To Test Or Not To Test

Episode Notes

Transcript

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  Hello, welcome to —

Kathryn Rubio:  Hey.

Joe Patrice:  Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice.

Kathryn Rubio:  You tried to get me to jump offside.

Joe Patrice:  I did.

Kathryn Rubio:  Like the football team here, but it did not work.

Joe Patrice:  I did in our Zoom; I like made a motion like I was talking.

Kathryn Rubio:  For football fans that literally look at what happens when they try to get the other team to jump offsides.

Joe Patrice:  I need to like clap a couple of times, yell Omaha.

Kathryn Rubio:  Omaha!

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. See what I can do. Anyway, yeah. I’m Joe Patrice from Above The Law. That’s Kathryn Rubio. We are not joined by Chris this week. So, we can jump directly into the thing that we do first.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah. We should do that.

Joe Patrice:  You know, we haven’t recorded in such a long time I’ve almost forgotten.

Kathryn Rubio:  We recorded last week.

Joe Patrice:  I mean, but I guess –

Kathryn Rubio:  One week ago.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, but I’ve forgotten the order of the show.

Kathryn Rubio:  Oh, so you’re having memory issues cause you’re old?

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  Oh, that’s it. The first thing to do is small talk.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah, we do the small talk but okay, you got your dumb sound off and I got insulted it was like a win-win for the two of us.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah. Well, over Zoom I could see in your eyes you are planning something so that did not terrify me as much as it did previously.

Joe Patrice:  Well, fine. So, yeah. So, small talk.

Kathryn Rubio:  We had a holiday. A federal holiday last week. It was Thanksgiving. How was your holiday, Joe?

Joe Patrice:  It was good. It was good.

Kathryn Rubio:  Did a lot of cooking, did you?

Joe Patrice:  I did. I did. You know it’s sad that we don’t have Chris here because long-time listeners that Chris argues with me about this stance that turkey is good, beyond great. It is often dry and bad because people don’t know how to cook it properly, but if you do know how to make it properly –

Kathryn Rubio:  Do you have some secret recipes for us that you’re about to share?

Joe Patrice:  I do. Well, no and I’m not necessarily going to share them. But I do. I make a turkey.

Kathryn Rubio:  Oh, because it’s that secret.

Joe Patrice:  It’s not that. I mean, it’s pretty basic. Like, you got to care for the bird and the preparation and you’ve got to do your brining.

Kathryn Rubio:  Lots of brine time.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. You’ve got to come up with good mixes for that. You’ve got to dosey you’re injecting and all these sorts of stuff, but if you do that, it’s good.

Kathryn Rubio:  So, did your turkey come out particularly good this year?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, it did.

Kathryn Rubio:  Good job.

Joe Patrice:  In fact, like and I wanted to deal with Chris on this, but I actually got off a cuff compliment about it that was huge. I had guests., and one of them was a high schooler, whose parents forced to eat some of my turkey off-the-cuff said, “Wow, I’ve never liked turkey before.”  And I was like, “Yeah, because if you do it right it is fantastic.”

Kathryn Rubio:  Lots of injectables.

Joe Patrice:  You know, yeah. You do a lot of things. You’ve got to be willing to step out of the box of “Hey, I’m just going to throw this bird in as is.” You know, you’ve got to season it like you would anything else that you’re trying to make good.

Kathryn Rubio:  Well, I think that one of the bigger issues with turkeys is how they’re mostly done in the United States is that there are these giant birds that are given to you frozen, right?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubio:  So, in order to actually do your bird correctly, you have to start over a week early, right? Because to have plenty of time for it to fully defrost, you have to have time for it to brine. It’s a much longer process than many people hope for.

Joe Patrice:  Then a lot of people take it. I think that’s right. Obviously, if you can get a fresh bird, you can jump right in, but if you’re –

Kathryn Rubio:  But if you’re not wanting to spend $75.00 on a ten-pound bird yeah.

Joe Patrice:  Wow!

Kathryn Rubio:  If you can and you want to get one free because you’ve done the rest of your grocery shopping at Shoprider whatever.

