US News and World Report released its annual law school rankings last week and delivered chaos upon the legal world, dropping Harvard from its top three perch. As we break down some key insights from the rankings, we remind everyone not to get too hung up on these numbers. Speaking of numbers that lawyers should get hung up on, it looks like a lawyer screw up cost a bank around $600M so that’s not great. And speaking of being the opposite of great, unhinged text messages from Ginni Thomas raise questions about the fitness of Clarence Thomas to serve on the Supreme Court. Don’t worry, no one will end up doing anything about it.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Posh Virtual Receptionists, LLC.
Joe Patrice: Hello.
Kathryn Rubino: Hi.
Joe Patrice: Welcome to another edition of —
Kathryn Rubino: How are you?
Joe Patrice: It just — so, this is the–
Kathryn Rubino: These are the things that give me joy, I think that you should on those things.
Joe Patrice: This is the Thinking Like a Lawyer Podcast. I’m Joe Patrice. I’m joined by Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams. We’re all from Above the Law and we’re here to give you a rundown of some of the biggest stories in the legal industry of the past week. That’s our usual Mission. And how is everybody doing today? This is a segment we like to call Small Talk.
Chris Williams: Do it.
Joe Patrice: No, by all means everybody should start, you know, whenever.
Chris Williams: Yeah, you started. Go.
Got you. You own this this time.
Joe Patrice: All right.
Kathryn Rubino: I feel like I had an ally there. It was really good and important. I felt seen.
Joe Patrice: Good.
Kathryn Rubino: Thank you, Chris.
Joe Patrice: So, this of course is our, you know, our ongoing St. Louis appreciation podcast.
Chris Williams: And here’s when the phone clicks.
Joe Patrice: So, Chris, you were with us last week because you were in St. Louis. How was that?
Chris Williams: I’ve never had tetanus, but I guess it was better than that.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Chris Williams: I strongly–
Kathryn Rubino: You set the bar real’ low.
Chris Williams: Yeah, you know, I mean the Arch is nice but that’s not where the level begins. I strongly hold the best place in St. Louis to go is to sleep. It is a city for the Amish, you know. Like if you’ve been in an actual city, you’re like, “Where’s the transportation? Where is the beam big enough that I can be forgotten?” You know? “Where’s food up at 2 a.m.?” But St. Louis doesn’t have that, you know, people go to sleep at reasonable times like 9:30 or 10:00, like they have families or something. I’m like, I’m trying to get something from the convenience store. This isn’t a city. This is town behavior, but you know.
Joe Patrice: Village behavior.
Chris Williams: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. It’s like Amish New York.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s their new slogan.
Chris Williams: Yeah, well it’ll be new for them in like 50 years. That’s another thing, writing in St. Louis, I had to adapt to the time zone difference, which for me is a great metaphor that just shows how behind the Midwest is but, hey, you know, some people love it there. I met some cool people there. Some cool people stay there. It was surprising how many people from my cohort were still in the city and it was nice to see them.
Joe Patrice: Now, by cohort, I guess if people aren’t, you know, routine listeners of the show, you went to law school in St. Louis. So, that’s what you mean by your cohorts. So, of your graduating class a lot of folks stayed, which isn’t too surprising obviously of a law school in St. Louis.
Chris Williams: No, no, no. No, no. Some folks, some folks stayed, which is surprising.
Joe Patrice: Okay. Okay. I mean for a law school there.
Chris Williams: Because there’s a difference there. There’s a difference there.
Joe Patrice: I mean, it’s a law school that, you know, is in that town. So, you would assume that the recruiting is more powerful there, but I think it’s also fair to say that a lot of folks probably — it’s fair to say that a lot of folks went to the–
Kathryn Rubino: But it’s a top-16 law school now.
Joe Patrice: Well, we’re getting you there. That’s actually a great transition, but I wasn’t ready to transition yet. So, it’s probably more fair to say then.
Kathryn Rubino: Put a pin in that.
Joe Patrice: Okay, so a lot of people–
Chris Williams: Fight.
Joe Patrice: Where do you — okay, can we just–? So, more people went to, I don’t know, what? Chicago? Like, what are the big markets for where people went?
Chris Williams: I don’t know. Should I? Yes, but I went there because they had a nice financial package.
