Check out the stellar transitions in this one!
Joe Patrice is an Editor at Above the Law. For over a decade, he practiced as a...
Kathryn Rubino is a member of the editorial staff at Above the Law. She has a degree...
There’s not an explicit rule of professional responsibility for this, but the general commandment to serve the public ought to stretch far enough to keep the Court from running a propaganda arm. Amy Coney Barrett blasted a sound byte reassuring the public that the Court isn’t a corrupt, partisan institution because it issues “opinions,” knowing full well that she was about to obliterate half a century of environmental regulations on the strength of an unsigned paragraph that very week. We also have to revisit the Yale Law School culture fight, which seems less a fight than a unilateral assault on free speech in favor of “you have the right to shut up and listen.”
Special thanks to our sponsor, Posh Virtual Receptionists, LLC.
Joe Patrice: Hello.
Kathryn Rubino: Hey, how are you?
Joe Patrice: I’m good. Hello and welcome to Thinking Like a Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice. I work at Above the Law. I am joined by Kathryn Rubino who conveniently works in the same place.
Kathryn Rubino: It is pretty convenient since otherwise, I’m not sure that this podcast would be a thing.
Joe Patrice: It probably wouldn’t. We aren’t joined by Chris today because we are kind of in a hurry to get this episode out and he wasn’t available on the shortest of shortest notices as you may know. I don’t know if you’re all listening to this as it comes out but if you are, you may have noticed that we are a few hours late. That’s because we’ve been —
Kathryn Rubino: Everything is really only a matter of hours, Joe.
Joe Patrice: It a grand scheme of things, it’s all hours. I mean, it’s a day late — yeah, whatever. I mean, that still can be counted as hours.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s what I’m saying. I’m just giving you a little grace there.
Joe Patrice: I mean, you should. The point is, we’re a little late but that’s because we’ve been doing other things that took up a lot of our time. Like what?
Kathryn Rubino: I attended the Cross Examination Debate Association’s National Championship this week. You didn’t really get cut me off. You let me say the whole thing, so that’s kind of nice.
Joe Patrice: Well, (00:01:22) going to let you get that out and then, yeah, and this is a small talk.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s true. We’ve mentioned before that we are debate coaches and the national championship was this weekend. So, went to George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
Joe Patrice: The home of ASS Law law school.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s correct. That is correct.
Joe Patrice: But we did not go to the law school, so.
Kathryn Rubino: We did not, but we did attend the competition and Wake Forest Demon Deacons won their first-ever Cross Examination Debate Association National Championship.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so that was nice.
Kathryn Rubino: Congratulations.
Joe Patrice: So yeah, that took up a lot of our time for years. We’ve actually helped administer it so that was why it was busy for us.
Kathryn Rubino: Very busy.
Joe Patrice: So sorry, everybody.
Kathryn Rubino: It would be other thing, which I know we’ve talked a lot about sort of the post COVID world and that kind of stuff, and it almost felt like we’re nearly there. The majority of the participants in the tournament were in person. The final round took place between two teams that were in person. As I said, Wake Forest debated Michigan in the finals with nine judges that were all in person and it is, it almost felt — you know, we partied like it was 2019.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Now, very good. It did start today. It was one of those early times where you felt like vaccines worked. We can all be back together. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s true. They did have a vaccine mandate and some testing that you had to do in order to attend but it was very much worth it, I think.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, anyway, point is, that’s why we’re late. So, let’s talk about some of the stories that happened last week but wait, I guess I should say that as we transition to that, let’s conclude small talk. Yeah. I don’t understand how you still get mad. At this point, you have to kind of just get used to the fact that this is going to happen.
Kathryn Rubino: First of all, rage, rage against the dying of the light. Never give in. What am I going to give in to the terrorists over here? Absolutely, not. You continue to be irritating, I will continue to be irritated. That is just facts, straight facts, friends.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, fair enough, so.
Kathryn Rubino: Want to know something else that’s irritating?
