They tried to keep a student from graduating... next year they'll be writing your laws!
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...
Stanford responded swiftly to the outcry over threatening a law student’s graduation because he made jokes about Josh Hawley, but what’s not funny is the fact that the people who targeted him will all have high profile clerkships next year. We also discuss Harvard’s insistence that students on need-based aid hand over all their summer associate earnings. And there’s way more conversation about the phrase “Wet and Wild” than anyone wants.
Kathryn Rubino: Hello.
Joe Patrice: Ah, stakeout.
Kathryn Rubino: No. I was intending to go before you.
Joe Patrice: Oh, you were? Okay. I just made a gesture like I was going to talk and then didn’t because I thought I could bait you into it.
Kathryn Rubino: I intended to go first. I was actually listening for the click of you hitting record which is what I was trying to key off of rather than your gestures.
Joe Patrice: Offsides. Fair enough. This is as you can tell from that –
Kathryn Rubino: Our witty banter.
Joe Patrice: Urbane and intelligent banter. This is a show about lawyers Thinking Like a Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice. That’s Kathryn Rubino. We’re editors at Above the Law and we’re your hosts for this wet and wild journey through the legal world. Well,
Kathryn Rubino: That seemed weird.
Joe Patrice: Well, I mean, I don’t know. Well, it’s not wet I suppose because it’s –I mean, it’s summer. There are fire hydrants open and stuff.
Kathryn Rubino: That is a very specific summertime image that I don’t think you have ever participated in.
Joe Patrice: I mean, no, because I don’t know you know, I’m not –
Kathryn Rubino: Because you did not grow up in New York City is what.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean, fair. But I mean, I’ve seen them. I don’t like jumping into high pressure water.
Kathryn Rubino: But you never even like get a sprinkler as a kid?
Joe Patrice: We have sprinklers, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, it’s the same thing, right? It’s the same.
Joe Patrice: I guess. Except one of them is you know a pressure hose.
Kathryn Rubino: No. I mean, it’s not that bad.
Joe Patrice: So, anyway, that we’re –
Kathryn Rubino: It’s officially summertime though I think is the point.
Joe Patrice: Yes. And that’s why I was saying wet and wild.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s wet and wild. Which I mean, I get like the various connotations of that. But I still think wet and wild is like the cheap makeup brand that you get at like Target or Kmart or IPK Mart. But it was like 99 cents for like — she ate a lipstick. Like back in the day it was like oh, I could have like a a range of colors at my disposal.
Joe Patrice: That brings us to our new sponsor, Westmore Cosmetics. So, okay. Well, whatever. My point was we’re going to talk about some of the big legal stories of the week –
Kathryn Rubino: And occasionally cosmetics. See, we should cross promote this with Fashionista.
Joe Patrice: See, you’re just like on brand. That’s your whole thing. Fashionista being a fashionista.com website about the fashion industry that our corporate –
Kathryn Rubino: Corporate overlords.
Joe Patrice: No, they’re our corporate — they’re not our overlords. They’re our corporate –
Kathryn Rubino: Entity?
Joe Patrice: Siblings.
Kathryn Rubino: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. We are owned by the same parent.
Joe Patrice: Right. Well, I was and whole hang up was that you know in very supreme court law school nerd, I wanted to say brethren but obviously that’s
you know not you know that’s a gendered term.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: It doesn’t really — that definitely doesn’t apply here. So, I was like it’s got to be something else and I hadn’t really worked out what it was.
Kathryn Rubino: Our corporate siblings. I like that.
Joe Patrice: Siblings is right. Anyway, we have now gone far far longer on stuff that is completely irrelevant than one would have hoped.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I’ll tell you. I mean, maybe makeup is just on my mind because I feel like we’re getting back to life. Like I’ve gone almost you know over a year without really thinking much about makeup or various social niceties which
I will now be participating in on the regs.
Joe Patrice: Uhm. Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: Are you excited for summer?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Yeah. No. I mean, not so much summer. It’s one of my least
Kathryn Rubino: Okay, but there’s only four. I think you could have a definitive —
Joe Patrice: Right. That’s why you caught me pause myself after I said one of and I
was like this is going to end badly.
Kathryn Rubino: What else don’t you like?
