When will all of this election fallout finally end?
Joe Patrice is an Editor at Above the Law. For over a decade, he practiced as a...
Kathryn Rubino is a member of the editorial staff at Above the Law. She has a degree...
Giuliani caught himself a billion dollar headache after telling anyone who would listen that Dominion was fixing the election (they weren’t). Paul Davis is asking a court to junk the federal government and turn it over to the Hobbits (they won’t). And Jeffrey Clark is accused to trying to convince Trump to pull a coup… now he’s hoping Biglaw will take him back (they shouldn’t).
Special thanks to our sponsors, Paper Software, LexisNexis® InterAction® and Lexicon.
Thinking Like a Lawyer – Above the Law
Rudy’s Dominion Defamation Dollars Debacle
Joe Patrice: Hello.
Kathryn Rubino: Hi.
Joe Patrice: Hi.
Kathryn Rubino: How are you?
Joe Patrice: Good. This is Thinking Like a Lawyer, by the way. We didn’t really say that off the top. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m Kathryn Rubino, also from Above the Law.
Joe Patrice: Nice. I’m glad that you’re taking an active role in introducing yourself now instead of putting it on me all the time.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, you did not appear as if you were super ready today.
Joe Patrice: Oh, no. I’m not.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s a rough day for you.
Joe Patrice: It’s really been hectic.
Kathryn Rubino: You seem a little frazzled. Yeah.
Joe Patrice: No, I mean, it is. There’s just a lot going on.
Kathryn Rubino: We’re going to off the seat of our pants here, see how a little improv works for us.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, thank you. I feel as though that’s a thing that I’m not particularly good at but we’ll —
Kathryn Rubino: Really?
Joe Patrice: I never was one of those people who did the weird improvi things.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, sure, like, I’m not saying like now you’re a tree, but you are familiar with the art of conversation generally speaking.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I guess. Yeah. No, I feel it —
Kathryn Rubino: I feel there’s something you think that you’re very good at.
Joe Patrice: I feel so — what show was it? Life’s Too Short or something like that, I think. One of those shows, there’s a scene where —
Kathryn Rubino: Some super uncomfortable show.
Joe Patrice: In the cringe comedy factor, yeah, which is always enjoyable.
Kathryn Rubino: For you, not everyone.
Joe Patrice: In that show, there was a sequence where Liam Neeson was guest starring as himself and they were like trying to run him through like a comedy improv, and he just refused every entry. He was like “no” to everything.
Kathryn Rubino: Which is the opposite of what you are supposed to do.
Joe Patrice: Exactly. That pretty much sums up my improv skills, I think.
Kathryn Rubino: Well again, I’m not asking you to act like a tree. I just think that you’re capable of conversing with me for 25-ish minutes.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, we’ll try.
Kathryn Rubino: Is it really that much of a–
Joe Patrice: No, absolutely. It’s always a delight, always a delight to have these little chats.
Kathryn Rubino: I do not have a gun to his head. I just want that to be perfectly clear.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough. So, what’s going on today?
Kathryn Rubino: Everything.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it seems like a very busy day. We are coming out of all sorts of stuff. We keep thinking that this whole election aftermath will be over. It appears not to be. The most recent set of things that have happened are Rudy Giuliani has now joined the ranks of being sued by Dominion for a billion dollars.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, it seems accurate. Listen, I think that generally speaking, defamation cases are sort of a difficult legal strategy. They’re designed to be in our society. We privilege the right to speak over the rights of businesses or people not to be defamed is a weighing matter, but it seems pretty obvious to me that these were very clear lies that very obviously hurt their business.
Joe Patrice: I guess the one thing in their defense is it’s — I don’t I know how much it hurt their business because they were so obviously lies. I don’t know to what extent anybody’s actually canceled an order. I mean, it was definitely problematic.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, seriously, if you’re some sort of a person who’s buying these services and especially if you’re in a right leaning district, why are you going to go with a contract with Dominion? Maybe people aren’t canceling contracts, but I certainly imagine future contracts, especially on the smaller locality level are inevitably going to be hurt just because people know the name now.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s true.
Kathryn Rubino: This is not the kind of company you want to know about, right? It’s kind of niche enough that only those who are actually purchasing are the ones who really know the players.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I guess that’s fair. Yes. I like that analysis. It’s the kind of company that like “it’s success is when you don’t know its name.”