Joe Patrice: Amy Coney Barrett?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. That’s where I was going with that one.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, so we had a really — since our last podcast, we had a really interesting exchange involving the newest Justice of the Supreme Court to the extent that Ketanji Brown Jackson won’t take office until the conclusion of the term. So for now, it’s still ACB. ACB decided follow up her appearance at the Mitch McConnell event saying that it’s wrong, that people think that justices are partisan with showing up at the Ronald Reagan Library to say that judges are partisan and you’d realize that if instead of just looking at the outcome, you would read the opinions where they detail exactly why the law mandates that they reach these conclusions.
Kathryn Rubino: I don’t want to compliment you, but you’d completely accurately describe what was going on there as Brazen gaslighting and I just think that is quite the accurate turn of phrase that’s very evocative and completely accurate.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and so, the timeline of events is she makes the statement. I immediately write a story about it saying that this is the aforementioned Brazen gaslighting. The reason of course being that while one could say we can read the opinions and from time to time, they may be not completely disingenuous and cynical.
That said, the most consequential decisions that ACB has been a party to at this point are decisions on the so-called shadow docket which is the emergency applications that the Supreme Court gets. If there’s somebody who is going to be executed that night, you can’t go through the whole system and there’s a mechanism, therefore, for the Supreme Court to walk in and say, we can make an interim quick decision on this emergency that has come up. That’s what it’s there for.
What has happened over the last several years is that the primarily conservatives on the Supreme Court have decided to utilize this emergency application process to do whatever they want without the benefits of having to wait for things to be briefed, wait for lawyers to make arguments, go through the process of writing opinions that clarify what they’re doing. They can just rule on the merits without having to actually go through the process that the Supreme Court is supposed to go through. So, these kinds of cases are most of what ACB’s been a party to. So when she says, judge us not by the outcome but by the opinions, one has to wonder what she means by that? Is it the opinion that they issued in one recent case that was a paragraph long? The one that they recently put out that was one sentence? Which of these opinions have that —
Kathryn Rubino: Which detailed non-opinion.
Joe Patrice: Detailed, really useful.
Kathryn Rubino: Half of those aren’t even signed, right?
Joe Patrice: Yes, and a lot of these are unsigned per curiam opinions where they say, “You know, we all agree that this is what’s happening.” Well, not we all agree. We all who are on board with this one sentence result agree. A lot of the times, the only details we have of the process are coming from the dissenters who choose to say, “Whoa, this is messed up.” That’s not really how this is supposed to work. If you’ve ever read a bunch of Supreme Court opinions, the majority opinion is usually the long detailed one and then there might be some short and pithy dissents. With this process, some of the most consequential things out there, the Vigilante Abortion Law in Texas for instance, several decisions about what maps are going to be used in the upcoming midterm elections, are being decided — yeah, a lot of vaccine mandate challenges are all being decided on this shadow docket process where no one is seeing what the majority’s reasoning is. No one’s hearing how the majority got there, and to the extent, we learn anything. It’s after this one paragraph there will be a response from usually Justice Kagan or Justice Sotomayor saying, like, “Yo, here’s what’s happened. This is messed up.” And that’s the only set of details we end up having.
It’s really problematic then when Justice Barrett is saying, judge us by these opinions when they don’t exist. Anyway, back to the timeline. So I write this decision and I get a lot of flak from people saying, “I think you’re overblowing this.” And then the next day,
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Louisiana versus American Rivers comes up.
Joe Patrice: The next day they issue a shadow docket opinion that is a paragraph long tell us about what’s going on there.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. That was a Clean Water Act case and they used the shadow docket basically to undo about 50 years of precedent on the Clean Water Act. Basically, under Trump, there was a rule saying that the established guidelines about whether or not — so usually the states and territories, if there’s going to be any potentially destructive projects to the environment, there’s a process by which they can stop those destructive projects. Under Trump, the EPA significantly reduced the ability for states and territories to stop those projects. Under Biden, the EPA said that they were going to review and potentially rethink about this rule. The District Court said, “Yeah, you probably can do that.” And before the Appellate Court even had an opportunity to issue a decision either way, the case is winding through a group of trade groups and red states filed this appeal to the Supreme Court and a majority of Supreme Court Justices in a paragraph agreed saying that the EPA did not have the ability to do that, which basically upend, as I said, years and years of precedent. And this is how bad it is. John Roberts signed on to the dissent which was penned by Elena Kagan saying this is absurd and not at all kind of what we were supposed to be doing.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Like, and John Roberts is not a fan of the Clean Water Act. I would assume he will ultimately agree with this decision, but enough is enough and Justice Kagan’s dissent makes a lot of strong statements about how, if this is what we’re going to do, then this is no longer an emergency.
