Is there a significant crossover between this podcast’s audience and Taylor Swift? I guess we’ll find out this week as we discuss her latest re-release and the intellectual property issues driving her new recording strategy. Because everything comes back around to the law… even pop music. We also talk about Above the Law’s role in the latest inquiry from the House Judiciary Committee and the tech issues on display in the Rittenhouse killings case.
Special thanks to our sponsors, Lexicon and Nota.
Joe Patrice: Hello and welcome to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law.
Kathryn Rubino: You sure are.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I am. Thanks.
Chris Williams: We’re starting early today.
Kathryn Rubino: I think you need a little positive reinforcement.
Joe Patrice: You say starting early. I mean, she didn’t interrupt. Hello.
Kathryn Rubino: Hello.
Joe Patrice: So, I feel like she is actually coming in a little bit late there. That, of course, is Kathryn Rubino and you also heard Christopher Williams there. We’re your Above the Law crew or at least the part of a crew that talks on the podcast every week. We are here to, as usual, give you our weekly roundup of some of the wild and entertaining legal stories over the week. But, as we always do, we began by having a little bit of —
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, come on.
Joe Patrice: Small talk.
Kathryn Rubino: Really? Okay, fine, Joe. What did you do this weekend that was so damn exciting you need a fricking trumpet before you begin the conversation?
Joe Patrice: I’m glad you asked. I did a lot of cooking this weekend. I felt very vindicated as far as being a chef. I made my own bread, and I made pasta sauce like in a slow cooker, long time to go like really get the flavors out. I made multiple breakfasts. I was really killing it this week, chipotle hollandaise sauce.
Kathryn Rubino: And proud we are of you.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean, I’m fantastic. That was really what I wanted to relate to the group. How about everybody else?
Chris Williams: Well, I’m going to let you live because the first thing I was expecting was you to rip off your eggnog recipe because that was the only thing I thought that you knew how to cook.
Joe Patrice: Oh, no, no.
Chris Williams: Based off the pot, that’s couple weeks ago.
Joe Patrice: So, actually, on that note, I did test the first batch of eggnog and I don’t love it. I feel like it’s —
Chris Williams: Who does not here?
Joe Patrice: Well, no. It’s like —
Kathryn Rubino: Let eggs sit for several weeks because it’s not a recipe for delicious.
Chris Williams: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: It is a recipe for delicious apparently, but —
Chris Williams: Wait. Was this in the cookbook you’re working on called ‘Flirting with Salmonella’?
Joe Patrice: In no way is there any salmonella issues here partially because the eggs are pasteurized, which is why you get an immersion cooker. I remember —
Kathryn Rubino: You brought a sous vide machine?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, to do the pasteurization and other things.
Kathryn Rubino: Just because you wanted to do pasteurization, you could not just like —
Joe Patrice: Well, I didn’t want salmonella here. We’re bringing not that —
Kathryn Rubino: But, I mean, like you can buy pasteurized eggs.
Joe Patrice: They’re incredibly difficult to find actually. There’s no place around me for a long way with them. Anyway, point is I don’t like it but not because it’s not good. It’s just super boozy and —
Kathryn Rubino: And that’s a problem for you?
Joe Patrice: Normally, I would say that’s a good thing, but I mean —
Kathryn Rubino: I’m so confused.
Joe Patrice: The amount of alcohol —
Kathryn Rubino: It’s like sounded as a —
Joe Patrice: Okay. The amount of alcohol trumps the entire taste like you get no nog feel out of it. It taste more like a bunch of —
Chris Williams: Egg?
Joe Patrice: No, it tastes like booze with cream, which is a delightful flavor, but it’s not eggnog, you know.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay. Maybe, we just had different childhoods, but I thought that was the flavor of eggnog.
Joe Patrice: No, eggnog has a —
Kathryn Rubino: Creamy booze.
Joe Patrice: Eggnog has a definite flavor that’s different than just being cream, you know.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s like nutmeg cream and booze.
Chris Williams: I’m going to let it slide. You were drinking eggnog as a kid?
Kathryn Rubino: Well, no. I mean, we could sip it. We were always allowed to have a sip of anything.
Chris Williams: Yeah, I got milk with cinnamon in it and that was it, like —
Joe Patrice: Well, eggnog —
Chris Williams: Now, I’m jealous.
Joe Patrice: Eggnog also, like you don’t have to have.