Joe Patrice: Everything that’s not fall.
Kathryn Rubino: Are you are you secretly a white girl?
Joe Patrice: Oh, yeah. No. Interesting that you –
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, less than fall is the best.
Joe Patrice: My interest is not in the pumpkin spice latte. It’s
more that’s when the temperature –
Kathryn Rubino: College football.
Joe Patrice: College football is back. It’s when the temperature is about where I’d want it to be. Spring also has kind of that same temperature but it’s always getting worse as opposed to this. It’s always getting better. So, yeah, anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I’m a sucker for a cardigan you know.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Oh, yeah. I love cardigans.
Kathryn Rubino: Tayler swift has got it right. Cardigans are where – are my jam.
Joe Patrice: There you go.
Kathryn Rubino: I do like that about the fall and I like layering in a nice big scarf like that’s –
Joe Patrice: Do you want to talk about law at any point today? I mean, if you don’t.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, not. Okay.
Joe Patrice: Well, no. So, we’re going to chat about law school and maybe we’ll talk a little bit about going to law school. That’s actually going to be how we start off. We’re going to talk about going to law school and when you go, you hope to graduate.
Kathryn Rubino: Yes.
Joe Patrice: But what if instead you made some jokes about the people at the Federalist Society?
Kathryn Rubino: Ah, I thought it almost felt like we were about to do an ad read and I don’t necessarily read all the ads ahead of time and I was like —
Joe Patrice: So, you don’t know what’s coming? Yeah, right.
Kathryn Rubino: I was like, oh, okay. Do we have a new ad something?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, right.
Kathryn Rubino: I was like maybe oh, okay. Do we have a new ad? Something?
Or maybe it was like one of our – I don’t know. I thought maybe it was a creative way to get into an ad. But yes. So, there was a whole big scandal last week at Stanford Law School. A student had made a parody about the Federalist Society back in January. I think it was January 25th. He sent around to an a-list serve that is dedicated to talking about politics and other sort of contemporary issues. And it was – do you remember January. It seems like one million years ago, but we had a coupe attempt if you’ll recall.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: And the Federalist Society came under some criticism for not distancing itself from some prominent members that really encouraged a lot of upset feelings uh over the 2020 election. And so, they had been put under the microscope for their inability or lack of desire to kind of distance themselves from the coup and as a result, a student mocked up this kind of fake flyer talking about Josh Hawley and about the insurrection. So, it got sent around –
Joe Patrice: The title is the Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection RSVP here. It’s put together as though it’s one of the ubiquitous –
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, featuring Josh Hawley.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, there’s pictures of Hawley, but it’s put together as one of those ubiquitous if you ever go to a law school Federalist Society pamphlets that are out there like oh, you know, hey, we’re going to have lunch and pizzas here. Which is how they get you. Go on.
Kathryn Rubino: But it was very clearly a parody. I believe that the date that it was — the RSVP date was –
Joe Patrice: Yeah. It was on January 6th.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, it was all ready to happen. Yeah, all this kind of stuff is very clearly parody although got sent around a bunch of places. I think USA Today put an article out being like this is parody, this is not real whatever. A few months later, there was a complaint issued by some members of the Stanford Federalist Society saying that it had disparaged them and so the university launched an investigation into it but the student who wrote the — his name us Nicholas Wallace. He found out about the investigation the last day of class just as he’s about to study for finals. And as part of the ongoing investigation the university put a hold on his diploma and said that he wouldn’t be able to graduate with the investigation pending. This goes public Mark Joseph Stern and Slate did a ton of reporting kind of real time on it and the backlash was swift and severe and in a matter of hours all of a sudden, the university was able to decide that this was protected speech. In California there’s a law, I think it’s Leonard’s Law that makes it particularly clear that somebody can’t be stopped from graduating because of these sorts of protected political speech and it was cleared up in a matter of hours after the press got involved.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. And let’s clarify, when we’re saying university it’s because it was handled at the university level. The law school itself administration was not the ones
doing this from what we gather.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. They’ve put out several statements at this point because in the initial reporting it wasn’t clear and they put out several statements saying that it was done at the university level and indeed they had encouraged the university to
resolve the matter.