This process of dealing with emergencies has become an end run around being forced to deal with potentially bad public relations of having to write an opinion that is clearly going to be superficial.
Kathryn Rubino: And the entire docketing process is not done. There’s no full briefing. There’s no oral arguments in these emergency cases and doing an end run around that, I think is incredibly problematic and apparently, John Roberts agrees.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and the problem here, of course, is that she gets to say this and become a soundbite and the soundbite gets to be repeated. “Oh, no, just read the opinions.” No one’s going to bother to figure out that they aren’t really writing any opinions because nobody’s ever going to read these opinions anyway, but gets to happen is outlets like Politico or Axios or whatever get to have a headline that says, “Barrett says the opinions are really useful and genuine and people should consider them.” And that way, some yo-yo out there who does nothing but read the headlines is going to shut down any criticism of this court by saying, “Well, you know, if you really read the opinions, you’ll learn a lot.” It’s just a lie, and it’s a lie that is going to be repeated and never followed up on and we just tell citizenry need to arm ourselves against the ridiculousness of this and we need to make sure as many people as possible know when that battle of the wits happens that one side is completely unarmed.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, and I think that’s why it is correctly termed as gaslighting because you know, Amy Coney Barrett’s speech, and she knew this was happening, right? Like, she knew that this is all true but only wants to point these very public statements which are pretty limited frankly, the amount of times that Supreme Court Justice say stuff in these public forums is pretty limited. The majority of what they should be doing are these decisions and instead of being able to make the argument in these fully-briefed cases, she’s doing it to just get a headline, right? Because they, you know, studies have proven that most people only will remember the first thing that they hear about a topic, not the follow-up that debunks it, right?
You know, that kind of notion that the follow-up that debunks it appears on Page A17 while the first one was the headline. And it’s true and it’s different. We are in fact attorneys. We write for that audience, but she was not speaking to attorneys. That was not why she said the things that she said. She wrote so that the average person who does not have a law degree, who’s not aware of the shadow docket would form an opinion about what is currently happening on the court without having a ton of information about what’s actually happening on the court.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. It is interesting to see that Roberts has reached the limits of his patience. We have seen a bit of that with some of these. On the other hand, he’s joined his share too. It seems as though perhaps, Justice Kagan has developed a Roberts whisperer power and is able to convince him of the abuses when these abuses really happen.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I do think that was interesting and probably for folks who are super detailed court watchers, I think is particularly noteworthy. One of the things that I know, Mark Joseph Stern called attention to is that Elena Kagan did not use the term shadow docket because a lot of conservatives object to that term to use the emergency powers of the court. So Kagan did not use shadow docket even though that’s exactly what it is and instead used the terminology that conservatives prefer, which is fine because I think it was ultimately much more powerful to get —
Joe Patrice: Roberts on board.
Kathryn Rubino: Roberts on board.
Joe Patrice: No, I completely agree and — oh, phones ringing.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, you got to get that. You’re going to get that?
Joe Patrice: No. You know why?
Kathryn Rubino: Why?
Joe Patrice: Because I have a virtual reception service. It’s (00:14:05) do that for.
Kathryn Rubino: How convenient for you.
Joe Patrice: It sure is and I think we should hear more about it from Posh Receptionists.
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.
Kathryn Rubino: That was slick, man.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean, it’s what I do. I’m a professional. I don’t know if you knew this.
Kathryn Rubino: Are you though?
Joe Patrice: I mean, I don’t think we need to get into details about what a profession is but sure.
So anyway, moving from the courts to the law schools. We unfortunately have to talk about Yale Law School again, which is a subject that I enjoy talking about similarly to the level of my enjoyment of chewing glass but I feel like I have to do it on an almost weekly basis these days.