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and it’s also like why would any politician have to answer the question from a constituent? Why did you go with Dominion? As opposed to anyone else.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, the suit suggests that Giuliani did all of this for money to the extent that he kind of fanned these claims in an effort to get more listeners to his podcast, so he could sell all the things that they’re advertising and that that’s what he did and so, he was just trafficking lies to make money from advertisers, which is at this point I will say, however — no, and yeah, I mean, that’s true. I think that we probably while we love all the listeners that we have and you should always be talking about this podcast to other folks to get more people listening, we did issue the whole idea of becoming insane lie machines in order to get more listeners and we are proud of ourselves for that.
Kathryn Rubino: Pat yourself on the back for not being a liar. That’s where we are as like a society. It’s like good job, you haven’t lied today.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so that’s why I’m saying everybody, it’s incumbent on you all listeners to help us build our audience base the honest way and so that’s like —
Kathryn Rubino: If you like not listening to lies.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, exactly. So that’s why we are —
Kathryn Rubino: Please give us five stars.
Joe Patrice: So, thank you, yeah. I feel like this is important. A lot of people I think tune out at the end when I’m giving my long explanation of things they should do, but it’s important. And, also, we often vary some funny stuff in there, so you should always listen to the end anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: But there are other lawsuits out there that are election-related that have gotten a bit of traffic.
Joe Patrice: True. But instead, I actually am now going to read one of the ads, I think. I feel like yeah, I feel like it’s time. Yeah/
How have law firms weathered previous economic downturns and 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 the 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.
Yeah, so you’re pointing out that there are other lawsuits.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, Paul Davis.
Joe Patrice: I’m aware of this person.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, a lot of people are now, I imagine. He was the former associate general counsel at Goosehead Insurance and also in charge of HR, which is terrifying and he was fired after he was identified as one of the folks who participated in the siege of the capital on January 6th.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s a good point. I think a lot of people have applauded Goosehead Insurance for parting ways to somebody who was publicly involved in such an assault. But that decision also kind of begs another broader question and the next thing we’re going to talk about fans that question. Kind of curious why they ever had this guy on staff because there’s some serious questions about judgement involved, just above and beyond everything else. So, I don’t know why this person was in charge of HR ever because this person, in addition to taking part in this right, has now attached his name to a lawsuit which is ostensibly —
Kathryn Rubino: Dubious at best, I believe is how it’s been described.
Joe Patrice: The Latinos for Trump et al. There’s a bunch of plaintiffs versus Pete Sessions, et al.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s every single politician, everybody in the 117th Congress, every state governor, every state secretary of state and Mark Zuckerberg.
Joe Patrice: Yes. So, the argument is that the entire government is on —
Kathryn Rubino: Unhinged in some way.
Joe Patrice: No. No, it’s not unhinged, it’s illegitimate is the word I’m looking for. The entire government is illegitimate and so, they should all be removed from office. That’s obviously difficult because then you have no one in charge but he has a solution for that which is we should replace them, he argues at least temporarily until we can have a new election with more voter suppression. But he doesn’t call it that, but that’s what he calls for and before we have that new election, the country be ruled by stewards in the model of the leaders of Gondor in The Lord of the Rings, who led Gondor before Aragorn showed up.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s fiction.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it is.
Kathryn Rubino: And here is another thing, like Stewart’s as a concept has been used historically.
Joe Patrice: The regions of sorts, yes.
Kathryn Rubino: But he’s decided to go with the fiction as his example in the filing.
Joe Patrice: It’s also weird because he makes a lot of also allusions to you know, unlike Great Britain, like at a monarchy, we cast that off and it’s like — but he’s trying to replace this with a form of government that is explicitly attached to the concept of monarchical rule. Stewards and regions exist when the monarch is temporarily unable.
Kathryn Rubino: We had a legit revolution to get rid of the monarchy.
Joe Patrice: We did. I read something about that.
Kathryn Rubino: I also passed fourth grade.
Joe Patrice: Right. So, this guy he’s putting up a storm. So, there have been eight filings in this case already and it was filed a week ago.
Kathryn Rubino: That seems like a lot.
Joe Patrice: Yeah and the defendants have not written any of them.