Joe Patrice: Which is good because it just helps I think all of us to know that these people at Stanford Law School itself are familiar with how law works.
Kathryn Rubino: It is encouraged.
Joe Patrice: Which isn’t necessarily true of everybody. It certainly seems to not be true of the university level over at Stanford. So with that said, there was an attempt to get this kid in trouble because he made jokey jokes about the Federalist Society.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah and I mean it really it was in the middle of finals, right? So, to say that somebody is going to be distracted in the middle of all this was very true.
Joe Patrice: Now, where we come in obviously, we’re also reporting on this
as it happens, but where we could really come and the thing that distinguished Above the Law in this area was we took a slightly — we took a different that was slightly beyond what the reporting at Slate had done. What we did is at Above the Law came to our attention the names of the Federalist Society students who had
filed the complaints to put the kid in trouble. With that said, we had a long
Kathryn Rubino: Editorial conversation.
Joe Patrice: Editorial conversation.
Kathryn Rubino: Behind the scenes. Yeah.
Joe Patrice: What to do with this. We have had a longstanding policy of not naming students when they’re involved in embarrassing incidents. You get drunk and make a pass at a partner’s wife at an event for instance or you are —
Kathryn Rubino: Falling in the river.
Joe Patrice: Well, fall into the river was actually reported in the mainstream media. So, that one’s different, but you moon the other bus at a summer event.
These sorts of screw-ups or indeed the one that came recently which we didn’t write a specific thing on but was also widely reported in the New York Times. The student who kind of utilized racial epithet but while discussing a case, we will blast professors who do that because they should know better, but the student we often say, well, maybe they just don’t know better.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. And this has sort of been a policy and everything is subjective and it’s always a judgment call because at the end of the day you’re talking about law students. These are adults.
Joe Patrice: Right and exactly. And we view law school as a very like a liminal period where you’re in between being you know a stupid kid and being an adult who we’re about to give the keys to the profession to and making distinctions between those is hard. When people make embarrassing ill-informed decisions, we tend to —
we will report on them because they’re news, but we will not necessarily name them because, hey, maybe you know that was a teachable moment for them that they use that term and now they know not to so why should that stick with them? In this instance, we did come out and name these individuals and the reason of course was that this wasn’t really an embarrassing mistake. These are people who’ve been in law school for a long time and who know better and who are making affirmative written complaints with the intention of putting another student in jeopardy with their education solely because they don’t like the jokes he made about them even though they know full well that that’s parody and shouldn’t be a problem. And the other aspect to it that was of note and that wade in favor of naming these folks is that these folks despite the fact that they just half-cocked went after a kid’s future basically –
Kathryn Rubino: Graduation. Yeah. The ability to sit for the bar.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Despite knowing full well that it should be that there was no legal problem here, these folks are about to start writing the laws that govern this country. All of them have clerkships.
Kathryn Rubino: Circuit level.
Joe Patrice: Circuit level federal clerkships. It will surprise you not at all that they are pumped into a pipeline of the worst kind of career advancementism. We’ve written before about the way the Federalist Society basically takes students, encourages them to behave badly. Host events that are you know just excuses to do parodies making fun of immigrants and stuff like that. All of that sort of behavior is rewarded with the highest entree to more power. You get a better clerkship that way, you get the possibility of going to a feeder judge for the supreme court that way. It is a perverse system and it’s troubling and all of these trolls are applauded. This is it appears the same sort of situation these folks are clerking for Sutton, Riedler and Timkovitch, two from the sixth and the last from the tenth circuit and that means they’re going to be directly influencing the way in which the law operates in this country very soon and it seemed important.
Kathryn Rubino: I think it also makes the story more about sort of the evils of the Federalist Society, right? Because the whole thing starts with problematic behavior on sort of the fed stock national level, right? And their reaction to the insurrection of January 6th and we see how this behavior and these attitudes
are reinforced throughout the entirety of this kind of dispersed fed stock system, right?