Joe Patrice:  I think there’s a distinction between a fresh bird from a grocery store and a fresh bird like I definitely know somebody.

Kathryn Rubio:  Heritage Farms kind of thing.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, I definitely know somebody who gets them directly from a farm and they are spending like $75.00 for a bird there. I’m not necessarily going that route, but yeah. Yeah, I know you’ve got to plan ahead and have a vision of what you want it to be seasoned like and do it, anyway.

Kathryn Rubio:  Well, my family was in town from Texas.

Joe Patrice:  Okay.

Kathryn Rubio:  I have two nieces.

Joe Patrice:  Yee-hah.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah, well, you know. I have two nieces. They are nine and eleven and they went to their first Broadway show.

Joe Patrice:  Oh.

Kathryn Rubio:  They saw Wicked Witch is a great Broadway show, but the thing that really got me is the youngest was very upset because the theater that the Gershwin Theater that Wicked is housed in is not actually on the street of Broadway. It wasn’t there in Broadway theater? It’s not on the street of Broadway and she had lots of questions.

Joe Patrice:  About whether or not this was –

Kathryn Rubio:  How we could be off-Broadway, but still considered Broadway.

Joe Patrice:  So, what you’ve got is a budding textualist.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah. She’s like in the text of the document it’s very clear. It should be on Broadway. This is on Eight Avenue. So, I’m very confused.

(00:05:01)

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, and it doesn’t even fit originalism because the original interpretation of the word Broadway was being on Broadway.

Kathryn Rubio:  I see, but it is elitist. So, maybe it gets in that way.

Joe Patrice:  Oh, you live in constitutionalist? Well, anyway. So, yeah. So, that’s what’s going on with all of us. So, are we ready to be done with that?

Kathryn Rubio:  I’m just going to say something stupid, interrupt me.

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  Oh, sorry that was the end of small talk. So, what are we talking about?

Kathryn Rubio:  I think you had a follow-up to a pretty interesting story that I judge was a little testy, I guess when somebody, when a lawyer failed to show up.

Joe Patrice:  Yes. So, law and crime what we used to call court tv sort of stuff I shouldn’t say they do court tv stuff. They do a lot of live look-ins at Trials and so on to show the American public the trials are incredibly dull and boring technically speaking. But they had and they’re covering a fairly high-profile case of homicide and during one of the episodes that were caught on this camera was the trial couldn’t go forward with the jury selection because the defendant’s attorney did not show up. At this point, the judge was informed the attorney didn’t show up because he had suffered a stroke.

Kathryn Rubio:  It seems they’re like a good reason not to show up.

Joe Patrice:  A fairly good reason. The judge did not believe it was a stroke, and claimed there was no reason to believe this was a stroke, and pointed out that the court had not been informed through the proper rules-based channels that a stroke can happen not query whether or not we need to stand on ceremony when somebody has a stroke.

Kathryn Rubio:  Also, I think when that sort of thing happens it’s rarely the actual person who suffers the stroke or whatever that’s making the call, it’s probably a family member or somebody from the hospital or maybe, somebody else who works in their office,

Joe Patrice:  The firm, yeah.

Kathryn Rubio:  Maybe a paralegal, right?  Somebody like that. You might think that standing on pure ceremony was too high a bar to really.

Joe Patrice:  It certainly seems like it from my perspective. Anyway, so that happened and they held him in contempt, and claimed that she was going to report him to the State Bar.

Kathryn Rubio:  For having a stroke.

Joe Patrice:  Look, maybe there was something we had not seen. Maybe there was some developed relationship between the judge and the attorney that gave the judge reason to believe all of these things. That said, it struck me that baking a stroke was an extreme response.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah, you might go first with like, “My grandparent died.”

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubio:  Classic. Classic for a reason.

Joe Patrice:  So many options that you would run through before you went with faking a stroke which mind you requires you to then live that truth for the rest of the Trial, right? Like if just –

Kathryn Rubio:  John Federman is any indication that’s certainly true?