Kathryn Rubino: It has been a while since I’ve practiced but that seems absurd.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, since the complaint — so he put in the complaint and seven supplemental filings since then. The most recent as of this recording is one which he defends his Gondor model and he complains about the media not being friendly to him for doing that and making fun of him.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, he’s lost the plot.
Joe Patrice: Indeed. And actually, I think was — I wrote an article about this and I feel as though my article, which is not mentioned in his filing by the way.
Kathryn Rubino: Were you actually upset by that?
Joe Patrice: I was somewhat because I actually thought —
Kathryn Rubino: You took it personal.
Joe Patrice: I did. Well, and I also raised very important questions because a lot of folks just kind of tossed aside like, “Oh, he references Gondor.” That’s all well and good but he’s also wrong about a lot of the internal workings of the House of Hurin.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re upset because he didn’t get his analysis of fiction correct?
Joe Patrice: I mean, I hold people to high standards. We’re lawyers.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure, but I think there’s lots of other reasons to be annoyed.
Joe Patrice: Sure. I mean, I get all that too. But I mean, you know.
Kathryn Rubino: If you’re going to bring up Lord of the Rings, you better bring Lord of the Rings.
Joe Patrice: Did he never attempt to blue book this and like check out the sites?
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I don’t know if Westlaw has that option but like you have. Red flag!
Joe Patrice: Yes. The red flag reference would — I mean, this guy, but anyway, so now he feels very sad about how people are making fun of him. In particular, salon.com, he’s mad at. Anyway, but he does not address the actual issues as I put them or —
Kathryn Rubino: But also, no issues have been raised because there have been no filings by the defendants.
Joe Patrice: True. He also defends his expert that he has lined up for this case, which —
Kathryn Rubino: Seems very early.
Joe Patrice: Yes. Well, I feel as though maybe the reason we weren’t mentioned that he focused on Salon is at Salon didn’t raise some of the stronger problems with this case. One of which is they dismiss his expert because his expert has had some brain surgery and apparently has had parts of his brain removed and it was kind of to cast dispersions that the expert may not be functioning and that’s kind of unfortunate. On the other hand, we pointed out that he’s noted by the Texas Courts as a vexatious litigant. There appear —
Kathryn Rubino: Which seems much more relevant actually.
Joe Patrice: There appear to be bench warrants out for the sky in various jurisdictions, at least as far as my early search has found. I don’t know if those have been resolved but there have been the past at least been bench warrants out for him from other —
Kathryn Rubino: It seems pretty relevant.
Joe Patrice: For contempt and so on. So, these seem to be reasons not to believe the intricate theory that his expert has come up with.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. Well, we don’t even have to bring his medical history into it at all!
Joe Patrice: Exactly!
Kathryn Rubino: There’s actually documentation!
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So anyway, this suit is a lot of fun. So this is —
Kathryn Rubino: Or a terrible sign for the future of our country.
Joe Patrice: Sure, but until the judge gets around to kicking this and given the — and so, obviously the defendants have several days to respond in this case —
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, who even knows who’s been served and what manner of processes happened for literally every state.
Joe Patrice: But how many more filings are we going to get before they respond?
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, over under.
Joe Patrice: There have been eight in a week. I feel as though we’re going to get a good six or seven more at least before there’s an answer.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s fantastic.
Joe Patrice: And not answer, but to be fair, motion to dismiss.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: There’s no need to answer this.
Kathryn Rubino: Why would you answer?
Joe Patrice: But yeah, so this is one of those cases that I put my flag up on so I get alerted whenever something gets filed because this is just pure gold.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, yeah. It is.
Joe Patrice: I mean, this is why these sorts of docketing services exist to keep us up to date. Anyway, what? You’re now pointing at me.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, I thought you were going to do an ad read.
Joe Patrice: I was.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, that’s what I was waiting on.
Joe Patrice: But I hadn’t worked out the way I was going to bring — see, this is a subtle art here.
Kathryn Rubino: Listen, I had a separate topic of conversation that I was going to bring up but I didn’t want to get started and then have to be interrupted halfway through.
Joe Patrice: I mean look, I guess what we need to do is figure out how we organize this. We weren’t very organized and there’s lots of moving parts here. We need a way to deal with this. Maybe we should streamline some of these administrative tasks and with that, let’s hear from our friends at lexicon.