Joe Patrice: Right. But I think it’s clear we need to kind of — there are two things going on and I think even in my like diatribe there I think we conflated them in ways that they shouldn’t. The decision about naming folks was independent of the Federalist Society thing. It came because we determined that was not an embarrassing decision. It was more of an adult affirmative professional decision. It wouldn’t matter if it had been ACS people complaining about a fed stock kid. It would be the same sort of situation. The newsworthy aspect of it is the question of, hey, they’re going to go work for these judges and the way in which this applauds bad behavior. And Professor Lee Littman on Twitter was kind of straddling this.
Kathryn Rubino: It is I think — it’s a real decision that has to be made. It’s not something we took lightly.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. And we think like the way in which she did it had benefits too. She said she didn’t quite agree with us going all the way to naming who the people were, but did think that we should because it’s newsworthy to point out the way in which they’re going to these high-powered clerkships which we weighed to and why we didn’t do that was –
Kathryn Rubino: Because there’s only a very small number of folks who clerk for each judge in a given year and saying, oh, well, it’s down to one of these three people. If you’re somebody who did not do this, it’s kind of being painted with an unfair brush right there, right? And saying I didn’t even go to Stanford.
Joe Patrice: And we didn’t necessarily know if there were people from those clerkships who like multiple people from Stanford from those clerkships but if there’s a risk that there is, now you’re potentially making somebody seem like they’re guilty by association.
We didn’t want that and we felt like that was another reason to go that one step further than what Professor Littman had although I totally understand. In a lot of ways, I thought that was the right approach except we couldn’t get over that what if we’re unfairly painting somebody.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, listen, at the end of the day these are not children. These are grown folks. They made a professional decision. You don’t accidentally file
a complaint against a fellow student, right? It’s an it’s an affirmative decision, it’s in a professional context. They obviously thought that this was something that was a legal ethics sort of issue that would have the ability to change whether or not somebody could even take the bar exam.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Right? Which would totally mess up the trajectory of their career if they can’t sit for their first sitting of the bar exam even if you are able to pass in
the second sitting which is in February. Most people have already started their jobs by then whereas most people are able to take the summer between law school and starting a job so they have time to study and to sit for the bar and to prepare for
the bar. And so, potentially changing the trajectory of someone’s career is a decision that you’ve made.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: And I don’t think it’s inappropriate to hold folks responsible for that.
Joe Patrice: Right. And there were multiple factors going on and the one that pushed us over was the affirmativeness of it, but it was it was an interesting case and hopefully everybody out there listening is enjoying hearing basically a recap of what in real time as we talked through all of this when we were given the information. But you know, that’s the thing. Like you’re going there, you’re going to be a professional and at a certain point, you have to be responsible for that because you’ve gone to law school to be a lawyer and not an accountant. Take advantage of Nota, a no-cost (00:16:57) management tool that helps solo and small law firms track client funds down to the penny. Enjoy peace of mind with one-click reconciliation, automated transaction alerts and real-time bank data. Visit trustnota.com/legal to learn more the terms and conditions may apply.
Kathryn Rubino: The other thing I was going to say –
Joe Patrice: You were done until I started it.
Kathryn Rubino: I wasn’t.
Joe Patrice: No, but until I started the transition and the transition like clearly sparked something and I was already too far gone. I was already too far down. And then I pulled the transition and all.
Kathryn Rubino: From the earliest iterations of the Above the Law policy about protecting student’s identity, it has always been to protect folks from youthful indiscretions. There was nothing youthful or indiscrete about what they did. It was a decision that was made. No one trips and accidentally files.
Joe Patrice: Right. Yes. Absolutely. With that said, let’s talk about another thing that law students like to do which is theoretically work over the summer. Normally, law students who are obviously in a professional school, a trade school if you will to
learn a profession and then move on in that profession, a lot of that happens by taking work over the summer with law firms and legal departments that then pay you money while you’re learning the trade in a real like apprenticeship almost. And in many cases, it’s your long-term job on the back end.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure, but I think it might be a bridge too far to call summer associateships apprenticeships. It’s oftentimes characterized by social events and an informal getting to know you process than actual assignments.