Kathryn Rubino: Where I’m raised, we were always allowed to try anything we want.
Joe Patrice: And you don’t have to have booze in eggnog. It’s just, you know, your thought.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s what I am saying. I felt like the flavor of eggnog was predominantly booze, cream and nutmeg.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah, anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: What did you do this weekend, Chris?
Chris Williams: Oh, I did something I would not advise our listeners to do. I went gambling because I have a streak of never leaving casino and not profiting. So, I’m just kind of like I know the house always wins. My mom worked at a — she is one of the people like when you like, “Hey, I just lost my child’s inheritance,” and she is like “Okay, cool. You go home in a limo,” like she was the first lady who call for that. So, I’m assuming the house always wins, but I’m up like 300 bucks, which is —
Joe Patrice: Nice.
Chris Williams: A big money to me. So, I went to play some craps. I still don’t know how to play craps, but I just thought that —
Kathryn Rubino: I don’t think anybody does. I think that’s —
Joe Patrice: I know how to play craps.
Kathryn Rubino: But like not really, like the pass line.
Joe Patrice: No. Yeah, playing the pass line and then on the odds on the pass line is the best way to play craps to the extent that your odds are the best. Actually, ironically, it is slightly better if you play the don’t pass line, but nobody does that. The point is you —
Kathryn Rubino: Because that’s the anti-social.
Joe Patrice: Exactly, but if you play the pass line, you’re fine. But there are other bets on the table that you can do. You just have lower odds of winning at those.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I’m aware that there are other bets, a typical large table.
Chris Williams: Anyway, I made money and it was great. It was very nice back to me.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Chris Williams: Earlier in the weekend, I made some really cool pot roast that were very nice and savory. We had some red wine in there, some pork shoulder, a little bit of potatoes. There are other people can cook too, Joe, is what I’m saying.
Joe Patrice: That’s fair, that’s fair, that’s fair. Actually, you have inspired me. I think a pot roast might be in the awe thing for me in the near future here.
Kathryn Rubino: There you go.
Chris Williams: Going slow.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, exactly, or I could use the sous vide machine, who knows?
Kathryn Rubino: Jesus Christ.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. That’d be the ultimate mode as well.
Kathryn Rubino: I think sous vide has to be the most pretentious way to cook, right?
Joe Patrice: I mean, —
Kathryn Rubino: Like that’s for sure the most — (00:05:43) like, oh, I sous vide.
Joe Patrice: My brother mills his own flour. I think that takes over.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay, your brother wins.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Congratulations. The Patrice Family must be very proud.
Chris Williams: You don’t see those in like Instagram. It’s like some dude who has like manicured nails and a lumberjack shirt and just making like Michelin star meals with like a big ass knife and like a pestle and mortar. That’s probably like a good two miles away from the Walgreens or Walmart.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: You can’t tell because of like evergreen trees. I think that’s the most pretentious. They’re like, “Oh, I’m going to use these eggs,” like where did you get those eggs from? There aren’t’ any chickens nearby? You went to Walmart. We know what you did, Steven.
Joe Patrice: All right. Well, we should probably talk about law. So, we’ll put an end to this small talk.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay.
Joe Patrice: Yup. And so, —
Kathryn Rubino: Great.
Joe Patrice: Well, so —
Kathryn Rubino: Our long national nightmare is over for one more week.
Joe Patrice: So, we have talked in the past on this show about Ms. Clanton, the law student at AS Law who was fired by a conservative group for being too racist for them which —
Kathryn Rubino: Yup, too racist for Turning Point USA.
Joe Patrice: Let that sink in. But ultimately has now got lined up multiple prestigious judicial clerkships, which we’ve talked about the problematic nature of that. But the United States House Judiciary Committee also finds this a little problematic and wrote a letter to Chief Justice Roberts asking about why is this happening and, according to the letter, they were alerted to this story by, who?
Kathryn Rubino: Me.
Joe Patrice: Yes.
Kathryn Rubino: It was me.
Joe Patrice: Congratulations. Yes.
Kathryn Rubino: It was me.