Male: Here’s a message just for the attorneys out there. So you passed the bar, joined a firm, or even built your own, now are you finding out that you’re doing more administration than actual law practice, Lexicon can help. Lexicon is a legal services and technology provider with over a decade of experience streamlining administrative tasks like time keeping, HR, billing, client intake and more, so you can focus on maximizing billable hours and increasing client satisfaction. Call 855-4-LEXICON or visit lexiconservices.com/go to learn more.
Joe Patrice: So, anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: Good job.
Joe Patrice: You have another topic.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, okay. It struck me that we were talking about Goosehead Insurance and how did this guy who seems to very much have lost the plot actually be in a position of authority in any way and it reminded me of another attorney who’s been in the news post, the insurrection, which is McCall Calhoun who is a Georgian lawyer who was arrested and has been held without bail because of his participation in the insurrection and one of the things is that the judge said in the bail hearing because the defense said that he should be released and brought up a lot of stuff about his prior cases because he’s a lawyer and he’s a solo practitioner and he has all this great reputation in the community, all these connections and the judge’s position was like maybe that was true six months ago, but he has been radicalized since then and his postings on various social media platforms have been incredibly violent. He’s actively called for violence and murder and various things and so, for those reasons, he was held without bail.
But it just kind of strike me that Paul Davis, also may have been fine up until the radicalization point and I think that that’s kind of an interesting thing where there’s oftentimes a clear kind of turning point where everything seemed fine and then there was a moment and it wasn’t.
Joe Patrice: So, this is interesting. Let’s talk about this because I think — this is an interesting discussion. Is there something about the lawyer mind that makes it more susceptible to the sort of thing?
Kathryn Rubino: You would think the opposite.
Joe Patrice: You would, but I’m reminded of and I can’t remember off the top of my head what the name of it was but Cass Sunstein rights on random topics all the time. It’s something that some people dog them for but it’s interesting to apply his brain to different ideas. He wrote a book about the Star Wars for heaven’s sake like he does these sorts of things. But he wrote a book a while ago about conspiracy theories and the elements that draw people into them and I wonder if in particular, these ideas like queue and stuff like that where there’s an intricate lore to it, ways in which it’s not just that you believe something crazy, but there’s always something to point to as this is evidence that backs up my crazy and that kind of intricate world is something that — I wonder if there’s a way in which, if you do trip into it as a lawyer, which obviously is like the prima facie problem that you trip into it. But once you do trip into it, is it something that compounds upon itself because your brain —
Kathryn Rubino: Is looking for evidence.
Joe Patrice: Find evidence of detach it together creates this fictitious world. Your example, like I’m also tracking Lin Wood’s continuing issues. I mean, Lin Wood was saying to the New Yorker a week ago that Trump’s going to be re-inaugurated like it it’s a complete break from the reality on the ground.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, you also wonder if sort of the thinking like literally thinking like a lawyer that we’re kind of taught in law school about taking the devil’s advocate kind of position as if that’s sort of a virtue helps to indoctrinate people into that theory, into that world saying that well, there’s always got to be another answer as opposed to no. Sometimes they’re just facts it’s over. It’s over.
Joe Patrice: And right, I think the we — look, there’s kind of the difference between kind of a logical argumentative advocate position and kind of the empty sophistry position that like believes that just taking the other side for the hell of it is a good thing. But yeah. No, I mean I think you can see how lawyers with naturally skeptical approaches can fall down a rabbit hole and then once they’re there, if the conspiracy theory is developed enough, that they can cite “evidence” to back everything up, it can become real poison and —
Kathryn Rubino: Although, in terms of those who have already been arrested for the January 6 insurrection, lawyers, as far as we can tell thus far are not a tremendous percentage. It’s not like the military, which is a disturbing amount of those that have been arrested.
Joe Patrice: Military and law enforcement being over-represented is not shocking but it’s certainly problematic.
Kathryn Rubino: I think that that is correct, but there have been a couple of very notable examples of attorneys that were identified but we’d be writing about them if we knew about them.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it’s fair to note that lawyers are not a not a huge chunk of the population. So, in some ways, the number of lawyers, we have seen suggests that there is at least a normal distribution of them.
Kathryn Rubino: And I guess if you also consider those who participated in sort of the lead up to it, maybe not in the actual violence, but if you think about Ted Cruz, Josh Holly, Rudy Giuliani, those are all attorneys that at least stoke the flames that led to the insurrection.
