joe Patrice: It’s more of an issue, but even at that, like you’re talking about such small numbers in elections that are as of this recording being decided 20,000, 40,000 margins. Like it’s just not.

Kathryn Rubino: It’s just not, and also it should be noted, those are not fraud, right?

Joe Patrice: Right.

Kathryn Rubino: No one cast those ballots with any intent to commit fraud. Those were cast at the time legally, whether or not they should count, whatever. But that is not some massive democratic-led issue of fraud.

Joe Patrice: So, this big law partner that you’re talking about. Give me your thoughts.

Kathryn Rubino: I mean, listen. She’s not the first time that she’s been written up in Above the Law. She was noted for being an anti-gay rights crusader. She is the lawyer for Steve Bannon’s pack and has fought to keep their donor role a secret. So, very much a true believer in terms of the right-wing causes and I just think that going on Fox News without any specific evidence and parroting lines that the president and his campaign have had about voter fraud is a lower bar. It’s just literally the only standard is can you keep a straight face while you’re on camera as opposed to actually having to stand up in front of a judge and make arguments and have an actual burden of evidence and proof and we should not allow these claims to be repeated without checking them in real time as much as possible. And if they can’t be done in real time, as shortly thereafter. These claims are untrue. There’s been no evidence of widespread voter fraud. If the democrats did try to commit voter fraud, they did a terrible job of it and the difference between top ballot and lower ballot races, not going for both for democratic candidates as an example of how if this was fraud it was a shitty job of it.

Joe Patrice: Right, right, right.

Kathryn Rubino: And listen, I got into a long argument over the weekend with someone I grew up across the street from. Someone I would characterize as a deliberately low information voter who just believes, well this is very strange, now there are all these ballots for Biden.

Joe Patrice: See, this is the sort of person who should have listened to our podcast with Rick Hassan.

Kathryn Rubino: Sure.

Joe Patrice: In which all of this was this was previewed.

Kathryn Rubino: This person’s not listening to our podcast in any event.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah, that’s probably fair. But yes, so I have a question which I think I don’t fancy myself as much like I said about 12b6, i was the civ pro guy, not necessarily everything else. I don’t know exactly the state of play as far as what states and jurisdictions follow model of rules or whatever when it comes to ethics, but it strikes me that if you’re in Washington DC and fancy an ethics challenge and complaint. This seems like this woman would be ripe for that because even though she’s not talking to a judge, if she’s going out and saying things that she would not be willing to swear to, that she knows are lies, that undermines the faith in the legal profession. And I know that at least in some jurisdictions, just doing stuff that undermines faith in the legal profession is a disciplinary offense.

Kathryn Rubino: Actually, on Fox News, the host asks, are you just trying to cast doubt on the process? Because remember, Fox has in fact called the election, right?

Joe Patrice: Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: And she did not answer that, she just pivoted to, well we need to make sure that every vote, every legally cast vote is counted and only the legally cast votes.

(00:20:06)

That kind of go-to line that the republicans have sort of found themselves doing now is the only answer that —

Joe Patrice: Which is you know, the thing that was already happening.

Kathryn Rubino: Right.

Joe Patrice: That also was a disturbing over the weekend issue. There was a petition that went straight to the supreme court out of Philadelphia to try and stop the counting or start the counting or whatever.

Kathryn Rubino: Start the count, stop the count. Depends on whether or not they were ahead or behind at the moment.

Joe Patrice: The VIP argument, anyway.

Kathryn Rubino: It is disturbing how much VIP seems to have exactly known what was going to happen.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah. No, absolutely, so but that part and justice Alito rather than dismissing it out of hand as one should have, wrote this mean like salty opinion that basically ordered everybody to keep counting ballots which is what they were already doing, so that wasn’t even in dispute. I mean the whole thing kind of reads as an advisory opinion which seems problematic.

Kathryn Rubino: I thought you weren’t supposed to do that.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, like to the extent that there is no harm that is being articulated, I don’t understand why he was doing anything. I guess they’re trying to phrase it as though it’s some sort of injunctive relief argument. But like it wasn’t, like it was what was already happening. And when it’s already happening and there’s no allegations of it not happening, it really is problematic and indicative of the way in which justice Alito specifically has staked out ground as someone who deliberately does not care about the constitution law order generally.

Kathryn Rubino: Tell us how you really feel.

Joe Patrice: Look, it’s not even all that controversial. I don’t think it and I’m not all together sure he would think it’s controversial.

Kathryn Rubino: I think he would think that he doesn’t care about the law is a controversy.

Joe Patrice: Look, I mean the most famous gift of him is this guy at the state of the union saying, that’s not true when the fact of the constitution is being explained to him. I don’t think he cares. I think he falls into that kind of Adrian Vermuel of Harvard world view that is goes beyond originalism and just says that actually the answer is we should have a theocracy and I think that which is what Vermuel says, which is certainly a take and I think that’s what you’re dealing with here. But yeah, it read as an advisory opinion. It was problematic, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: I thought there was another ad read coming.

Joe Patrice: No. Wow. I mean there is another ad read coming, but that wasn’t the setup for it. But I love that you have gotten to the point where you just stop adding more because you think I’ve laid the track.

Kathryn Rubino: Well I don’t want to like — it has happened before where you’re not really making an argument, you’re just trying to set the setup for an ad read and so I don’t want to step on that.