Kathryn Rubino: You know, last week, we talked about how Harvard fell in the latest U.S. news rankings, you know far away from out of the top three, but it seems to me as if Yale is doing its darndest to ruin its own reputation.
Joe Patrice: Well, I mean, yeah. And I think — the issue with Yale is half the country’ is deciding that its reputation is ruined for reasons that it’s not and the other half is doing what it can to be really damaging. And so, we’ve talked about all this before. There was this member of a recognized hate group who was invited on campus to speak. People showed up and protested that. The media decided to jump on the idea that they were “shouting down the speaker.” Reality eventually came out that they protested loudly before the event began. They were told, please leave.
Kathryn Rubino: So they didn’t shut it down if it was before.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, then we’re told to please leave and then they — you know what they did when they were told to please leave?
Kathryn Rubino: I’m gonna go with left.
Joe Patrice: They left. Yeah. At which point, the event continued all the way to its conclusion. They actually ran the whole thing all the way to the end. Interesting, huh?
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, it’s this kind of cynical misleading and it’s similar in a lot of ways, which we did not plan, but there is that kind of through line between the ACB story and this one. It’s not — yes, it’s gaslighting but it’s also trying to capture the headline and create a narrative that reality doesn’t support.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So the students did continue a protest outside but there have been kind of people saying, “Yeah. Well, they were outside but it was still pretty loud. Sometimes it was hard to hear in the room.” That said, they still had left and secondly, there’s a policy at Yale that students basically have a three-warning policy and if you got this one warning, if they still were being disruptive, other warnings could happen at which point, punishment would follow after the third.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s almost like it was a time, place and manner restrictions.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah. Like, how things are supposed to work. Anyway, —
Kathryn Rubino: It’s almost like, you know, people who read the Constitution and the associated case laws were involved.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So the problem though arises that some, obviously the media and the people who weren’t there are all calling for these students to be disciplined for exercising their free speech right over an issue that is at least somewhat of interest which is, let’s say that people who belong to hate groups are a problem. It seems like a good thing to do. Anyway, people on the outside, whatever, they’re following this kind of made-up narrative where the most recent story though was that a Yale law professor, a member of the faculty has suggested that what — argued to the dean that what needs to happen is some sort of discipline and punishment for these students. The interesting twist is that this particular professor who did this is the professor who issued the first warning, but more importantly chose not to issue a second or third one. So this is the —
Kathryn Rubino: It’s almost like when she was actually acting in the moment, she was unaware that she could use this as a political football in the future.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. This is beyond cynical and disingenuous and this is the sort of thing where this person should be ashamed of themselves and ridiculed forever. They put themselves in this position, they understood in the moment that there was nothing going on that warranted a second or third warning or else they might have done those things. But you know, the political football as you said, that ball got rolling and it became time to jump on board and try to steal that little bit of 15 minutes of infamy and so yeah, let’s issue a statement that the media can pick up about how I really am on the side of punishing all these people. Just disgraceful behavior by this institution.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. It really is problematic and I did note, like look, there are prosecutors in this world that I know and think very fondly of but as a category, it’s a little problematic and I will note that in the statement the professor gives is, “as a former prosecutor” and I’m like, that tells me all I need to know about your — we can skip over the actual rule and punish people, right, which, I mean, that’s a story that we don’t even necessarily have on our sheet but I will throw out there just as a transition. We also last week had a situation where prosecutors in Texas started the process of getting an indictment for a woman before they read the statutes and said, “Oh, it appears as though this person didn’t commit any crime.”
That’s terrifying but unfortunately, not something that shocked me all that much when I think of the broad category, not to slur any individual prosecutors out there who might be doing good work but the whole category. This woman in Texas, they tried to put on murder charges for an abortion despite the fact that the Texas murder statute has a carve-out that specifically says,
Kathryn Rubino: This doesn’t apply.
Joe Patrice: This does not apply to that situation but they still felt like they could move forward with it. They could attempt to get indictment. They arrested this woman. Like, it was, it’s a problem. Anyway, the transition there being that this woman decided, at Yale decided that as a former prosecutor, I’ve decided that actually following the three warning protocol should not stand in the way of punishing people for something I don’t like.