Joe Patrice: Yeah and query how much these folks are true believers versus cynical grifters. I think that the Senators you mentioned strike me as though they probably know that this isn’t real and just did it for their own.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m not sure. There was just an article over the weekend in the Kansas City Star about Josh Holly that his Stanford professor and mentor and adviser called himself bamboozled over Josh Holly’s current beliefs. But at the same time, they also went deeper and said that in high school, he was making some of these representations. In college, he was making some of these representations. He was very sympathetic to those who did the Oklahoma City bombing. He said that Mark Fuhrman shouldn’t be labeled a racist. These kinds of beliefs are long-standing at least as far as we’re able to tell at this point.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, I’m not suggesting he’s not a right-wing true believer on that front, but like to the level of thinking that Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez created fake voting machines. I think that’s a level that I don’t know as though so he goes to.
Kathryn Rubino: I agree but I also think that he knew that making those kinds of statements was going to have a ripple effect and he wanted that ripple effect. He wanted — I don’t necessarily know whether or not he wanted some sort of armed insurrection, but I do think that he wanted doubt cast on the Biden Administration. He wants to be able to say this is illegitimate to segments of the population.
Joe Patrice: Oh, yeah. I mean, I think that’s very clear.
Kathryn Rubino: I think that is very clear to me.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. This conversation about the psyche of lawyers and whether or not it makes us more — I want to go back and re-read that Sunstein book because I think at the time I went through it and this was so many years ago. I wasn’t even thinking about it from this perspective but —
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and they were rhetoric specialist who specialized in the rhetoric of conspiracy theories.
Joe Patrice: Oh, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: That why attract certain people and that kind of stuff. It is very interesting and I think something unfortunately we’re going to have to think about and continue to talk about for a long time because I don’t think that those who have been kind of sucked into the queue world are going to change very much.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so that book was 2016. So yeah, it was kind of fortuitously —
Kathryn Rubino: Right on the cusp, yeah. What’s the name of the book? How’d you find it?
Joe Patrice: Conspiracy theories. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s a pretty original name.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so I was just going to say I don’t know the title off the top of my head but I was also just going to plug, I know that Paul Johnson from Pitt has a book about right-wing populism and how people get sucked into it., So that’s an interesting one that I’ll plug. I haven’t even read it yet. But I know that he has that book out there.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that’s great.
Joe Patrice: I’ll plug him. We like him. So, anyway with all that said, there’s literally no logical way to jump from that to contracts.
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.
This episode was just marked by me being completely unable to come up with any logical transition. I feel like I failed myself more.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I’m disappointed in you too, if that helps.
Joe Patrice: Speaking of failure and —
Kathryn Rubino: Is there another ad read about failure coming? I’m so confused.
Joe Patrice: No, but I thought that I was just going to toss around. There is this new report that suggests the head of the DOJ Civil Division had plotted with Trump to overthrow the leadership of the Department of Justice and use that in a way to create a smooth transition to discounting the election.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s terrifying. I know a lot of folks on Twitter are on top of this and whatnot and people are saying, we came so close to actually a successful coup.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, so this this one I think is interesting and why I cabinet around the idea of failure is obviously this plot did not succeed.
Kathryn Rubino: Correct.
Joe Patrice: And it worries me that there’s a lot of reports coming out now that this attorney, Jeffrey Clark who has been a Kirkland & Ellis partner. He’s an active Fed Soc leader shocking no one. He’s now in his post Department of Justice world potentially facing some problems in the workforce because it seems as though he might be radioactive because law firms take a dim view of trying to overthrow governments and it struck me that yeah, we’ve seen a shift but it’s also as we’ve seen more firms penalize and distance themselves from folks who did the sort of stuff, it actually makes me more upset about those that they didn’t.
I mean, Rod Rosenstein like actively kidnap children and gets to move right into BigLaw, whereas people who did it now, they get a dim view and I worry about that. I feel like that’s unfortunate that we have this weird double standard and then what I worry about the most is I’m not altogether sure that Kirkland & Ellis is upset that this guy tried to do this as much as that he failed.
I mean come on, Jeffrey. Kirkland & Ellis is for winners. When we set our minds to something, we follow through and we complete the job. You’re a disgrace to our firm.