Joe Patrice: All right, no I didn’t mean yours. I mean, like, where did, you know, you’ve recently caught up with folks? Where are they all?
Chris Williams: I mean, they probably went to cooler places like Nebraska. It’s just like, why are you in St. Louis? That’s the thing. I’ve got a couple of friends, one is in Texas working for the man, and I’ve got another friend who’s in California, you know, working for the man. A lot of people moved to work for men. I have one friend who’s either in like New York or the Virgin Islands I don’t know.
Kathryn Rubino: Those are different.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: Yeah. Yeah, you’d think because they are, but my memory is trash but I love them. They’re good people. So, they know that I care.
Joe Patrice: So, yeah. This of course, you caught up with these people last week, so if anybody’s wondering about Chris’s short-term memory, we should please–
Kathryn Rubino: All be deeply disturbed.
Joe Patrice: There will be a GoFundMe set up at some point.
Chris Williams: While it is a thing on the list, anybody that has interacted with me frequently knows that my short memory is the least disturbing thing about me. I keep a rolodex of disturbance. You know, I just show them like Batman’s utility belt, I have a bunch of them that’s just all Chris-related Shenanigans.
Kathryn Rubino: What did you do this weekend, Joe?
Joe Patrice: I thought we were transitioning. I did nothing. — I watched basketball, you know. There were the tournaments on, so I watched those games. We have one more because — from based on when we’re recording this, our speaking of brackets, the Above the Law, who’s the biggest disgrace in law bracket concluded. Congratulations to champion Rudy Giuliani. It was a hard-fought victory, but you made it.
Kathryn Rubino: Took out Alan Dershowitz at the Last minute.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, you know and actually pulled away towards the end against Dershowitz.
Chris Williams: Wait, is he still doing those cameos?
Joe Patrice: He sure is.
Chris Williams: Because the pettiest thing would be to have him narrate him winning.
Joe Patrice: Yes. I know.
Chris Williams: “Congratulations to me for being horrible.”
Joe Patrice: Well, that, I actually put that in one of the articles.
Chris Williams: Okay. I saw that just because I did my reading.
Joe Patrice: So, a couple of weeks ago I — yeah, fair enough, but yeah, so I said that somebody needs to see if we can convince him to congratulate himself on winning this, but whatever.
Chris Williams: I’m sure the price went up. So, I’m willing to throw down 25 bucks.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I think it’s 300 these days, something like that. Well, I mean, guy’s got to pay his legal bills somehow because, you know.
Kathryn Rubino: He’s not barred.
Joe Patrice: Because you know, he can’t practice and probably is being investigated for, you know, federal crimes.
Kathryn Rubino: A bunch of things actually, as it turns out.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it’s not good. I mean, he’s not charged with anything. Obviously, that’s good for him. All of his friends are, so not good for him.
Kathryn Rubino: Bad for him.
Chris Williams: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Anyway, so with that, I think we should transition as Kathryn was setting up. Concluding our small talk and moving into a discussion of law schools, we have the new U.S. News and World Report rankings out. That’s exciting.
Kathryn Rubino: Not for Harvard.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, no.
Chris Williams: For who?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah, some school in Boston.
Kathryn Rubino: A school in Cambridge.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: Now and given that they dropped, I think they can now refer to themselves as some school in Boston, because I hate that when you meet the Harvard people, and I’m like, “Where do you go?” Like, “Oh, one school in Boston.” I’m like, “Oh, you know, the university,” whatever general thing they have, but now they can say that with less pretension after the drop.
Joe Patrice: There’s some storylines to get to out of these rankings. Probably the biggest is the aforementioned Harvard drop for ever, and ever, and ever. The rankings have been Yale on the top and Stanford and Harvard somewhere right below. Harvard has now fallen to a tie for fourth place, with Chicago stealing that third slot. You know, how much importance should we be placing on any of this?
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, it’s still Harvard?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I think that’s probably right.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, the average non-lawyer knows Harvard Law School a shit ton more than they know Chicago Law. Truth, that’s just the truth.
Joe Patrice: Well, and Paul Caron had a great Pepperdine dinner at TaxProf Blog, did some good numbers. The peer component where part of these rankings are, actually probably the largest single part of these rankings, are how the rest of the legal community views the school, and then there’re some other inputs of course, but on that, Harvard still outranks all of these schools other than Yale.