Joe Patrice: The letter from Congress to the Chief Justice says on footnote basically, it has come to our attention some very disturbing stories, footnote Kathryn Rubino CVs, you know, correctly Blue Book. Well done.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean, we — well, I specifically think it’s very — and I think you all agree with me, but I don’t necessarily want to speak for anybody. I think it’s important to identify people who are primed for the next thing, the next level of prestigious legal minds, right? And federal clerkships are a way that the legal profession sort of pushes folks to that next bigger and better level and identifying the people who are problematic pests who are being pushed into that next level is an important thing. And I think that’s actually what the letter that the Judiciary Committee wrote is focused on — you know, they specifically say this is not to sort of indict the individual. They don’t name Crystal Clanton, but I will, but rather identify — I mean, let’s say if you don’t know her name, you can’t figure out where she’s working. You can’t figure out that it’s a problem, right? So, whatever, but it is important to note that despite an easily googleable problematic past, two federal judges decided it doesn’t matter and are happy to put her a little bit further on the path. And let’s be clear, it’s unlikely that it will end with Judge Pryor as the Circuit Court that she is currently scheduled to clerk for after clerking for Judge Mays in Alabama. But that’s unlikely to be the last of her forays into the top level of the legal profession. What she did after getting fired from Turning Point USA is work for Jenny Thomas. Clarence’s wife has lots of pictures on her Instagram of her and Clarence. You know, I think as I said in the original story about her, she may have texted her co-workers, “I hate black people,” but she certainly found one that she can use to her benefit and post pictures of her and Clarence up close and personal.
Joe Patrice: Do you think she’s going to go work for Clare Bare?
Kathryn Rubino: Why not?
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Why wouldn’t she? Also, I mean, listen she went to AS Law, that’s George Mason’s law school for the uninitiated. But Clarence Thomas also has the best record on the Supreme Court of picking clerks that are outside of the Harvard, Yale, Stanford club, you know, very, very tippy top of the rankings.
So, picking somebody from Mason is in line with Clarence’s world view, which I actually do admire. I think that there are more talented people than just at the very top of the law schools and absolutely federal clerkship should go to people outside those things. So, that’s a good thing he does. So, it seems – yeah.
Chris Williams: I wonder if when Clarence picked students from AS Law, he supports enough for his Boy Skillie. It was like, you know, you feel the vibes whoever convinces them.
Joe Patrice: Well, he hasn’t done it yet, but I think Kathryn has got a point. It seems like that would be a likely landing spot. You know, she still wants to clerk at the Supreme Court because he knows the way these clerkship bonuses go and the risk that firms are uncritical about who the clerkships are as opposed to just kind of rubber stamping. It was an 11th Circuit clerkship. I guess, that’s a big deal. Here’s a bunch of money and that’s something we’ve also talked about, about the need for these law firms to get a little more savvy about clerkships and understanding that just having a circuit clerkship at this point doesn’t necessarily translate into you having developed great skills in an apprenticeship with a good lawyer because —
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Well, that what happens when there was a president and a bunch of folks who were ranked unqualified by the ABA are now on the court, right? So, that is a side effect of when that happens. But listen, if she does wind up going on to a Supreme Court clerkship, she’s probably going to wind up at Jones Day, who has zero interest in critically evaluating where folks are clerking because remember, one of their associates is now a federal judge.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: So, you know, who cares?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. An associate making the leap directly to judge, who had been clerking a year before — the cycle before being nominated, which just really astounding and problematic, but you know.
Kathryn Rubino: But pointing out the way that this is becoming increasingly problematic over the last few years is I think valuable.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, let’s hear from Lexicon now, and we’ll be right back to talk about more on the other end.
Sponsor: 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 timekeeping, HR, billing, client intake and more so you can focus on maximizing billable hours and increasing client satisfaction. Call 855 for Lexicon or visit lexiconservices.com/go to learn more.
Joe Patrice: Cool. So, one story that Chris you flagged for us is we’re coming — you know, we’re monitoring this Rittenhouse trial that’s going on in Kenosha, but there was a little bit of a tech story that happened here that you highlighted.
Chris Williams: Yeah. So, at some point during the trial, the prosecutor would have wanted to show a video. But the thing is it was small. So, he wanted to do like what most people do when they’re watching something and it’s kind of small. You just kind of zoom in, just like used to pinch function and blow it up. And then, defense was like, “No, that’s going to distort the content.” So, people on the jury had to watch because Zoolander is this for ant’s video and it just seemed like a really easy thing that there was no need to get bogged down and like the legal minutia of a pinch function. It was just weird considering like all the jazz handiness of this trial. You know, it’s like the random slice of Asian people over food.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: Like Trump superhero theme song playing on his phone, which I think I would assume maybe on like paragraph three of judicial code. They tell you to mute your phone in a high-profile case. I don’t know. But this just seem like something I was really goofy in like are you trying to gather attention toward yourself, like I don’t know. It would just seem like a dumb thing to hardpoint.