Kathryn Rubino: Right.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. It’s real bad. Unfortunately, Yale keeps coming up. We had the incident a while back ago, about the Federalist Society throwing an official party using some racist language in their invitation to that. This would be an opportunity for a school to say, “Hey, you’re an officially-recognized club and you’re violating a series of rules and that’s something that deserves some sort of sanction.” Instead, we got the braying of a bunch of morons about how this is an attack on free speech, which of course it isn’t in any conceivable way. What is, however, is when you say people aren’t allowed to protest outside of an event with someone that they don’t like because that is the soul of free speech.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, there’s a lot of cases about that.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: The other thing, kind of transitioning away from Yale specifically.
Joe Patrice: Go for it. Get away from them as soon as possible.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: And when I say that — I should clarify, when I say that, if bad things happen at Yale, you obviously want to let me know. I will talk about it. When I say I’m upset with it, it is not that I don’t want to talk about the situation. It’s that I really wish in my heart of hearts that Yale would get their act together and you wouldn’t have to be in the situation of always letting me know, [email protected] — yeah. You don’t have to be in the position of constantly reaching out to me and saying, “Hey, check this out. Here’s what reality was.”
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I think that I very much feel similarly about when shitty things that — we write about a lot of shitty things. I joked kind of unfortunately on multiple occasions that I have kind of a niche writing about law school professors who decide to use the n-word in class. Do I hate the fact that that is my niece? Yes. Well, will I write about it whenever I hear about it? Of course.
Joe Patrice: Because it needs — yeah. We need to say these things.
Kathryn Rubino: Of course, we need to be talking about it. Does it make me sad that it continues to be true in the year 2022? Yes, also true, but that’s the way it goes.
Joe Patrice: Anyway, but your point was to transition off of Yale.
Kathryn Rubino: I was going to say, I think it is interesting because it was an in-person event and we were talking at the top of the show, kind of coming back to the in-person stuff.
Joe Patrice: We are all about segues today. Wow.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m working on it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, no. Good, good. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: And listen, that’s the kind of professionalism you come here for but —
Joe Patrice: Yeah, no.
Kathryn Rubino: Wow. Am I like a bozo? Is that what you’re doing?
Joe Patrice: Just a side whistle. I mean, I wasn’t going to hit the trumpet again because that has a specific role in our show. Do you do you want a different sound?
Kathryn Rubino: No, that was fine.
Joe Patrice: We can play around here to see if we kind find —
Kathryn Rubino: No, please don’t. I think that we are fine.
Joe Patrice: Oh, okay. Okay.
Kathryn Rubino: But I was going to talk just about coming back to a little more sense of normalcy in the post pandemic. Well, one of the things is that we are, Above the Law is once again running our law review contest. It’s our annual tradition. So for folks maybe who aren’t quite in law school yet or you know, the law schools tend to have these shows that they put on, law reviews where they do some skits or funny songs about things that happen in law school or the law or something like that and Above the Law for, I don’t know, 15, 16 years has run a competition for law school students picking the best song or skit or whatever that happens as part of law review. And the fact that people are now back and these kinds of events are kind of returning to their old form is a great reason to continue to submit these things. You can do it on our website. Again, it’s [email protected] and if you are involved in your school’s law review competition show, you can see submit it to our competition and have a lot of fun with putting it on our website.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, let’s blow this one up this year because we haven’t had these sorts of shows in a while and so, a lot of students have missed them and so, since they missed a couple of them —
Kathryn Rubino: And even though the online versions are just not quite as —
Joe Patrice: Yeah, they just haven’t quite —
Kathryn Rubino: Not the same, not the same.
Joe Patrice: So, you know, since law students all over the country have missed some of these, you know, it’s useful — you have a duty to not only entertain your own students but you can entertain students from all the law schools by making sure that you get their stuff to us.
Kathryn Rubino: And you know, alumni lawyers who still find them to be quite (00:25:25).
Joe Patrice: Sure. Sure, sure, sure. So get on that. The details are on our website, which is a thing you should be reading.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: That seemed like a good place to begin another transition, like another seamless transition.