Kathryn Rubino: I thought in the most recent one Yale actually took a tumble to five in the peer rankings.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so they did not take a tumble far. Harvard and Stanford on top and Yale is right behind by 0.1.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s really overall rankings.
Joe Patrice: No, that’s in the peer ranking. You know, of course that puts them in a tie with the other schools you would expect, the CCN schools as we call them, Chicago, Columbia, and NYU. So, Harvard, Stanford at 4.7. All those schools at 4.6. That’s still a very good score. Now that said, in previous years, the peer score had been divided with Yale, Stanford, Harvard all tied at one, Columbia slightly below, Chicago and NYU below that.
The difference here, I mean, on the one hand there’s Yale taking this slight dip, put that to one side, but Harvard who gets kind of done dirty in the actual full rankings is still number in the peer ranking, which is still the biggest component. So, you know, what’s going on here, does it really mean anything? I contend it probably doesn’t. I think we’re very much dancing on the head of a pin with the top six schools, but — or seven is the case maybe, which brings me to the other major storyline from my perspective that is a grand tragedy, which is that NYU is in 7th for some reason, another ridiculous decision made by this new algorithm.
Kathryn Rubino: Now, I’ve been on record for a very long time saying that the sort of rivalry that you have perpetuated between you and I, because we went to the law schools in the same city, I went to Colombia and you went to NYU, was kind of a weird, dickish move that kind of just reeks of elitism, and I wasn’t really here for it but if you’re going to come for me, obviously I’ll respond in kind.
Joe Patrice: I mean, definitely reeks of elitism. You went to an Ivy League school when I went to the plucky underdog, I mean, I think that’s fair. There is elitism to how you deal with this but, you know, I persevered.
Kathryn Rubino: To be clear for years, all he says is that the year he went, that NYU was ranked slightly above Columbia.
Joe Patrice: It kind of was.
Kathryn Rubino: My point is–
Joe Patrice: Yeah?
Kathryn Rubino: I don’t necessarily agree with this “good-natured” rivalry that we have over law schools, but the fact that yours is not doing so great, did feel my heart with joy. I will say that for sure.
Joe Patrice: I mean, I understand that, you know, you wake up and choose violence every day and I am not that person. That’s fine. So, anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: You started it.
Joe Patrice: Only to the extent that I went to law school a year before you.
Kathryn Rubino: I would have — okay, sure. You can say that.
Joe Patrice: Anyway.
Chris Williams: I just want to say that everybody, whatever you’re ranked, doesn’t really matter. You’re all important people, except if you go to Vanderbilt because they are ranked 17, and Washington was ranked 16, and those bastards waitlisted me. So, take that, Vandy. Yes.
Joe Patrice: That brings us to probably the third big story of all of this, which is that we’re back to the standard T-14, to the extent that that metric has any value when it comes to law schools. The top 14 schools have historically been the same top 14 schools through the history of this ranking. There have been some changes at the margins there, but they tend to be the same schools which has created an, I think, overblown belief that schools 12, 13, 14 are by some metric better than schools 15, 16, 17. I don’t necessarily think that’s true. I think the consistency of them being there does not denote that there’s a jump-off point at 14, but we are back to those schools being up there again, with UCLA falling a place to 15. It had been the interloper into the top 14, with Georgetown having fallen off. So, Georgetown’s back, UCLA’s back in at 15. WashU remains at 16. the value of Chris’s degree perseveres.
Chris Williams: I mean, the debt definitely does.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, but below that, Texas and Vanderbilt both dropped a place. Boston University jumped up three to create a tie at 17. Obviously, WashU, I feel like WashU, Vanderbilt, like that tier is in competition. So, good for WashU on that front, but the other deep thought I have is that this run from 15 to about 30 is populated by a great number of state schools and public institutions, which is, one hopes is being driven by the fact that these rankings now include, not nearly as powerful a metric as it is in our own Above the Law rankings, which will come out later, but they do have a bit of a debt metric in there now to try and, you know, make some sense of schools having value, if they leave you with less debt on the back end. And that’s why you see a bunch of public institutions all right in a row here in this next tier. So, keep those in mind. I guess that was my other big thought here. Do you have anything else, Kathryn?
