The Supreme Court returned to the shadowy depths to issue a 5-4 ruling allowing a racial gerrymander to continue through the next election. The Chief Justice dissented, lamenting the idea that a shadow docket ruling could effectively rubberstamp a “freebie” violation of the Voting Rights Act. You know… we used to have a mechanism to prevent this sort of thing, JOHN. We also discuss the latest Georgetown Law racial slur incident, which mercifully didn’t end in bad “academic freedom” takes. And we talk about Kirkland’s return to office announcement, which landed with a thud when the firm didn’t package it with some market matching raises.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Posh Virtual Receptionists, LLC.
Joe Patrice: Hello.
Kathryn Rubino: Hello.
Joe Patrice: Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m glad to be here.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Kind of like something new and exciting in my life.
Joe Patrice: This podcast?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I’m acting.
Joe Patrice: Okay. Yeah. Allright.
Kathryn Rubino: Am I being believable?
Joe Patrice: No.
Chris Williams: You are unbelievable if that’s —
Joe Patrice: Oh, there you go. I’m Joe Patrice from Above The Law. You are hearing the voices of Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams who are joining me as always to talk about some of the big legal stories of the week. But obviously before that as we always do, we have a little bit of small talk. So are we going to have small talk?
Kathryn Rubino: I was going to wait until after your sound effect because I —
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: For the viewers listening, most of the viewers watching because you can’t, I wish you could just see the disdain and frustration on me and his face right now and the glee on Joe’s. Because I feel like (00:01:13) obviously is a profession. It’s a thing throughout the profession and I feel like that would be a nice time just to be like oh yeah, that’s really a cringe because it is you know.
Joe Patrice: But at this point, it’s a thanks. So we’re going skip with it. So small talk.
Kathryn Rubino: Much to my chagrin.
Joe Patrice: So anyway, what’s new?
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, I have the soundtrack of the early Ox going through my head after yesterday’s musical interlude in the middle of a football game.
Joe Patrice: Oh, okay.
Chris Williams: What play? I’m not aware of the sports ball or how to dribble a hockey puck so I’m unaware completely.
Kathryn Rubino: It was the Super Bowl this weekend and it was played between the L.A. Rams and the Cincinnati Bengals. The Rams unfortunately won. I was rooting for the Bengals because my elementary school principal’s son is a coach for the Bengals. So I was rooting for the Bengals but whatever, they lost. It was a good game. It’s still a good game but Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, 30 Cents, Mary J —
Chris Williams: Did you say 30 Cents?
Kathryn Rubino: No.
Joe Patrice: 50. Although he looked like a buck 75 probably. He definitely —
Kathryn Rubino: Kendrick Lamar and should I say Eminem because Eminem was also there.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: It was super fun though. It very much though reminded of the early 2000s.
Chris Williams: Wait, there’s not a song there. Is there a song they’re all collabing on like what you see what’s like in the bad vibing? How this —
Joe Patrice: Oh, it’s a medley.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s a medley, right? It’s kind of a typical strategy where like Dre was like the headliner or whatever. So he and Snoop started it and then they kind of like cut away and then it was no more drama and then it was Lose Yourself and whatever, whatever.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s super fun.
Chris Williams: I can’t tape the song Lose Yourself seriously ever again because I just hear (00:03:00) singing spaghetti, spaghetti, spaghetti.
Kathryn Rubino: Although it’s kind of a perfect sports ball song, right, like you only get one shot. You hear the Super Bowl people get it together. Get it together man. You look disapproving Chris. It was. I thought it was like the right song for the right moment.
Chris Williams: I mean isn’t it like Super Bowl 65? There are multiple shots.
Kathryn Rubino: A lot of people don’t get to go back. It’s not like let’s go, I’ll do it next year, right? Like there’s a lot to get you to the big game. Tom Brady’s career notwithstanding. Most people don’t get to go that often.
Joe Patrice: Right. I think that’s more fair.
Chris Williams: I mean I never get invited so that’s why I don’t watch.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean Donalds is one of the best defensive players and only made it. He’s probably retiring after now getting his ring and it was kind of a big deal that he got his ring, right? Like that was like a moment.