Kathryn Rubino: Listen, a couple things. I think that first of all, somebody like Rod Rosenstein has a more complicated history with the Trump Administration and was kind of seen especially towards the end of his tenure as kind of standing against the administration, which kind of makes it more complicated. I agree that his role in the whole child removal is really problematic and I would not want to work with him or for him in any way but I do think that complicates it on the big law fronts, but I also think that post January 6th, I think is a kind of a date that we will always remember.
It’s a marking point and I think that post that, there is a difference from at least corporate America and sort of the neoliberal neutrality and actually seeing that there is a difference between far-right ideology and leftist ideology. And I think that’s kind of been the marking point and I think that a lot of the kind of bad PR that places like Lincoln Project are trying to do, trying to call out people who donate to politicians that have done this or somehow otherwise involved, I think that all this has — it’s starting to make a change in what we think is acceptable and listen, what is acceptable is always in constant evolution on every front and I think that this is an example of one of those ways and I’m here for it. I’m here for it. I’m glad.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. The revolving door as a concept is always problematic. Obviously, we follow folks like Jeff Hauser who does this work in a serious way of like tracking how the revolving door works with politics and the private sector. I’ve always been reticent to completely call out that it’s bad that there’s any form of revolving door because in some ways I feel like the only way in which these folks can really be held accountable is to go back to the workforce and find it doesn’t want them. Unfortunately, that’s not been the case largely. The workforce has just shrugged and let it happen.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, also because even if you don’t necessarily agree that person has contacts and who knows will be in charge next cycle and having somebody who has those contacts is valuable in some way and obviously, I think this is problematic but I understand the sort of logic behind it.
Joe Patrice: So, that was a jam-packed day of random legal election stuff. Someday, we’re going —
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, it’s not random and they’re all still kind of election-related.
Joe Patrice: Someday, we’re going to get back to being able to talk about law firms and bar exams in a more business sort of way, but for now, it’s just going to be this for a while.
Kathryn Rubino: Listen, Kirkland & Ellis.
Joe Patrice: We did, I guess, Kirkland & Ellis did come up, that’s fair.
Kathryn Rubino: And I am shocked that there appears to be a problem with him going back to BigLaw and I’m excited.
Joe Patrice: In fairness, Kirkland & Ellis is, as of this recording, not said anything directly.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure, and I doubt they will.
Joe Patrice: Well, I mean, it’s just going to be a question of whether he ends up with a job. That’s going to be how we’re going to see whether or not they’ve spoken.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, listen, he can always get a job on the right wing talking circuit, right?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, maybe. I mean, I don’t know. I’ve never seen this guy speak. Like who knows, like there’s a level of charisma you need to be a talking head I think. Right?
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I don’t know. Ben Stein was famous on TV.
Joe Patrice: He has an anti-charisma, though.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay.
Joe Patrice: But there is a charisma to being anti-charismatic.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay.
Joe Patrice: We’ve rambled for a bit. We want to thank all of our sponsors — Lexicon, LexisNexis Interaction and Contract Tools by Paper Software. Thanks everybody for listening. You should be subscribed to the show. You should give it reviews, stars, write some things that shows you’re engaged, that’s important. Also, as we said earlier, tell more people about it. If you like are in a legal setting and somebody rambles about, “Oh, that Gondor lawsuit is so dumb.” You go, “Oh, you know who talked about that the other day? The always engaging anti-charisma of Joe and Kathryn.”
You can also follow us on Twitter. I’m @josephpatrice. She’s @kathryn1. You should read Above the Law all the time, of course. You should be listening to the Jabot, which is Kathryn’s other show about diversity in law firms and law schools. I also am on Legal Tech Week, which is a — we internally call it the Legal Technology Reporter Roundtable, but it’s a fun look at how legal talk operates every week. You should also listen to the other offerings of the Legal Talk Network, which are numerous and I can’t mention all of them without this show going on forever.
With that all said, I think we’re at our end point.
Kathryn Rubino: Peace!
Joe Patrice: Nice.
<a href=”https://www.tech-synergy.com/podcast-transcription” target=”_blank”>Podcast transcription</a> by <a href=”https://www.tech-synergy.com” target=”_blank”>Tech-Synergy.com</a>
Notify me when there’s a new episode!
|Published:||January 27, 2021|
|Podcast:||Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer|
|Category:||Legal Entertainment , News & Current Events|
Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer
Above the Law's Joe Patrice and Kathryn Rubino examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.