Kathryn Rubino: No.
Joe Patrice: No? Chris?
Kathryn Rubino: Not even a little bit.
Joe Patrice: Chris, do you have any deep thoughts about these rankings? Or not?
Chris Williams: You know, I can’t pretend to care.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough. The only other thing that we thought was of some interest is that the more unabashedly right-wing your school is, the higher you ended up in the rankings this year.
Kathryn Rubino: Which you know, listen, I was there for the conspiracy theory of it all, but it doesn’t look like that was what it was.
Joe Patrice: It seems like that might not have been the issue. Yeah, even though some more right-wing schools all took major jumps, it did turn out that those schools all, for whatever reason, had really knocked it out of the park years on the bar exam, and that’s obviously a major component, a bigger component this year, as the U.S. News up to the, “Hey, you all got people passed the bar exam,” component of their rankings, another move that they’re doing to be more like our Above the Law rankings, ding ding. Well, historically, the U.S. News rankings put most of its emphasis on the inputs to law.
Their applicant’s, you know, their accepted students had better grades. Their accepted students had better LSAT scores, all of these input stuff as opposed to the output stuff, like they didn’t leave them in massive amounts of debt and they actually managed to get a job, and actually managed to pass the bar exam. So, we’ve always had a ranking that focuses on outputs and what schools are able to give you on the back end, you know. It seems as though U.S. News is trying to do things to be a little bit more like our rankings, so good for them.
Kathryn Rubino: But it is interesting that it happens, kind of that they’re looking at outputs in a year when there might be other factors that impact those outputs. Though these numbers are mid pandemic, right, so while obviously whether or not you can get a job is incredibly important, whether or not someone is actively looking for a job because of the pandemic and other related, you know, just the world is kind of crazy right now, might also, you know, be a factor, it’s interesting that the year that they kind of put the finger on the scale on that direction is the year when there might be — you know, it might be a bubble that in a couple of years really, you know, washes itself out.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I’m very interested to see what bar exams and how the bar exams are going to go back to traditional approaches, you know, no more of these online exams with all the problems that those had of — well, will this hold up.
Kathryn Rubino: You know, other states doing some diploma privilege which counts, you know. I think that the way the U.S. News looks at it is just whether or not you’re able to practice in that state as opposed to, you know, you actually have passed the bar exams, so you know things like folks doing diploma privilege or that kind of stuff would obviously change that. And I think also, U.S. News is now looking at every state that your graduates took bars in as opposed to just the one where most of your graduates took the bar in, which is obviously also different. So, maybe that’s it. Now more folks are taking different tests. Who’s to say?
Joe Patrice: It’s still going to be interesting to see how this plays out as years go forward. Once again, don’t put to too much emphasis on rankings if you’re out there as a prospective law student. I always say consider the rankings in bands. Don’t sit there and go, “Well, 17 is worse than 15.” Start looking in the concept of, you know, seven or eight schools on either side of a number probably are all close, and make your decision based on that kind of logic, if you’re going to make a prestige decision.
Chris Williams: And also looking at schools in bands, if you have an option to go to a regional school that has a strong pull that costs about 200,000 dollars less, that’s not a bad choice. Places like Rutgers and Temple have really strong influence in the Philadelphia area.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: So, you know, things like that, consider it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, at the end of that you have to live in Philadelphia, but otherwise–
Kathryn Rubino: Hey, now. Are you coming for Gritty?
Joe Patrice: No. No, no, of course not.
Chris Williams: Gritty is the danger. That’s belief.
Joe Patrice: I mean, Gritty’s on my Twitter profile. So, you know, that’s the picture I have on there. Anyway, point is, yes, and these are all things that we tend to discuss in our decision feature, which we haven’t really been doing this year, but historically always keep in mind that if you’re in the position of making a decision between a couple of offers for law school and you kind of want some insight on which of these should you choose, always send that to us, tips at Above the Law. When we get a bunch of them together, we often do a show walking through which of the two and discussing which of the two we might do. So, all right, with that is it time to move on? — Phone call.
Kathryn Rubino: Somebody get that. We’re busy. We’re recording a podcast actually.