Chris Williams: Shout out to Donald.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. What did you do this weekend Joe?
Joe Patrice: I mean I also watched the Super Bowl and I watched commercials during the Super Bowl. There were some good legal law firm commercials.
Kathryn Rubino: How nice.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: Is this a thing now at the Super Bowl?
Joe Patrice: Oh yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I remember Law Hawk did one a couple years ago.
Joe Patrice: Oh, Law Hawk didn’t do one for himself. He did — Taco Bell hired him to do it, yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Dorito? It was Taco Bell?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so it’s Taco Bell.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Law Hawk. How about you Chris? You did not watch the sports bowl so what did you do?
Joe Patrice: Could we stop unironically saying sports bowl, all sright.
Chris Williams: No.
Kathryn Rubino: Football. He didn’t watch no football this weekend.
Joe Patrice: Right, there we go.
Chris Williams: I did something that was traditionally masculine. I don’t know if it still counts to be described in that way. I committed a lot of fucking murder. Got in a game, God of War 4. This is not legal advice nor permission. Do not use this against any law. I’m not a lawyer except when I am talking like one. But you, I’m the bald man with an axe and a child that I will constantly refer to as boy and I had to shit out of so many undead.
It was good. There was a glee on my face. The hits are so chunky. It’s really exciting. If you haven’t played God of War 4, do it. You might be like, “Oh, I have to make my billables. I have a child.” Do that later please.
Joe Patrice: I actually finished up. I had been on a kind of epic of going through Skyrim again. I just finally finished that, so yeah.
Chris Williams: Well, I’m thinking (00:05:28).
Kathryn Rubino: I like Mario Kart.
Chris Williams: Okay, it’s the Legal Talk.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So I think we’re done with this.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re waiting until I talk so you can interrupt me. It’s not funny Chris. Stop giving him that glee.
Chris Williams: You’re right. It’s hilarious.
Joe Patrice: It’s really funny.
Chris Williams: Two out of three podcast is loaded.
Kathryn Rubino: I hate you both.
Joe Patrice: So, speaking of people who are worthy of hate, the Supreme Court made a decision last week. You might not have noticed it since it was on our friend the Shadow docket which I need a sound effect for Shadow docket I think. Yeah, something like that.
Kathryn Rubino: Is there like something maybe from the movie The Shadow that you could use like I don’t know.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I’ll investigate that. Anyway, the Shadow docket —
Kathryn Rubino: I think maybe I’m helping you build out the soundboard by the way like my life has fallen so far.
Joe Patrice: I know but it’s been interesting to watch from my perspective though. (00:06:35). Yeah.
Chris Williams: Two out of three.
Joe Patrice: So the Supreme Court issued a shadow docket opinion and they decided to take away voting rights which was fun.
Kathryn Rubino: Again.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Again.
Joe Patrice: This was an update, a different case then but one of the interesting things is that John Roberts did not join the decision here which is fascinating since he’s the one who got the ball rolling on getting rid of voting rights.
Kathryn Rubino: Shelby County beget.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, but he did not join this one. The real crux of this issue was that there was a challenge to the redistricting in Alabama that was going to District Alabama in a weird way to make sure that even though Black folks represent about 27% or something like that of Alabama that they would end up with only 14% of the legislators by cracking and packing the districts to make sure that they only got one reasonable vote. This is a violation of the Voting Rights Act one would assume but the Supreme Court —
Kathryn Rubino: One would certainly think.
Joe Patrice: The Supreme Court decided 5/4. Well, it’s not so much that they decided 5/4 that it wasn’t a violation of the Voting Rights Act. They decided 5/4 that they didn’t care and we’re just going to let it continue. The logic being we don’t have time to resolve this before the election so we’re just going to let it ride.
Kathryn Rubino: Let it ride.
Joe Patrice: This is not how any of this is supposed to work which was the crux of –.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s not how any of this works.