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, right. I mean, now question whether or not this means that the Trial should be held until the attorney as well enough to attend or whether or not this is a good excuse to put it on ice for a while until a new lawyer could be brought up to speed. Those questions that were standing anyway, that you follow up to this is and I this is going to absolutely shock literally no one.

Kathryn Rubio:  Maybe the judge.

Joe Patrice:  The attorney did have a stroke.

Kathryn Rubio:  Sure.

Joe Patrice:  Because nobody fakes having a stroke.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah. It’s not your dog too, yeah.

Joe Patrice:  So, the judge has not as far as I can tell said anything yet about this. It’s got a –

Kathryn Rubio:  “No, my bad.”

Joe Patrice:  Yeah.

Kathryn Rubio:  You actually had a stroke. No bark and blame are forthcoming.

Joe Patrice:  Like from the beginning this made no sense. Like, even if you don’t believe this story, which you probably should.

Kathryn Rubio:  Sure.

Joe Patrice:  But even if you don’t believe this story, why is your response “I’m not buying it” as opposed to something more like, “Oh my God. That’s horrible.”  Yada, yada, that said, you know we’ve had some issues in the past certainly, this court will if the court comes into any information suggesting it’s false, we are going to respond negatively. But begin from the premise that it’s true rather than immediately jump to the idea that it isn’t.

Kathryn Rubio:  Maybe in some past life this judge was a teacher or principal and had to deal with lots of fake excuses from his students. I don’t know.

Joe Patrice:  I don’t know even if you do I think you begin from the premise that it’s true and maybe –

Kathryn Rubio:  And kind of embarrassed them into admitting it’s fake.

Joe Patrice:  Well, use your commentary to be not. “Hey, we aren’t believing this but obviously, this is all true. Yada, yada yada, we grant this abeyance of the case for now.”

Kathryn Rubio:  We would like to see a doctor’d note.

(00:10:00)

Joe Patrice:  We would like to see, unfortunately; this is the world we live in. We need to see all the documentation, and I will reserve judgment until late, yada, yada yada, and then nobody would even notice this.

Kathryn Rubio:  It would not become a story. That’s for sure.

Joe Patrice:  Right. Well then, it also gets you thinking, how much is this happening in courtrooms across the country where there aren’t cameras?

Kathryn Rubio:  Sure.

Joe Patrice:  broadcasting up this fairly embarrassing clip.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah, I mean, I think that judges certainly can rule in idiosyncratic ways, and I think that sort of attitude or, default stance that flies in one courtroom is not how every judge would act.

Joe Patrice:  On the other hand, the flipside would be, to what extent is this only happening because there are cameras in the courtroom would a judge be more reserved and less likely to think that it’s true?

Kathryn Rubio:  To their act, they’re kind of putting on a show.

Joe Patrice:  Well, but either putting on a show or believing the attorney is putting on a show, maybe that was also coloring the decision-making to think “Oh, well this is grandstanding on the attorney’s part.” Like maybe the existence of the camera there was driving some of this too. It’s an interesting question.

Kathryn Rubio:  Maybe, but at the end of it, the judge is the one that looks back.

Joe Patrice:  No, definitely the judge is the one that looks bad here. The attorney and his statement when he was interviewed after the fact said, “She made me look really terrible” and I was like, “Oh no. No, she did not.” I know it from the jump she looked, she’s the one who looked terrible. Anyway, so yeah, that’s a setup there.

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  What’s that?

Kathryn Rubio:  It sounds like a telephone.

Joe Patrice:  It does, but we’re in the middle of a show, so we can’t answer it.

Kathryn Rubio:  Somebody, quick get that. Someone who’s not me.

Joe Patrice:  Well and that’s where you could bring in virtual reception services like Posh.

Kathryn Rubio:  It would almost be like exactly what you should do.

Joe Patrice:    So, let’s hear from them.

Female Advertiser:  As a lawyer, ever wish you could be in two places at once? You could take a call when you’re in court, or capture a lead during a meeting. That’s where Posh comes in. We’re a live virtual receptionist who answers and transfers 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.