Joe Patrice: So, we talked about this on the — you know, for those long-time listeners, you know that I’m also a panelist on the Legaltech Week Journalists’ Roundtable, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: You know, I’m not even trying to make fun of you about this.
Joe Patrice: See, but anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: But I’m like in your head, do I live there rent free?
Joe Patrice: Yes, yeah. Anyway, so on that show, we actually did have a conversation about the Legaltech angles involved in this because the argument is, of course, it’s not like the CSI effect when that show came out and now there’s CSI Vegas, which I think is just CSI. I don’t understand.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, it has the original first.
Chris Williams: It’s Vegas night.
Joe Patrice: But the original was in Vegas. That’s the part that gets me.
Chris Williams: But this is the Vegas part.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s because the original went off the air. It was the Vegas. It had a bunch of spinoffs and now it’s part of the original cast back. I know too much.
Joe Patrice: I mean, that’s just seems like — anyway, whatever.
All right, we’re getting this guy. There was this thing called the CSI effect that people, by watching CBS procedurals, juries started to believe that everything was technologically possible that you could use a satellite to zoom in on somebody’s license plate and stuff like that, which you can’t. But it was giving this kind of false sense of scientific value to juries, which led them to make some potentially wrong decisions because they had presumptions about what was technologically possible to wasn’t true. Anyway, zooming in on a video is not going to give you a crystal-clear picture. You’re going to end up with distortion because, you know, the pixels are still the same. You’re zooming in. You can see a little bit more, but it’s going to be a little lower quality and that’s just kind of how this works. The argument being presented in the case was that we don’t know if there’s like algorithms and stuff that when they pinch that there — because, in order to make the picture look better even though there’s no technical ability to do that, software is designed to do stuff like take visual clues from stuff around it and fill that in, so the picture is artificially clearer than it would otherwise be. And that’s the argument was that by zooming in, you’re getting an artificial picture of what’s happening as opposed to the pure uncut video. The flip side of this, of course, and the part that I — in our Legaltech Week, we had a robust debate about this because one of the panelists is a former public defender who was arguing that, you know, look, this is the sort of thing the prosecution has the burden to prove. If you’re going to introduce something like this that is unproven, they have to prove that it is scientifically sound and would not be distorting the image. My flipside is that — and she also cited breathalyzers. There was a controversy a few years ago about these people who’ve been convicted of DWIs for years based on breathalyzers, but they’ve now turned out were wrong. Just nobody knew and everyone was just kind of rubber stamping this breathalyzer evidence when the breathalyzers themselves were wrong. And so, that’s why prosecutors should be forced to explain what they got. But the flipside that I said was the difference with that is that that’s kind of a black box technology that only the government uses, whereas the iPad is something we all understand. We’ve all seen it. We all know how it works. We know that when we zoom in on little Janie’s dance recital, we can see her clearly and we know that’s what it is. Like the fact that this is common technology actually militates a little bit toward we should be accepting it and, at what point do you draw the line and say that technology is so ubiquitous that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that it’s true? The defense has to prove that there’s some sort of a problem. Anyway, it was an interesting talk.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, it is interesting too because I don’t think that those kinds of tech skills are necessarily something people learn in law school.
Joe Patrice: Right. I mean, look, because you go to a law school to be a lawyer and not like tech analyst or something like that.
Kathryn Rubino: Right, or an accountant.
Joe Patrice: Well, yeah. I mean, definitely. And there’s so many accounting cases out there, but you’ve gone to law school to be a lawyer and not an accountant. That’s why you should take advantage of Nota, a no cost IOLTA 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. Terms and conditions may apply. You’re laughing over there.
Kathryn Rubino: I am.
Joe Patrice: You’re just pleased with your transition there?
Kathryn Rubino: I was. I was. I was pretty happy of it.
Joe Patrice: I thought so.
Kathryn Rubino: Teamwork makes the dream work.
Joe Patrice: I mean, I think that’s true.
Chris Williams: You didn’t go to law school to do talk radio.
Joe Patrice: All right, everybody. The most important story of the weekend though, which you know now we talked about the House Judiciary Committee citing Catherine in a conversation with the Chief Justice of the United States and we talked about a murder trial that is going on. But, you know, Taylor Swift has re-released an album. Let’s talk about that.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s pretty important.