Joe Patrice: Elena Kagan and the Liberals wrote a dissent that really got to the meat of why this is wrong but Roberts wrote separately from his perspective of not necessarily thinking it’s wrong to take away voting rights because he has no problem with that. But he wrote separately about how this was beyond even the tale of what he thinks is acceptable to not to –.
Kathryn Rubino: If only he hadn’t written Shelby County the way he did.
Joe Patrice: Basically, his complaint is that the way they’ve structured this is that basically you get a freebie election. If you violate the Voting Rights Act, you get one freebie before anybody is allowed to tell you you’re wrong is what the majority said and Roberts drew the line there. He does not think you get to have a freebie.
Kathryn Rubino: So there is a line.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Things that we now know, it’s terrible.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s terrible.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, my takeaway on it was that it was almost as though the way in which Roberts’ decision reads. It was almost like he felt a better way to run our voting laws would be if there was some sort of, I don’t know, preclearance requirement where like maybe you don’t get to make a change until it’s all sorted out legally before you can enact it. He really seemed passionate about the idea that maybe we should have something like that, which you know we did until he destroyed it.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Some of that energy might have been useful in the past.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. The Supreme Court is continuing a pace especially with its shadow docket opinions.
Kathryn Rubino: This all kind of I think puts into stark relief that whomever Joe Biden nominates to be on the Supreme Court just better get used to writing dissents. That is pretty much the job is writing, look at these assholes over here.
Joe Patrice: Yeah for now. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah and for some time.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. This is the job for the foreseeable future.
Chris Williams: The good news is if our rights will be slowly overturned by a right-leaning court, at least the shadow docket is a cool thing for it to happen on. Like, if it was just like paper 37 that upended the right to vote, that will suck. A shadow docket, that could be a band name or like a villain. You know, it’s better to cover.
Kathryn Rubino: That is definitely a band’s name like that if it’s not, it should be.
Chris Williams: Yeah, now playing. Here I go. I got my own shadow docket.
Joe Patrice: All right. Oh yeah, we should come up with good band names from legal terms someday. Shadow docket can be on that.
Chris Williams: Res ipsa loquitur.
Kathryn Rubino: Nice.
Joe Patrice: Wow.
Chris Williams: I’m here all week.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: (00:10:58).
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Okay. Blue booking jokes.
Chris Williams: It did. They just follow everyone. You know that’s good. Don’t even think of it. Them again, right? It’s so convenient.
Kathryn Rubino: You do not have to seem annoyed right now.
Joe Patrice: I don’t seem annoyed. I am not annoyed at all.
Kathryn Rubino: You are actually annoyed.
Joe Patrice: No. I’m just trying to — I was distracted by something.
Kathryn Rubino: You were getting a call?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, right. So it would be a lot easier if I had a service that could take those.
Kathryn Rubino: To take the messages for you.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. And deal with onboarding and so and so.
Kathryn Rubino: All that kind of stuff.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So let’s hear from our good friends at Posh.
Female: As a lawyer, ever wish you could be in two places at once? You could take a call when you’re in court. Capture a lead during a meeting. That’s where Posh comes in. We are live virtual receptionists who answer and transfer your calls so you never miss an opportunity and the Posh app lets you control when your receptionist steps in. So if you can’t answer, Posh can and if you’ve got it, Posh is just a tap away. With Posh, you can save as much as 40% off your current service provider’s rates. Start your free trial today at posh.com.
Joe Patrice: Okay, we’re back.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that was a pretty good one.
Chris Williams: That was a good transition.
Kathryn Rubino: Good transition.
Chris Williams: It was very posh actually.
Kathryn Rubino: So smooth. Yeah, super posh.
Joe Patrice: You know who doesn’t have good transitions?
Chris Williams: John Cena.
Joe Patrice: I was going with a particular Georgetown professor. Yeah. Not great transitions. So what’s going on now with Georgetown?