[Music]

Male Advertiser:  Today’s legal news is rarely as straightforward as the headlines that accompany them. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, we provide the legal perspective you need to better understand the current events that shape our society. Join me, Craig Williams, in a wide variety of industry experts as we break down the top stories. Follow Lawyer 2 Lawyer on the Legal Talk Network or wherever you subscribe to podcasts.

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  All right, we’re back. What are we talking about now? Want to talk about the LSAT

Kathryn Rubio:  Let’s talk about the LSAT considered a rite of passage for most lawyers. It’s certainly the traditional law school entrance exam although, in recent years, the GRE has made inroads as an alternative to the LSAT, behind the sort of GRE LSAT battle has always been the ABA requirement that there be a testing requirement to law school admission.

Joe Patrice:  Right., So, there is an ABA requirement that to be accredited at law school you have to historically give the LSAT, and then it became you have to give a standardized test of certain levels of reliability which included the GRE. Navigating the ABA is like navigating some literal Byzantine administrative organization but the group within the ABA responsible for –

Kathryn Rubio:  The admission standards.

Joe Patrice:  Overseeing law schools, but not with any policy-making power itself has voted again, as done before to get rid of this requirement entirely such that standardized tests would no longer be required

Kathryn Rubio:  By the ABA.

Joe Patrice:  by the ABA for a law school to have accreditation. This rule now will be voted on at the mid-year meeting in February by the ABA house of delegates, which is the entity that could approve it.

Kathryn Rubio:  So, as of February, it could still be that a test is still required.

Joe Patrice:  Right.

Kathryn Rubio:  So, we’re not necessarily at that point yet, but obviously, this recommendation.

Joe Patrice:  Indeed the last time this came up, the rule was pulled and tabled before it got to the house of delegates.

Kathryn Rubio:  So, yeah. I think that obviously there’s a lot of talk and commentary about what will happen. What should happen? What should law school admissions look like? But as of right now, it’s still speculative. We have no final ruling from the ABA.

Joe Patrice:  So, what we have, and we do have, and this is what ties it back into last week’s show sort of is we have a series of law schools and more have joined in since last week.

(00:15:04)

Joe Patrice:  A series of law schools saying, “Hey, we’re not going to participate in the U.S. news rankings anymore, and what that generally means is we are not going to give them GPA and LSAT admissions data because that is the sort of information that you can get from a law school to US News, most other things you can get other sources. So, you have law schools taking this principled stance, “We don’t want to encourage this input-based world of caring about LSATs with one hand and then with the other complaining that getting rid of this rule is a bad thing. There was a letter signed by 60 deans of law schools objecting to this. Their argument ostensibly is that they believe the LSAT is critical to protecting diversity. That it is an important tool used by law schools to sort of evaluate candidates’ blind without having to look at all the other inputs that could easily be reflective. It seems to me and hey, I don’t know. First of all, we already have Kaplan already the test prep company already did a survey on this and found that overwhelmingly law school admissions say, if this rule were to happen, we’d still probably tell people to take the LSAT.

Kathryn Rubio:  Right. So, it would certainly be favorably looked at if you take the LSAT.

Joe Patrice:  Right. So, all it really does is remove the requirement that it be there which I think is a critical step because, well lately, because ultimately, the way in which a ranking like the U.S. News, rankings exist is because the LSAT is universally considered.

Kathryn Rubio:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  And, because it’s universal, and everybody has to have it then they are in a position to say, “Hey, everyone has it and your law school let in more people to have low.

Kathryn Rubio:  Below this threshold.

Joe Patrice:  Right.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah.

Joe Patrice:  And like if you don’t have and that’s why it’s so weird that you’re getting this from the sum of the same people who are complaining about the U.S. News rankings because if you did not have this test required you could still get the test scores from most of the applicant’s and have some applicant does not give it and whatever and then you have an excuse for not reporting it, which means you have that flexibility without worrying about a ranking coming after you like it seems like it all fits right together.

