And what's going on with the legal market right now?
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...
The Supreme Court’s inquiry into the source of the leak of its draft opinion in Dobbs failed to find the culprit among the clerks and permanent staff. Attorneys familiar with internal investigations pointed out that the report appeared carefully drafted to mislead the public without technically lying about the failure to investigate the people with the most access and motive, leaving the Court’s legitimacy more compromised than when the investigation started. Meanwhile, an attorney caught billing hundreds of hours for document review he didn’t do earns a suspension, and Goodwin Procter makes heads spin as its layoffs are immediately followed with a major lateral move.
Joe Patrice: Welcome back again to Thinking Like a Lawyer, I’m Joe Patrice.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m Kathryn Rubino.
Joe Patrice: And we are editors at Above the Law and this is our weekly roundup of some of the top legal stories that we’ve covered for the week. We normally are joined by Chris but he’s not here so it’s just us talking about the law this week.
Kathryn Rubino: Great.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, you know. Exciting. It’s kind of old school-ish. Well I’m not old school enough like I did say enough. Not fully old school because it’s not Elie.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure but you know.
Joe Patrice: It was the original host with me.
Kathryn Rubino: He’s moved on to greener pastures, one might say.
Joe Patrice: Yes. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: So, how was your weekend?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s right, it’s small talk time. Yeah. It was reasonably uneventful. There was a lot of forecast of snow that didn’t really materialize. And then now that there wasn’t really a forecast of snow, there’s a bunch of snow.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah well, that’s good times. You’re going to get your shovel ready.
Joe Patrice: I guess. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Good times. Yeah, I launched myself into a massive closet reorganization.
Joe Patrice: Bold.
Kathryn Rubino: Yes, yes. And I almost immediately regretted it. It turns out I have a lot of clothes. Particularly a lot of t-shirts and I don’t really wear t-shirts.
Joe Patrice: Then you shouldn’t have that many.
Kathryn Rubino: So it’s baffling that I have acquired so many t-shirts.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, no. That could be an issue for you.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I really have to figure out my t-shirt organization system. I don’t really have a great answer at the moment but it is definitely weighing on my mind.
Joe Patrice: Well, I mean, I think we all wish you the best with your –.
Kathryn Rubino: You know, you would be surprised how much a well-organized closet really get you into a good mindset to organize the rest of your life.
Joe Patrice: Okay, well I mean we are all hoping you can organize the rest of your life soon.
Kathryn Rubino: You’re such a jerk.
Joe Patrice: No I’m saying — oh I was expressing.
Kathryn Rubino: You pretended right there like you were supportive but you are not, let’s be very clear here what’s going on.
Joe Patrice: You have no evidence of that.
Kathryn Rubino: I think we all heard it.
Joe Patrice: Anyway, so yeah, that’s a decent amount of small talk, is it not?
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I know you think so.
Joe Patrice: I mean whatever.
Kathryn Rubino: You barely like the small talk segment. You just know it’s weird to jump right in but you kind of hate this human interaction moment.
Joe Patrice: Sort of. You know, back in the day, it was always just this is the part where Elie would complain about something and –.
Kathryn Rubino: You used to grind his gears.
Joe Patrice: Right. And now that we don’t have that, I felt like we need to dab some kind of an introductory thing.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m very annoyed by the amount of t-shirts I seem to have acquired.
Joe Patrice: Right. And that seems to be –.
Kathryn Rubino: And I don’t know where — I don’t really know where they all came from. I don’t think I’ve purchased that many t-shirts because again, I don’t really wear t-shirts.
Joe Patrice: Right. You want me to get them for free from things?
Kathryn Rubino: And that’s what becomes the problem, right? Because then it’s, “Oh, it was,” you know, “so and so gave me this shirt for this events” or “I have a friend who likes to make t-shirts for different sporting events.” And so, I have a bunch of t-shirts that are specific to different March madness years and I’m like, “Well, I can’t get rid of that, so and so made it for me” or “I can’t get rid of this t-shirt because it’s from a certain debate tournaments and I don’t want to get rid of that.” And so, this is how one winds up with hundreds of t-shirts and maybe where’s one or two a month. Like, I sleep in some but like, I mean, as an actual leg wearing thing, I’m not a t-shirt person.
Joe Patrice: Okay. Wow. That was um–.
Kathryn Rubino: See you hate human interaction.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean yeah. That’s fair. Yeah, no.
Kathryn Rubino: You want to talk about AI now or something?
Joe Patrice: Mean obviously. Obviously there’s a lot to talk about in the AI world. Actually, that is a thing, it’s not really on our agenda but it is an interesting world right now and you people are talking about it and we’re not necessarily in a position to weigh in right now one way or the other on the discussion but there is a lot going on with this do not pace bid to have AI argue traffic ticket coming up in the near future. It’s really making some headlines. You know, it’s going to be interesting.
People are complaining and raising questions about how it’s being done but I think all of those are kind of secondary to the question of, you know, what happens here and whether or not –.
Kathryn Rubino: You mean like whether or not successfully argues it?
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. You know, it is –.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean it seems like this is not a great forum if they’re going to measure the success of the program based on whether or not it wins because it feels like traffic court is not — it’s usually stacked against you.