Chris Williams: Oh, it’s the same. They’re still slurring it up.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Chris Williams: You know, it might not be a new year but the same thing. I mean they already paid tuition. They’re locked in. The students can’t change that. That’d be a breach of contract. But yeah, so it was an international law in business class. Its that class, I could be wrong on that but there’s a professor named Professor Wero or Vero maybe. He may be German. He was not cold calling. I think he was responding to a hand in the class and an Asian student had their hand up and he decided to let the student he was calling on know he was calling on them but the way he did it was kind of racist.
Joe Patrice: Antiquated slur.
Chris Williams: Antiquated slur, yes.
Kathryn Rubino: Not the preferred nomenclature dude.
Joe Patrice: The Big Lebowski reference clearly.
Chris Williams: There’s a reason the Big Lebowski is required legal viewing at Washington University in St. Louis. It’s not but it should be.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: It should be. Those are some shoes. You know the see-through like number (00:13:52).
Joe Patrice: Like jelly things. Yeah.
Chris Williams: They go hard unironically.
Joe Patrice: So this professor, so obviously slurs bad, don’t do them. But a wrinkle with this person is it seems fairly clear that this person’s English is not their first language. So, while not good, it does at least from the clip seem as though he’s not acting with animus.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure and I think he actually issued an apology and made point that English is not his first language, et cetera. But here’s the thing, I think what we need to do is not refer to people by describing them, right? It’d also be terrible if he was like pretty lady over there or hey fatty, like all of these are wildly inappropriate ways to describe folks, you know. Can we just not use people’s physical characteristics to call them in class? Third row, point also, that’s less rude.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Over there in the corner.
Chris Williams: Still rude but less.
Joe Patrice: How does he not have a seating chart at this point? And there is something to be said also that even with English not being the first language.
You know he’s a professor who’s been at this a while like one would think he’s picked up a few tips and tricks over the years, one of which being don’t use this nomenclature.
Chris Williams: Yeah. And my thing is like I don’t think anybody is like it — the good news about this is it wasn’t one of those cases where he doubled down. It was like oh I did this in the name of academic freedom or I did this to challenge the notion that if you’re going to be a lawyer, you’re going to be in an accountable situation so I actually deliberately made my student uncomfortable to help their legal career. It’d be irresponsible if I didn’t. That shit didn’t happen and when it does happen, shame on you.
But potentially being a second language thing, and one of the things (00:15:45) said was a Scotchman teaching in the states for 20 years. I don’t know the exact details of it. It might be one of those things where he like lives in Germany and France and is like on the staff for like 20 years. He may actually been in there in person for 20 years. I don’t know. But another thing that was interesting angle for me hearing about, seeing a clip because this is a short clip. It’s like 17 seconds. I’m sure you can just find it. There’s a clip and an article that I wrote about it is, one of the things about the foreign aspect besides just being a multi-language speaker, people from different nations think about race differently.
Like I think where I was having a conversation with a guy who was from Sweden. I think I was flying either to South Africa or back to South Africa. Anyway, and he was saying that he did infrastructure and he was saying, “Yeah, in America people are really sensitive about race.” He’s like, “Do you like the context of just different? I’m working on the boats with people from India and people from China, what have you.” And listening to him, I’m like, “Yeah, I’m uncomfortable” but I was also aware of my americaness in that context and I’m curious if that is a norm in other places. I’m not saying that’s what happened here. It’s just an interesting scenario to me something like thinking in the contemporary moment. Like, I wonder would this be of the norm in the German classroom or a French classroom. I don’t have answers but I’m curious.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so Georgetown again.
Kathryn Rubino: I just think don’t refer to people by their physical characteristics.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that seems like a good –.
Chris Williams: I mean yeah, don’t do it. Like I’m not defending him. I’m just wondering because I watched the video and it was so weird. My response was why did he think this was okay? Like what about this when it let left his mouth? He was like, “Oh this is normal way to refer to someone.” And since I didn’t get, not that I’m the arbiter, but it didn’t feel malicious so I’m just curious like what possessed you to think this is okay? It’s like when a kid says, not to call his professor a kid. Even at Georgetown is very nice CVs and everything but when a kid uses the word incorrectly like a curse word, they’re like, “Where did you hear that from. What did you think that was okay? You can’t refer to your classmate as a fuck nugget like you can’t do these thingss.”