Kathryn Rubino: We are just killing it.
Joe Patrice: It’s unbelievable. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Murdering it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, I mean, I don’t know about that.
Kathryn Rubino: The transitions? Yes, we are.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, okay. I don’t know if there’s a carve-out of the statute. The point is, so —
Kathryn Rubino: See, you did it again.
Joe Patrice: I know. I know.
Kathryn Rubino: Call back.
Joe Patrice: I know.
Kathryn Rubino: Look at you.
Joe Patrice: It’s amazing.
Kathryn Rubino: See I take back my earlier insult that you were not a professional.
Joe Patrice: Oh, really?
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I’m still annoyed that you’re going to try to interrupt me with more sound effects as this goes on but, I’m not going to talk as I think it’s coming.
Joe Patrice: No, go for it.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay, so.
Joe Patrice: No, go.
Kathryn Rubino: I do take back my earlier insult. You are in fact — these transactions were really top-notch. Good job, friend.
Joe Patrice: Thank you. Thank you.
Kathryn Rubino: So, yeah, you should definitely be reading Above the Law.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, you should read Above the Law. That way, you get to hear these stories —
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, as they happen in real-time.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, as they happen. Yeah, rather than hearing how we talk about them afterwards.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, the other way to kind of keep up with what’s going on is by following us on Twitter.
Joe Patrice: Oh, yeah. You have a Twitter account? What is it?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I do. It’s @kathryn1. That’s Kathryn and then the numeral 1.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I have one too. It’s @josephpatrice. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: And there’s also the official ATL account which is @atlblog. Yeah, you should follow all of those.
Joe Patrice: Yes, and Chris is @writesforrent. He’s not on the show. We can also follow hium. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I think it’s a great way to keep up with what’s going on.
Joe Patrice: I think it’s a wonderful way. Another good way would be to be subscribed to the show.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, yeah. So this way, it gets downloaded directly to your phone?
Joe Patrice: Right, so that way you get it immediately —
Kathryn Rubino: Right. And whatever your podcast listening service of choices?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, you’d get it immediately when it’s scheduled to come out which in this case might be —
Kathryn Rubino: Which is later.
Joe Patrice: Well, not. All right. You know what that was? Another call back.
Kathryn Rubino: Call back.
Joe Patrice: Anyway, so with that said, you should also check out Kathryn show because she has a show.
Kathryn Rubino: I also do another show which is the (00:27:22), was about diversity issues in the law. I would love — it’s a little more serious than this nonsense.
Joe Patrice: Right. I’m on Legal Tech Week, the journalist roundtable about legal technology that we run. It’s a webinar we run on Fridays. Me and all of the other Legal Tech reporters out there. I would say it’s a little more serious too, but I don’t know. It’s more like Legal Tech happy hours. So it’s a fun one.
Kathryn Rubino: A good time has had by all.
Joe Patrice: There’s a bunch of other shows on the Legal Talk Network as well. Some of them I occasionally pop on, especially some of the conference coverage.
Kathryn Rubino: When good times are had, you know what would be really great? Is giving us a rating. I mean, obviously we love the stars. Those make a super happy but if you actually write down a whole review, that helps the show move up the algorithm and makes it easier for other folks to find us as a legal podcast.
Joe Patrice: I think that’s fantastic advice. I love it.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, it’s great. Great news. News you can use.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and thanks to Posh for sponsoring the show and with all of that said, —
Kathryn Rubino: Thank you for listening.
Joe Patrice: Oh, yeah. No, I mean, let’s give ourselves a little bit of applause too for hosting the show after.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that happened.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Yeah. I mean.
Kathryn Rubino: Right, I’ll let it ride.
Joe Patrice: You’ll allow it?
Kathryn Rubino: I’ll allow it.
Joe Patrice: All right, thanks. Great. We will be back hopefully on our regular schedule next week. Until then, — yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Until then, peace.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, there you go.
Notify me when there’s a new episode!
|Published:||April 14, 2022|
|Podcast:||Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer|
|Category:||Legal Entertainment , News & Current Events|
Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer
Above the Law's Joe Patrice and Kathryn Rubino examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.