Joe Patrice: Okay. Well, so you’re clearly going to come the opposite way on this story then. Harvard Law School apparently, it’s come to our attention has a policy with students who are on certain forms of financial aid, the grant process where essentially those who are in sufficient need who don’t need to take out loans then, but are given grants to cover the cost of attendance so that they can be there even though they don’t have the financial means to cover Harvard’s massive tuition. It has come to our attention that the way in which the school deals with this summer work that these students then are able to get with the benefit of their being Harvard law students is to say well, we assume for four months out of the year, 8,000 bucks is good enough for you to live in New York City and do all the things you need to do for
your summer associateship. So, we’ll let you have that eight grand and then after that, I don’t know maybe you give us 90% of all your earnings above that back and
then we’ll calls us even.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I do not agree with Harvard’s decision.
Joe Patrice: I mean, summer associateship is just having lunches all the time. So, it’s not the same.
Kathryn Rubino: Listen. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. It’s still an essential,
a way that you are able to secure that job. A lot, you know. It’s very hard to get a big law job if you have not previously done a summer associateship at that firm. So, it’s an essential component regardless of what it consists of.
Joe Patrice: The justification for in theory which there’s a certain on-paper logic to this which is folks were financially strapped.
Now, they have an influx of money that probably takes them outside of that strap. So, maybe we’ll keep the grants going, you give us some of that back directly as tuition and it’ll work out. That makes some sense intellectually. The paucity of the allowance that they’re getting considering the places that they have to live and then the massive slice of the pie; I know some other schools do similar stuff but from what I’ve been able to ascertain, people are taking like 50% of what’s on top pof whatever.
Kathryn Rubino: 90 is very different,
Joe Patrice: 90 is a little rough. And on top of that, they will also readjust the amount of grant that you may need in the future in addition to taking this tuition money and what we also heard about were some people who were told, well, you don’t need to do that. You could also take out a loan to cover the gap as you’ve lost all this money. So, you’ve earned this money, you’ve now given it back to the school and the way they do that is by reducing your grant going forward that amount, but you don’t have that amount necessarily because they’re doing it based on what you’ve earned for the year. You’ve not actually earned that, you only were there for a few months and that money most of which you don’t actually have because you haven’t filed your taxes to get that money back, and some people made points to me after I wrote this article like, well, you could file quarterly and do both and it’s like yeah, but, how about we assume that law students are law students.
Kathryn Rubino: Will do what the majority of people are going to do.
Joe Patrice: And are going to be more like the reasonable person and not do that
and file in April and get their money then. So, they’re now being held to well, you got all this money but you didn’t really get all this gross money because it’s all handled by gross amounts and you don’t have that because it all got withheld and you’re not going to get that until later. It’s just brutal and what struck me about the whole problem is yeah –
Kathryn Rubino: I was about to say, the thing that got me is that the longer you work, the worse off you are.
Joe Patrice: Yes. There was a marginal issue with it which is that if you worked an
eight-week program, you would end up better off after all the deductions and readjustments happen than if you worked the 12 weeks There should never be a scenario in which you end up worse off working more. Like that’s the whole thing with marginal tax rates. Like when people say, well, rich people pay 98%. It’s like no, they don’t. They pay the same rates everybody does –
Kathryn Rubino: Until they make that.
Joe Patrice: Except on the amounts over, that last dollar may get taxed at a higher rate, but not the ones before. Same here. You should not have a system that says
you earned more money, so you will make less of it on the back end, And then these
cases in the straight up comparisons, they’re worse off than people who are paying for law school through other means. People who are paying for other means are paying a few hundred bucks less per year than the folks who are getting these grants which is extra insane considering the whole point of this was to make this more viable for people. And it’s also fairly galling, the way in which it was postured at least the way the school seems to be talking about it and not that they made direct statements that we heard from students who had talked.
Kathryn Rubino: But they haven’t come out with the statement.
Joe Patrice: Right. When we’ve heard from students who’ve been negotiating with them, it seems as though the argument is well, I mean, you could be taking lower paying like public service jobs and this wouldn’t be as big a deal and the kind of galling aspect of it is the idea that the purpose of bringing people into the access and power that a Harvard Law Degree can provide coming from lower means, it’s not to then spit them back out to do more lower meansie jobs.
Kathryn Rubino: Right.
Joe Patrice: Like –
Kathryn Rubino: They’re literally trying to maintain this kind of dichotomy between the people who are able to make money with their Harvard Law Degree and those who are not.