Joe Patrice: We are. So, we should have receptionist service take care of that for us, and that’s why we’re going to hear from the folks 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’re 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. So, Kathryn, the rest of the story of big stories of the week were all your neck of the woods. Tell us the most fun way to lose 600 million dollars.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, yeah, I would — okay. Okay, you — all right. I don’t think it’s necessarily fun. It’s actually an incredibly boring way to lose 600 million dollars, but it is a lot of money to lose. I did a quick story on Barclays’s loss of 600 million dollars.
Basically, what they did was illegally sell various securities because they had filed a shelf registration for, I think it was 2 billion shares or whatever, or up to that amount of money, and went over that to the tune of 600 million dollars. So, it sounds bad, but in reality all of the information was out there. It wasn’t — no one was necessarily harmed by the lack of a registration statement, but it was, you know — Matt Levine of Bloomberg has what he thinks is the most likely scenario, is that someone in the legal department was in charge of, you know, deducting how much capacity they had left in the shelf registration statement, and then someone probably left probably for law school, and that handoff didn’t necessarily happen. And then, for almost a year, they were selling securities without having a valid shelf registration statement.
So, it’s a really technical, very boring way to lose 600 million dollars but because of the way the SEC penalties are, it’s incredibly draconian, and they have to offer to buy back those securities at the price that they sold them for. And you know, some of the securities went up. They don’t have to sell. They don’t have to offer to sell the folks whose, you know, investments went up, don’t have to sell them, but anyone who’s securities went down, yeah, they have to — they will probably be selling them back. That’s where that 600 million dollar number comes from. Yeah. It’s an incredibly boring way and shows you just how important legal is. No one really, especially in big banks like that, no one really thinks about the legal department until something goes terribly awry.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: This is just a hypothesis, but it is very interesting.
Joe Patrice: And what strikes me about the whole story is this is the sort of place, not stupid NFTs and stuff like that, but this is the sort of place where blockchains are actually useful, where you can actually have kind of an automated system.
Kathryn Rubino: You just made this into text story. Good job, Joe.
Joe Patrice: And where you sort of an automated system that like lets you know when things have happened and registers, “Oh, somebody bought this,” and it goes get like — these should be automatic. It should not be up to a paralegal changing an Excel spreadsheet every time, you know. Like, this is not how you run an economy.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, yeah, and there’s an internal investigation happening to figure out exactly what happened and I am quite sure that on the back end there’s some new process or procedure that will be done.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, you can lose a lot of money really quickly as a lawyer. So, that’s fun.
Kathryn Rubino: So, yes. And you’ll never get any of the glory for earning that money for the bank that you work for but, man, you might lose it. You forget to check a box somewhere and, yeah, you could very easily lose a lot of money for a bank.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No, not great.
Kathryn Rubino: I think it’s interesting though that this story was one of the top stories of the week, because I do think there’s this level of kind of schadenfreude that, you know, has been the mainstay of Above the Law writing since the very beginning of the blog, but there’s a little, “Oh, gosh, that could have been me,” moment involved, I’m sure. I’m sure this is not the first time that sort of handoff from a departing, somebody in the legal department to the next person, did not happen perfectly.
I’m sure there are other stories out there, but maybe they were caught before the registration statement, you know, before they reached their capacity. So, there I’m sure there is, there’s other stories out there and I think that there’s a little bit of like, “Oh, that definitely could have been me,” or just remembering, “I don’t know. I left it on the computer. If no one found it, that’s on them,” kind of a moment, but I do think that kind of yikes town, you know, it makes for a good copy.
Joe Patrice: So, if we’ve instilled anything in any of the listeners, it’s to right now immediately go into your drive and make sure that you’ve been updating everything you’re supposed to be updating.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Yeah, especially if you’re still working there. You don’t want to — and listen, there’s probably somebody in the legal department who was overseeing, that was supposed to oversee this, these folks that were supposed to document all the shelf statements. And yeah, I’m sure that they’re not doing so great right now.
Joe Patrice: All right. Well, with that, let’s transition to another one of your stories that was doing very well last week. People may have been following that there’s a Supreme Court Justice who has some ethical challenges happening right now. Thankfully, there’s no rules.