Joe Patrice:  And the argument that it improves diversity I think is potentially true, but I don’t understand why it is universally true. I do think there are probably people who are outstanding potential attorneys and the LSAT is uniquely qualified over time we have seen this; we’ve seen tons of evidence to suggest that success on the LSAT translates to your ability to pass the bar and might be a good lawyer down the road. So, it’s a great test, that said sure there are going to be some people that the LSAT identifies who may otherwise by virtue of not having all sorts of access to privilege have not as good a resume otherwise.

Kathryn Rubio:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  And so, the LSAT is great for that. That said, I can imagine the opposite is also true. I could also see somebody who is a valedictorian at their school who is great and whatever but doesn’t have thousands and thousands of dollars to spend on LSAT prep programs and therefore, doesn’t respond well to standardized tests.

Kathryn Rubio:  Certainly, if you know that your test has been criticized for diversity issues.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah. Standardized testing has been long been criticized for racial and class bias. Obviously, the people who build these tests spend a lot of time and energy not being biased.

Kathryn Rubio:  Sure.

Joe Patrice:  But you know, it’s there. So, given that all of those concerns, I think it’s equally plausible that a lot of times admissions might look at a resume and say, “This person is great and they just had a bad LSAT score.”

Kathryn Rubio:  And more to the point if these law deans do feel very strongly, they can continue to require the LSAT for admission to their law school.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, so the flipside of this argument, so they try to make this, “It’s all about diversity argument,” which I think we have some good reasons to believe either A is not a determinative factor in ensuring diversity.

(00:20:01)

Joe Patrice:  And if anything, may be problematic to religiously adhere to. The other side of it is they argue that the LSAT is an important check on disreputable law schools that are trying to dangle the promise of a JD front people who are not likely to have a good career and therefore leave them ridden with debt, which is a fair point. But on the other hand, we got law schools out here that are bringing in people with 148 averages of the class body, —

Kathryn Rubio:  Sure.

Joe Patrice:  — of the class body, which an average obviously means on both sides. So, they’re bringing in people who may well be scoring in the mid to low 140s, and if that’s happening now then I don’t understand what the LSAT is really preventing. If that’s the argument, then I don’t really see that as a reason to keep the test because it seems to be failing at that sort of check level.

Kathryn Rubio:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  So, anyway, the LSAT –

Kathryn Rubio:  We’ll certainly check back in with this story in February when they may vote on the issue.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, we definitely will be on top of this. And as I said, I do think this story is not being mixed in with the U.S. News ranking story as much as it should be.

Kathryn Rubio:  Right.

Joe Patrice:  I think these should both be considered as related stories and not cabin into two different areas. Anyway, that’s my soapbox on that.

Male Advertiser:  Your clients are expecting you to know a lot of things about a lot of things even topics like domain names.

Female Advertiser:  Domains that are heavily not covered in my law school classes.

Male Advertiser:  Worst yet your client might want a domain name to protect their brand or support a product launch that’s already taken.

Female Advertiser:  Fortunately, Go Daddy’s domain broker service can help. Expert brokers will help you securely and confidentially get that perfect domain

Male Advertiser:  To learn more, visit godaddy.com/DBS.

Joe Patrice:  Closing out today, let’s talk about big law and where they said, obviously we talk bonuses have theoretically started, we haven’t gotten as of this recording any follow-on bonuses.

Kathryn Rubio:  Although, we are very anxiously hitting refresh on our emails even throughout the course of this recording.

Joe Patrice:  That’s right, and maybe this is the time to give a plug. “Hey, those of you who don’t send the memos of when bonus announcements come out, or when any of story about your firm happen. The two tips at Above The Law.Com because you think, “I’m sure they’re hearing it from someone else.”  That may be true, but we would rather have 15 tips from one firm then find out four days later from one person because nobody else had bothered to send it.