Joe Patrice: Yes, the legacies who are paying with trust funds get to go on and continue making like these were trust funds.
Kathryn Rubino: They can make as much money as they want.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Then they really did feel as though the argument was well, why should this matter to you, you’re here to go do public interest stuff, which not to besmirch public interest work –
Kathryn Rubino: Of course not, and more people –
Joe Patrice: It’s very important.
Kathryn Rubino: Which more people with Harvard Law Degrees were able and willing and whatever.
Joe Patrice: The idea is that you would never look at the trust fund student and say well, shouldn’t we really be taking your money because you should be doing public interest stuff which they probably should.
Kathryn Rubino: Also, this should not at all be the law school’s decision, right?
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: This should be completely up to the individual and there’s a million different reasons why you might want to do public interest work or it may not be appropriate for you. And the fact that the law school is kind of putting their finger or their thumb on the scale in one direction, the other is wild.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. It’s real bad and I understand their position. But like, the worst part of it is also like they say, oh, well, we’ve got to get it back somehow because otherwise we’d be giving away this money based on financial need that these
students don’t necessarily have as much of a need anymore and my take on that is well, yeah, okay.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s freaking Harvard who cares.
Joe Patrice: You’ve got a 40-billion-dollar endowment.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re going to be okay. You got to be okay.
Joe Patrice: And the whole point of this is not to stick it to like because if the idea is to help bring people into this playing field, you don’t necessarily have to spend the whole time saying, well, the rich people were ahead already, but we’re going to make sure that you don’t get any extra close to them like fine. So, they get an extra
yeah six grand in a year because you didn’t take away 90% of their money. Is that really the hill you want to die on?
Kathryn Rubino: This is not a make or break moment for Harvard, right? Like they don’t need that 6k. They don’t.
Joe Patrice: I wouldn’t think so. Anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: And you know how you know they don’t need it? Because if they were doing public interest jobs, the school will be fine with it.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: So, they don’t need the money. They just see it as an opportunity to nickel and dime and get an extra 6k from kids.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Yeah. Oh well.
Kathryn Rubino: See, I would have thought this is where we would do like an accounting ad read because literally you have to be an accountant in order to make this work at Harvard.
Joe Patrice: So are you questioning the way in which I kind of run the ads to this organization like –
Kathryn Rubino: I was.
Joe Patrice: So, you’re suggesting there’s like some bigger administrative problem with how we’re doing this? Maybe it’s time to streamline administrative tasks and for that let’s check in with the people at Lexicon.
Midtro: 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 8554Lexicon or visit lexiconservices.com/go to learn more.
Joe Patrice: Well, we’ve almost come to time. We haven’t even gotten to — we had two other stories on this agenda.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean both of those are pretty big terrible stories/
Joe Patrice: Big stories, yeah. Well, I guess we may — we’ll see depending on how productive this week is, we may have to spill over and come back. Thankfully, these are fairly evergreen stories.
Kathryn Rubino: Uhm. There you go.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, if you are already listening to this show, that’s great. Go ahead and make it a real commitment by subscribing. That way you’ll get all of these –
Kathryn Rubino: That’s the kind of commitment you’re ready for.
Joe Patrice: That’s about the highest level I can come up with.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s where you are as a human.
Joe Patrice: You can subscribe and get these sent to you as soon as they come out. You should be giving reviews and stars and writing things to show some engagement that leads them to recommend it to other people who have similar interests and that’s all good. You should check out The Jabot which is Kathryn’s other podcast. You should check out the Legal Tech Week Journalists Roundtable which is a show that I’m on talking about legal tech stuff, big legal tech news this week with a couple
of IPOs coming out from legal tech companies.
Kathryn Rubino: We’ve got a lot to talk about. It will be very interesting.
Joe Patrice: That never happens. Yeah, that’s definitely going to be a big part of it. You should be reading Above the Law as always. You should check us out on social media. I’m @josephpatrice. She’s @Kathryn1, the numeral one. In that instance, you should be checking out all the other programs from the Legal Talk Network. Thanks of course to Nota powered by (00:28:28) and Lexicon for sponsoring
and with all of that, I think we’re done. Al right.
Notify me when there’s a new episode!
|Published:||June 9, 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.