Kathryn Rubino: Good news, rules are there are no rules. Yeah, I’m sure folks have probably heard about the unhinged series of text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. There were I think 29 various exchanges with lots of exclamation points, lots of urgent language, not great though, all kind of perpetuating this myth that there was something illegal that happened in the 2020 election, that Joe Biden was somehow not the proper president, that he had not won the election, which obviously we all know is not true and it is very much a lie.
But Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, was very active in sort of the post-election fervor. Why does that matter? Well, the Supreme Court actually is pretty involved in whether or not or what happened post-insurrection, Thomas was the lone dissent in one of the cases about whether the January 6 commission had subpoena powers. Weird. Weird that he would be the only dissenting vote. It’s almost like he might have been aware that his wife’s text messages might come up during the course of this. But does it matter? He doesn’t have to recuse himself because there is no clear line for the High Court for who needs to recuse themselves.
Joe Patrice: Which a lot of people may be surprised to learn, but the Supreme Court has the power to impose, you know, ethical requirements upon the Federal Judiciary but they have ruled amongst themselves in the past, that that power to regulate lower judges does not extend to their ability to regulate themselves and, thus, they don’t. If people choose to recuse themselves based on kind of taking those rules as advisory, that is one thing, but there is nothing to actually force any of them to recuse themselves in these cases.
Kathryn Rubino: He certainly hasn’t historically. There are, pretty obviously I would think, lots of calls for him to recuse himself going forward but he hasn’t made any statement about that. The Court hasn’t said anything about what will happen in the future. There are folks who would like more severe sanctions. People have been talking about calling on Justice Thomas to resign. I mean, he won’t, but people would like him to. I mean, sure, sure. Fair, but there even have been a few folks mentioning the, “I” word. Impeachment for, yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: But it’s, again, unlikely to happen, either anything more severe than just–
Joe Patrice: If I can count to 67. So, it’s unlikely to happen.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. Well, listen, actually removing Trump from office was unlikely to happen as well because you can count to 67, but there were still two articles of impeachment that got passed by the house, but it doesn’t even seem like the democratic leadership in the house is even really seriously considering impeachment at all, but that doesn’t mean some people aren’t saying the word. It’s out there, and I think that when sort of the next election 2020 case comes up is when we’ll hear the next kind of spade of like, “Oh gosh, what’s happening? Is he hearing this case? Oh, great. Good news,” but it’s a reminder that we don’t have rules, that we should have rules.
Fix The Court’s Gabe Roth has I think a 10-point plan of what should happen in order to avoid this kind, and let’s be clear, Fix The Court has been on this train for a very long time. They think that every Justice on the court should have recused themselves at various points in the past because of stock ownership or, you know, other things. There’s lots of reasons why people could potentially recuse themselves and get — Fix The Court–
Joe Patrice: If you’re interested in, you know, judicial ethics, obviously follow Fix The Court. They’re very good at this.
Kathryn Rubino: Yes. Yes, and they’re very detailed. A lot of information out there, but it is very interesting that this happened, you know. What was it, nine days after folks were on Ketanji Brown Jackson, over whether or not she would recuse herself in a Harvard, you know, affirmative action case, which she has gone on the record saying she would recuse herself, which is a lot more information than we have from Justice Thomas, and he’s the one who actually, you know, had some — actually did something that people pointed to as unethical, which is hearing that case and being that lone dissent voice.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, all right, I think that’s everything we’ve got for this week. Thanks for listening, everybody. You should be subscribed to the show so you get new episodes when they come out. You should be giving reviews, stars, write something. That sort of engagement shows that people care about the show, which means podcast services recommended to more people, which is always good.
You can check out other shows that we’re on. Kathryn’s the host of The Jabot. I’m a panelist on Legaltech Week’s Journalists’ Roundtable, which is also — it’s a webinar, really, so we also come out with an audio later, but you can even watch us have that conversation every week if you wanted. You should check out the other shows from the Legal Talk Network. As always, read Above the Law. That way, you can see these stories before they make it to our conversation.
You should be following us on social media. I’m @JosephPatrice. He’s @rightsforrent.
Kathryn Rubino: Numeral 1.
Joe Patrice: Numeral 1, yes. Thanks to Posh for sponsoring this show, and that is what we’ve got this week. Talk to you later.
Kathryn Rubino: Peace.
Chris Williams: See you.