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah, I think there are a couple of other things I want to kind of push on that point. The first is your take on it is always going to be a little different than someone else’s and hearing kind from multiple different folks at a firm. What stands out to them from a bonus memo is often valuable, although please feel free also just to send it without any commentary if it’s like, “Yep, exactly what I expected.”  Of course, that’s fine as well. We also have a text-only offline and it’s (646) 820-8477. So, you don’t even have to. You could just take a screenshot with your phone and send it, right?

Joe Patrice:  Oh, right because we do treat these anonymously up to and including, we will be depending on how much commentary you give. We will sometimes even paraphrase you were commentary so that it’s not idiosyncratic and potentially actually identifiable. Obviously, the more generic your commentary can be the easier it is for us to directly quote it. But yeah, we keep you anonymous and all. So, by all means, let us know. Frankly, the firm unless they’re really screwing you over and most firms aren’t on their bonuses, want this information out. So, frankly, the firms themselves to the extent you’re all listening, you should just let us know too because the bonus game is signaling to the market that you are intending to play with the big kid’s table.

Kathryn Rubio:  Through the Baker McKenzie’s of the world as it currently stands.

Joe Patrice:  Right. Well, actually, that’s a good example of why somebody needs to give commentary because when we first got that tip, which we got a little late after a weekend because nobody had let us know. I got it anonymous. So, I just anonymously dropped with no commentary, and I wrote it up and what I had not really realized until we got a response from our tipster was actually not even from the same tipster, I don’t think from a different tipster going “Well, but this is actually bad because last year they also had a follow-on bonus.”

Kathryn Rubio:  Special bonuses were the name of the last year.

Joe Patrice:  Billers and that wasn’t included in this memo and I knew that had happened but I thought that those were two separate memos but they were actually in the same one last year.

(00:25:00)

Joe Patrice:  So, that’s useful information to provide. As “Hey, we actually aren’t happy that we’re slightly ahead of the market standard at the bottom of the scale like the for the first years and second years because of this lack of commentary that’s useful. So, all right, we’ve now, we’ve now basically –

Kathryn Rubio:  This was not a story that we’re flooded with about bonuses.

Joe Patrice:  Yeah, we’ve given marching orders for far too long. So, yeah, anyway what’s happening —

Kathryn Rubio:  So, the other story that we want to actually talk about is about big law and preparations for next year the same way bonuses kind of prepare us for next year as well. There was a survey by Wells Fargo Legal Specialty Group, and it revealed that big law is planning on raising its rates next year, which, you figure most businesses. Now, there you go, I like that one.

Joe Patrice:  Now, there you go.

Kathryn Rubio:  It’s also not intrusive, which is unlike a lot of your sound effects, but, a lot of businesses plan on increasing rates especially, God forbid somebody has a little bit of inflation to deal with, but you expect out what you don’t necessarily expect is the size of the rate increase which according to the survey is around eight percent, which is the largest rate increase since Wells Fargo began tracking rate increases in big law.

Joe Patrice:  Now in fairness, this is happening. CCPI has happened and has increased over the last year. Prior to these rates had not been increasing in line with CPI which was the result of another survey that we reported on that the time. So, to some extent, this is catching up to what had happened in the market.

Kathryn Rubio:  It still feels a little bit like spitting in someone’s face. Don’t spit on my face and tell me it’s raining because not only is it the largest increase in a time when lots of businesses are dealing with or anticipating an economic decline, but you’re also seeing a decrease in demand. There’s like a 1.1 percent decrease in demand through the first nine months for the AmLaw 100 in 2022 over 2021. So, you’re seeing a decrease in demand. It’s not necessarily the time you think, I could definitely jack up my rates right about now.

Joe Patrice:  Well, it’s always a difficult question, and whenever I see these numbers and I don’t gather them myself. So, I always appreciate it when we talk to folks who are doing the actual number crunching.

What always gets me is this is a sector-based industry and yeah, in a world where people are facing hard times, increasing your rates on the prototypical mom-and-pop store is probably an issue. Raising them on Exxon at this point, for instance, is that really a problem? I mean, we are already and yes, inflation exists, but they are also companies who are experiencing a massive windfall of profits despite the fact, the economy is slowing down. These are companies that are using the money that they have for stock buybacks and stuff like that. There is an argument to be had that while prices are going up all over the place, these folks are awash in cash and it’s time to get your share of that.