Joe Patrice: I mean, that seems like that should be the big story of the week.
Kathryn Rubino: She re-released Red, Taylor’s version, which has a 10-minute version of ‘All Too Well,’ which is very exciting for Swifties out there. But I’m sorry. This is a legal story?
Joe Patrice: It is a very legal story.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay.
Joe Patrice: So, why is she re-releasing it? Does anybody know?
Kathryn Rubino: Because she no longer owns the right to her own masters.
Joe Patrice: She never have had the right to her own masters.
Kathryn Rubino: Which she tried to buy them.
Joe Patrice: Right. So, this is entirely a contractual and intellectual property story and one of those reasons why it’s important to think like a lawyer when you hear stories that may seem like they’re non-legal. So, yeah.
Her original label had the masters to all of her early albums and, when she left, she refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement where she would have agreed not to badmouth the person that was running that organization who she was very much interested in badmouthing because she had lots of problems with him and did not want to be silenced. So, as part of that, the retaliation was, well, you don’t get access to these masters, which are currently owned by Roy Disney’s family as it turns out because they ended up buying this guy out. So, they own the masters and are not letting her use those, but she realized that the way copyright operates is that it’s a copyright in the performance, the manifestation of the work of art, not the work of art necessarily itself. So, her going out and making her own —
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I believe she was spurred on by a tweet by Kelly Clarkson encouraging her to do it as well. But the other thing that I thought was interesting, apparently the rights to the masters, the current owners were trying to sell them because Taylor re-releasing new versions of it has obviously diluted their investment and they were trying to sell it and, apparently, the rumor is that in trying to make those sales, they argued, “Well, I mean, it’s not like she’s really going to re-record every album” and a lot of people were like — I mean, Taylor Swift recorded two albums during quarantine because, but she’s absolutely the person who is going to go ahead and re-record everything.
Joe Patrice: Well, you know, I mean, it’s smart, like she gets the ability to put out a version that one assumes her fans will flock to rather than listen to the ones that she has no stake in. She gets to do an end run around the efforts to lock her out of her own legacy. Actually, there was a — I kind of think there was a story like this in the past I think, not quite the same. If I recall, when Sinatra left Capital or one of his labels to start his own label, there was a legal dispute over him basically releasing the same album under his new label and that there were basically these two albums that were substantially the same. One of which was his and one was his —
Kathryn Rubino: Label.
Joe Patrice: Then former label. Yeah. So, it’s not completely unheard of.
Kathryn Rubino: Everything old is new again.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No, that’s why you got to do your intellectual property kids.
Kathryn Rubino: And also, just never bet against Taylor Swift taking the extra mile to be petty.
Joe Patrice: Well, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, that just seems like, you know, do your due diligence on the people that you’re against.
Joe Patrice: Trying to mess with, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Chris Williams: I just know that when this is a hypo in some professor’s IP or contract file, let us know so we can totally not make fun of that professor for not actually thinking of a hypothetical but just copy and pasting something that they saw on the news because teachers don’t do that.
Joe Patrice: Well, that’s a great question. So, how do we feel about that taking things from the news?
Kathryn Rubino: It’s certainly better than re-using it from the year before, which is an actual problem that happens all the time. Yeah, it happens all the time. We write about it constantly where teachers will re-use certain hypotheticals. Not everyone has access to the model answers from three years ago’s test or whatever and pulling something from that — you know, ripped from the headlines is certainly —
Joe Patrice: It certainly is new, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: If it’s from this year’s headline.
Kathryn Rubino: I think it is fine. I have no issue at all with it and most of them will change the facts slightly or in some way to kind of tease out additional issues. So, I think it’s a fair game.
Chris Williams: Taylor Swift re-record song about assaulting her boyfriend, and then a series copycat assaults happened. Liability discuss.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, right. Yeah, like — no, I mean, if it’s good enough for law and order to just rip off from — yeah.
Chris Williams: It’s required. It’s required.
Joe Patrice: I know it was. What I’m —
Kathryn Rubino: Of all the sound effects.
Joe Patrice: What I’m saying is I don’t think I have that sound effect.
Kathryn Rubino: Geez, Joe.
Chris Williams: Come on.
Kathryn Rubino: Falling down on the job that you’ve taken on for yourself. It’s a terrible lie.