Kathryn Rubino: But I also think that it’s kind of a bigger thing because even things that you may think are complementary are not. You just shouldn’t use them, right? Especially in this like pseudo — in an academic sort of pseudo professional kind of setting. Like I said, don’t be like, “Hey, lady with the pretty smile.” Like those sound like compliments but also makes you feel real tiny in the middle of a class, right? Like that’s also not okay.
Chris Williams: It should be patently obvious. It should be patently obvious. And the thing that stuck out about me was how abnormal this felt. Because like usually when a slur is used in the legal settings and the classroom to my knowledge, it’s usually like double-down. Asian people shouldn’t be in the country. Here are some statistics backing me up like Amy Wax or what have you or like –.
Kathryn Rubino: Reading quotes in fighting were cases is a real (00:18:49) sneaking the N word.
Chris Williams: Right. Like there’s a format in like in a way that people get angry, you curse. You say, “Oh my God” a couple of times. You threaten somebody. Your friend holds you back. There’s a whole way to go about doing it. There’s a whole dance. And it’s felt like it was double F word.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I hear that.
Joe Patrice: Okay. We should probably transition.
Kathryn Rubino: To the biggest of law.
Joe Patrice: To the biggest of law. So Kirkland is going back to the office. That was the message they sent out that they were returning to a Tuesday through Thursday office schedule that went over somewhat like a lead balloon to the extent that they did not announce raises at the time which is what everybody else is wondering about. It also stirred up an interesting side story. Apparently, Kirkland’s historically been you don’t have to come into the office if you don’t need to sort of a firm at least in certain practice areas and those folks seemed very upset at the idea that they do now have to go into the office for a set number of days. I personally don’t think that’s how this is going to play out.
Kathryn Rubino: I think if you didn’t feel like you had to come to the office a certain number of days pre-pandemic, you’re going to be fine post-pandemic.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: I think that the majority of folks probably felt that they had to be there at least five days a week, maybe on a Saturday too. So I think that this is a reduction from 2019’s kind of office hours. And the other thing we’re seeing is that this is now bigger than Kirkland. We’re seeing a ton of firms now make these kind of three days a week kind of the Omicron boogeyman is over-ish so let’s get back to the law office. Let’s do it as soon as possible before the next wave comes and hits us and we have to send you back home again. We’re paying for these offices. Please use them people. And we’re seeing those and to the chagrin of all sorts of associates we’re hearing from without announcements of salary increases.
Joe Patrice: There’s also an angle with the staff who have reached out saying that they’re kind of upset because I did think as we just kind of highlighted, I don’t think that that memo was really aimed at associates. I think if they didn’t have to go to the office before, they won’t have to now. But it is saying that the staff needs to be there Tuesday through Thursday and a follow-up memo was sent that suggested that the staff also needs to be able to come any day that the associates they work with are in the office, which I mean I feel like that’s going to be the hurdle with the working remotely that no one’s really worked out yet. How do you do this with staff without putting them in bad positions?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean I think it kind of depends on the nature of the staff role which I think we have seen a lot of evolution of law firm staff. You know, in the early days of the pandemic when we did see layoffs or furloughs, a lot them were staff members, folks that mail room or folks that were cafeteria workers, that kind of thing, folks that we’re kind of tied to the physical location of a particular firm. And I think those things are evolving. I think that the question of assistance was very, very important in the 70s, right? When no one had a computer on their desk and now is a lot less important and one person may support five or six attorneys without much of a problem. Where before, if a partner had a share their assistant with one person, it was a tragedy.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: And we’re seeing an evolution and I don’t know where we’re necessarily going to shake out and I think it depends. What is that assistant doing? Are they printing stuff out? Are they helping to collate exhibits? Then, yeah, then their role is very tied to that physical location.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean I think the fact that we have moved towards staff members covering a lot of people is what’s going to make this a weird wrinkle. You only have to be in the office three days. Oh, but Jimmy’s in on Monday so you need to come in and Tracy is in on Fridays. You need to come in that day.