Joe Patrice:  Now, will these companies pass that on and drive-up inflation down the pipe too? Of course, because they’re immoral that way. But I mean, I don’t necessarily blame the big corporate serving law firms in saying, “Look at this, these guys are making more profits than ever. They can afford to pay us a little bit more.”

Kathryn Rubio:  Yeah. And it’s true while clients have the ability to choose a variety of different law firms oftentimes when you’ve done business with a particular law firm, there’s a tremendous advantage that is probably less than eight percent of your total bill to keep it with the same partners and attorneys that are familiar with your business, don’t have that learning curve, so there’s also sort of a cost built-in if you wanted to try to find a cheaper alternative.

Joe Patrice:  It strikes me as though, when it comes to law firm finances are always that the elasticity at least at the top seems almost infinite. It seems like the top tier of law firms can raise their rates almost infinitely, and they will still get paid because we live in a world in which there are ways in which a law firm could identify cheaper, midsized, and local and regional alternatives that they could be going after. And we see time and time again, at least at the top, this is not happening. Remember how much more expensive and that the old phrase is “No one gets fired for hiring” or whatever.

You are willing to spend more money to cover yourself, and to the extent that is happening, I don’t see a reason why these firms wouldn’t increase, especially if the recession seems at least thus far, to be borne at this point by people at the bottom of the economic scale rather than being suffered at the top.

(00:30:13)

Kathryn Rubio:  Not big law’s client base. Yeah, fair enough.

Joe Patrice: All right. Well, I think that brings us close to the end.

Kathryn Rubio:  I think so.

Joe Patrice: Yeah, all right. Well, —

Kathryn Rubio:  Bye.

Joe Patrice: No, wait. What?  You don’t do that. You know, this is like a Marvel movie. You’ve got to like go through the credits and then there might be something found at the end.

Kathryn Rubio:  There might be a stinger at the end. I mean, probably not, but maybe?

Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, anyway, you should be subscribed to the show. So, the new episodes when they come out you should give it reviews, stars, write something, all that’s very useful. You should listen to other shows. She’s the host of The Jabo. I’m a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalists’ Roundtable. And most weeks, obviously we’ve been off less couple. Just listen to the other shows and the Legal Talk network. You should follow us on social media at least to the extent it still exists in this world. Above the Law is @ATL blog. I’m @josephpatrice. She’s @CatherineI.

Kathryn Rubio:  That’s the numeral one.

Joe Patrice:  That is the numeral one there at the end.

Kathryn Rubio:  Or at least as long as Twitter is around.

Joe Patrice:  Right. We also have other social media accounts like Instagram and stuff, but we haven’t really. We are still very active there as a blog. We are not necessarily as active there as —

Kathryn Rubio:  Journalists.

Joe Patrice:  reporters. Yeah. But soon I’m sure we’ll have to get on the Mastodon thing like everybody else is

Kathryn Rubio:  Not excited about that.

Joe Patrice:  Now, well. I mean whatever. Anyway, so you should be reading Above The Law so you see all of these stories before we even talk about them so that you can know about that, by all means, give us tips when you see wacky things you want us to write about and talk about and all, definitely.

Kathryn Rubio:  And that’s tips at Above the Law.com or you can text us at (646) 820-8477.

Joe Patrice:  You know, it’s too bad Chris isn’t here because he issued a challenge to our audience last week.

[Music]

And I actually did get a response to that that we were going to talk about and then Chris didn’t even show up. So, if you’re listening, we’re going to get to you next time we’ll get Chris here. That’ll be Small Talk at some point in the future.

Kathryn Rubio:  And I think that’s it folks.

Joe Patrice:  I think so. All right, okay. Bye.

[Music]

Joe Patrice:  And thank you as always to Posh and Go Daddy domain broker service for sponsoring the show.

Kathryn Rubio:  Thanks.

Continue Reading