Joe Patrice: Well, I don’t think — I don’t — I don’t like getting —
Kathryn Rubino: I like those growling noises. That seems weird.
Chris Williams: What we could is we could just re-record all the sounds.
Kathryn Rubino: Who owns the masters?
Joe Patrice: Keep your eyes out for Thinking Like a Lawyer Joe’s Edition. It should be coming out soon and has none of this in it. But yeah, I think that they doing the real-life stuff is good. There’s a value to that. That said, I will say —
I don’t know if I’ve ever talked about this one on this show, but I did have an unfortunate moment in law school where I flipped the page to the next question and it was ripped from the headlines several years earlier. But a story from several years earlier about a car crash in which a bunch of people died, but it was conflict of laws. So, it was about these people being across the border and what happens when they’re in this car from this state and this other state when they’re from here and yada yada. But it was a real-life story of people that I actually knew who died. So, that was a little bit of a jarring thing. Yeah, I wasn’t particularly close with these people, but it was nonetheless a situation where I was like, oh my, and it definitely threw me off to see, you know, because it’s jarring when you are out of nowhere kind of hit with that.
Kathryn Rubino: Wait a second. I know what happened.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I know what happened and all the people’s names. And yeah, it was problematic on that front. So, that’s an argument for not necessarily taking the — but I think in intellectual property, you’re safe. I don’t think anyone’s going to be really traumatized by learning more about Taylor’s relationships with people that she’s complaining about at this point because it changes over time.
Kathryn Rubino: She’s not like still complaining about Jake Gyllenhaal.
Joe Patrice: Oh, I totally agree. The people who are saying that is like, “No, she’s re-releasing an album from then.” It’s not like she still —
Kathryn Rubino: And people like, well, she’s like the 10-minute version of ‘All Too Well’, but it’s not like she rewrote it. She had that original 10-minute version at the time when she recorded the song. They’re like, “That’s too long, friend.” And so, she cut it down, but she still knows it. So yeah, I mean, that annoys me. I think it’s a bunch of misogyny when people are like, “She’s still pining over Jake Gyllenhaal.” I’m like, “No, she’s not. She’s just trying to make a buck.”
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: There you go.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Thanks.
Kathryn Rubino: There you go.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No, I absolutely that’s the case. I don’t think she is.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. And I saw a bunch of memes that are obviously —
Joe Patrice: I did too and I was like, “Come on.” She’s moved on to other people. She has gone about the right choice.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s why she’s living in that long-term relationship for like three years. She is very happy like —
Joe Patrice: That just seems.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s the guy that loved her that album was based on.
Joe Patrice: I don’t —
Kathryn Rubino: She’s still with him.
Joe Patrice: I’m not familiar with the catalogue really.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, that’s a “You” problem.
Joe Patrice: Well, fair enough. So, with all that said, I think we’ve had a robust discussion today.
Kathryn Rubino: We certainly have.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, if there’s nothing else from anyone else, I’m going to do that process where I start wrapping up.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay. Yeah. I mean, if you think that that’s the right move, you can go ahead and do that.
Chris Williams: This is so very meta for lack of an excerpt of infinite jest.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, —
Kathryn Rubino: It’s basically how Joe tries to live his life.
Joe Patrice: So, anyway, thanks for listening everybody. You should be subscribed to the show, that way you don’t miss them when they come out even though I think you probably are subscribed anyway, but go ahead. You should be leaving reviews for the show, not just stars, but also write something. The more engagement you show, the more — the algorithms pick that up and go, “Hey, somebody really cares about this show.” So, do that. You should be reading Above the Law so that you can see these stories as they come out and get a little bit of a different angle on them than just the ones that we talk about, and we also have more content than just the three stories we usually talk about on this show. You should be listening to the other shows we had. Kathryn is the host of “The Jabot,” where she talks to various folks in the legal industry about diversity issues. I am on the aforementioned Legaltech Week Journalists’ Roundtable where we talk about legal tech every week, you know, webinar format, but also comes out eventually as podcasts and is streamed on Facebook, too. That’s another way you can see that show. With all that said, you should be following us on social media. I’m @josephpatrice. She is @kathryn1.
That’s the numeral 1. Chris is @rightsforrent. We would like to thank Nota powered by M&T Bank and Lexicon for sponsoring the show, and —
Kathryn Rubino: Let there be peace.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. All right. Talk to everybody later.
Podcast transcription by Tech-Synergy.com