Kathryn Rubino: Well I think it will would probably evolve to where it’s like pods of assistants are supporting pods of attorneys, right? So you have three assistants that are covering 15 attorneys and between the three, one of them is there every day. So, it kind of comes out okay on the backend.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it’s going to be interesting though because –.
Kathryn Rubino: And different firms will come up with different solutions.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Which will be interesting to watch.
Joe Patrice: What gets me also is that like you said about being tied to the location, I feel as though what we had proven throughout the pandemic is that a lot of these admin jobs do not actually need to be physical. They can be done remotely. Hopefully the fact that attorneys are back in the office does not lead to the kind of classist assumption that that means that the fact that other folks could do their job remotely is off the table that we can recognize that they can do the job remotely even if we’re in the office.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m not sure how much that’s going to — I don’t think that they’ll be a situation where only attorneys are really required to be in the office. I think that those things will go hand in hand because there are those kind of benefits to everyone. You know firm leaders are saying that they find that there’s a benefit to everyone being in the office. It’s a culture. It’s educational trying to figure out like what the next generation of lawyers educating them, you’re training first, second-year associate, et cetera.
Joe Patrice: Sure.
Kathryn Rubino: And I think that part of what I learned so much from my assistant when I was a young attorney, right? Like, “Oh, this is how you do it. These are the blue covers for your filing,” you know, et cetera that I think that they’re going to want that kind of cohesiveness.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that is an overlooked aspect the level to which the admins are part of the training for young lawyers too. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean if I didn’t know where something was my first or second year, my first question was to an admin.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: It was not with third year who was going to yell at me even if they did not know the answer.
Joe Patrice: I suppose that’s true.
Chris Williams: Third years yo? They feel that confident?
Kathryn Rubino: Third years.
Oh my God. There’s the worst. Third years, okay, I’m going to say it here. Third years are the worst in the entire hierarchy of big law because they are not the bottom anymore, right? So they have just enough, just enough power, just enough to feel like they know what’s going on so they have somebody. You know, it’s like shit rolls downhill, everything rolls down to a first year and finally they’re not the bottom. Not everyone, not every third year, but the third years that are awful are awful in my experience.
Chris Williams: That is good to know. Also, shout out to Abraham Hester (ph). He is not a third year. He works in Texas but he won’t be like that because he is a good person. And if he is not, hurt him on my behalf emotionally. He’s good though. He’s good. Future generation.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough. Well, I think that’s everything. So we can wrap this up unless somebody else has something to say.
Kathryn Rubino: No. Do you have another sound effect that you’re going play in the middle of me speaking?
Joe Patrice: I did not.
Kathryn Rubino: Thank goodness.
Chris Williams: But.
Joe Patrice: I mean no. I really don’t. I don’t. I’m just going to finish up the show.
Chris Williams: Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: Trying to get a look at that soundboard over there?
Joe Patrice: No. I’m on my notes of like what I’m going to say. I guess I feel a little bit of joy that I’ve kind of so broken you down that you’re paranoid about everything happening at all times.
Kathryn Rubino: See, you’re like a third year, right?
Joe Patrice: So, thanks everybody for joining us.
Chris Williams: You got to hear folks.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re the worst.
Joe Patrice: Anyway, so thanks everybody for joining us. You should be subscribed to the show, leave reviews, all of that. You should be listening to other shows. Kathryn is the host of The Jabot. I am panelist on Legal Tech Week’s Journalist Roundtable. You should be listening to other shows on The Legal Talk Network. Always check out Above The Law so you can read the stories that we talk about before we talk about them. You know, you can read them in real time as well as other stories that don’t end up making the show. All right, you should follow us on social media on @JosephPatrice. She’s @kathryn1 which is a numeral 1 there at the end. He’s @rightsforrent. Oh, thanks to Posh for sponsoring the show and I think that’s everything.
Kathryn Rubino: Peace.
Chris Williams: Peace.
Outro: The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network or their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders and subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer.
Podcast transcription by Tech-Synergy.com