Joe Patrice: No, I mean I get it but like there’s like your desire to keep the conversation going and your desire to let me do the ad read and they’re kind of in conflict sometimes. But sometimes there’s a third way, looking for a new alternative. Looking for a true alternative to LexisNexis or Westlaw. You could save thousands to this year if you switched to Casetext. Over 7,000 law firms from solos to 40% of the AMLA 100 use Casetext for legal research. Above the Law podcast listeners can go to http://, you know how it begins, casetext.com/abovethelawpodcast to try Casetext for free for two weeks. For $65.00 per month, you’ll get access to 50 state and federal case law, statutes and more with zero out of plan fees. Free for two weeks at casetext.com/abovethelawpodcast. So, there you go.

Kathryn Rubino: You played me there.

Joe Patrice: I did.

Kathryn Rubino: Or did I play myself?

Joe Patrice: Look, I didn’t, I was still working on what my transition was going to be and then it just —

Kathryn Rubino: I handed it to you?

Joe Patrice: Yeah, look, I mean that’s what I think is the real challenge of this job is coming up with a way to seamlessly enter these ad reads in a way that you know, keeps everyone on their toes and interested, you know?

Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, two points, two points to Gryffindor. Are you a Gryffindor, is that your house you think?

Joe Patrice: Well, I mean whenever there’s one of those things to like test what your house is, it always ends up Gryffindor. You know, back when we listened to her. But, yeah, no I’ve always been told it was Gryffindor when I take those sorts of quizzes.

Kathryn Rubino: I’ve always been a tie.

Joe Patrice: Hufflepuff?

Kathryn Rubino: And Ravenclaw.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.

Kathryn Rubino: I kind of I feel like I’ve at first, I was annoyed that I kept on testing into Hufflepuff but in recent years have leased in. I’m a Hufflepuff, it’s okay.

Joe Patrice: You are.

Kathryn Rubino: It’s okay, listen, me and Cidric Diggory.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, Ellie was always a Ravenclaw tester, I know. We had these conversations, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino: No, I’m a Hufflepuff.

(00:25:00)

Joe Patrice: No, but it just always comes out Gryffindor for me.

Kathryn Rubino: You can also tell I’m a Hufflepuff because I am the one who writes the most stories at abovethelaw.com.

Joe Patrice: Okay, I don’t know why that helps but cool

Kathryn Rubino: Because Hufflepuff puts their nose down and does the job that has to be done.

Joe Patrice: Okay, because you’re — okay. That’s fair.

Kathryn Rubino: I’m a churner.

Joe Patrice: That’s right, and I don’t write quite as many but they are you know, widely lauded and amazing. Just like a true hero, yeah, no.

Kathryn Rubino: I keep on doing that. I just set you up.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, no, I mean look, that’s the sort of teamwork that a hot true Hufflepuff offers.

Kathryn Rubino: Teamwork makes the dream work.

Joe Patrice: Anyway, all right. I don’t know how — what happened? What happened here? How did we get into a weird Harry Potter podcast?

Kathryn Rubino: I know and it’s so sad that I can’t really enjoy those books anymore.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, you know.

Kathryn Rubino: Makes me sad.

Joe Patrice: There are a lot of authors that you don’t necessarily like the outside of their art I suppose, whatever. So, we can probably wrap this up, right?

Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean who knows what next week will bring.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, no and we’ll see, but for now, Steve Kornacki gets to sleep and the rest of the world can move on and we will be back next week. We’re going to continue with this structure of having our episodes come out on Wednesdays, so get ready for that. If you’ve been waiting forever with baited breath for the Tuesday release, it’s going to be an extra day but, you know, we think it’s going to be worth it. You should be reading Above the Law always. You should be listening to this podcast through some downloading service and if you are, you should be subscribed to it. Don’t just seek us out when you know, from time to time. You should be subscribed. It helps us.

Kathryn Rubino: Let us slide into your phones, auto downloads.

Joe Patrice: I don’t know why that sounded dirty but sure, yeah. Do that, you should give us reviews, stars, write something that helps more people find the show. You should also be listening to The Jabot Kathryn’s podcast about diversity issues in law. You should be checking out the legal tech reporters round table. At some point I’ll figure out what the official —

Kathryn Rubino: It’s weird that you’re on a podcast every week and don’t know what it’s called.

Joe Patrice: Well the thing is it has this really long hyper technical name and it’s not as punchy an easy to remember name and that’s — I call it happy hour. I don’t think anybody else does.

Kathryn Rubino: Or when you watch Joe get drunk for an hour.

Joe Patrice: Sort of, but I mean it’s the legal tech reporters Friday get around from all the different outlets and we just kind of chat about what legal tech has brought that week, which is a niche interest, I know, in law but it’s one that is you know, it’s cool.

Kathryn Rubino: Near and dear to your heart.

Joe Patrice: It is, anyway so listen to that. You should listen to the other offerings from the Legal Talk Network. You should be following us on social media. I’m at Joseph Patrice. She’s at Kathryn1, the numeral one and with all that said, thank you as always. Do Contract Tools by Paper Software and we have everything done.

Kathryn Rubino: Thank you for listening.

Joe Patrice: And thank you listeners for taking time to listen. We will be back.

Kathryn Rubino: Chat at you next week.

[Music]

Outro: 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

(00:29:05)

Continue Reading