Joe Patrice: Right. And to be fair, for this particular program, it’s historically been used for the purpose of fighting traffic tickets and it does that, not in court, but it does things to — it understands that body of law and does what it needs to do to try and get you out of it before you need to go to court. So this is going to be a different thing. I guess technically we don’t know and so it’s traffic court but I mean it pretty much has likelihood given that that’s what it has historically done. It’s going to be interesting.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I’m sure you’ll be updating us on all of the breaking news for legal AI.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Is that what they call it like AI, that specific, like I know it’s like Legal Tech but is it like legal AI or is it just AI that has a legal functionality?
Joe Patrice: It’s AI with a legal functionality. One of the weird things when you talk to these folks is it’s not like there’s a ton of different AIs out there. Almost everybody’s using the same algorithm at the bottom of it and they’re just kind of playing around the edges.
Kathryn Rubino: Giving it different data to crunch on?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Now the new talk of the year is going to be this ChatGPT stuff.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m already like over ChatGPT.
Joe Patrice: Oh yeah?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean –.
Joe Patrice: You know, David Lat plugged in to ChatGPT an instruction to have it complain about the supreme court like it was Elie Mystal and that was uncanny.
Kathryn Rubino: Now, there’s some old-school ATL content right there.
Joe Patrice: That was kind of fun.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: All right. Well, hey, that I think should be the end of this.
Kathryn Rubino: Small talk.
Joe Patrice: So that we can go on to another topic.
Kathryn Rubino: Sure.
Joe Patrice: Hey.
Kathryn Rubino: Hey.
Joe Patrice: What’s going on with the supreme court last week?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Well kind of not really is what it comes down to. So many people know the Marshal of the Supreme Court issued their final report about the Dobbs leak. They know nothing Jon Snow.
Joe Patrice: Ooh Wow, that’s a pop culture reference from like 10 years ago. Well done.
Kathryn Rubino: Wow. Why do you got to be like that Joe?
Joe Patrice: There was no reason to mean like that, no. There really wasn’t.
Kathryn Rubino: No, it’s just your heart is cold. It’s like made out of coal and it’s black and here we are.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough. Anyway. Yeah, no. So the Marshal of the Supreme Court has no idea who did the leak which is what we all expected the answer to be because they seized everybody on the staff’s phone and did this deep probing dive and several months ago rejected any and all overtures of actual law enforcement organizations like the FBI to help out with this investigation and then didn’t have an answer for several months which led us all to conclude that there was not going to be any serious answer.
Kathryn Rubino: In some ways, I’m almost surprised that this report even came out. I think if the answer was, “Oh” it was okay to just leave it as like ongoing.
Joe Patrice: So, yeah. So we reported on this when it first came out and then the next day we did kind of a deeper dive into exactly what’s in the report which I would encourage folks to read because there’s a lot of media report about it at a 10,000-foot level but we kind of went into some of the paragraphs and I looked at it largely from my experience doing white-collar work because I’ve looked at a lot of internal investigations in my life and the reports that come out of them. And this one was amazingly clumsy. It was actually a very — it seemed to be a very thorough and well-done investigation given the parameters of the investigation which the report lays out and which with any scrutiny whatsoever you notice the parameters are set such that there was never going to be the answer that is most likely.
Kathryn Rubino: And that’s because the justices were not included amongst the affidavits they collected or the formal interviews that they did and certainly not anybody else, those associated or perhaps in the same household as the Supreme Court Justice.
Joe Patrice: Right. It was weird. It was almost as though the chief wanted an investigation to find out that it was a staff member and not a justice. And then when they found out it was not a staff member, they just shrugged as opposed to realize what this report actually does is make it almost 100% positive that it was one of the justices, two of them most likely.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. And I think it’s very fair to say those camps as opposed to specific individuals but I think somebody certainly closely associated with Thomas or Lido are going very high up in our probability ranking.
Joe Patrice: Right. I think even if the two of them, either of them are not the ones who did it, the likelihood that they are the vector by which it happened. I think it’s probably the more fair way of saying it.
Kathryn Rubino: And it also kind of it’s very cynical. I think when you read this and really start thinking about how it was put together, I think you get a very cynical view of what the court is like right now. But let’s be very clear, John Roberts would been perfectly happy stringing up some law clerk who did the exact same thing his actual colleague on the court likely did.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well I mean this is the issue with it. And when we say likely did, remember, we’re only a couple months removed of one of the justices be incredibly accused by a dude who used to hang out with him of leaking prior opinions that sparked an investigation that amounted to 10 seconds of saying, “Hey, did you do this?” “No.” And then that was their conclusion. Given that that is out there, this report is all the more damning because a report but then doesn’t include the justices after being thorough and vetted as being a proper investigation within the parameters that were given pointing the finger at the justices makes everything even worse.
You know, on that note, I’ll say this report didn’t end the discussion. As soon as it came, several people including us pointed out that a mild amount of scrutiny would suggest, “Hey, maybe they didn’t even bother talking to the justices” which prompted in what a move that I characterized as trying to dig yourself out of a hole. The Marshall released a statement indicating that I did talk to the justices except the statement which was only a few sentences long reads, I’m paraphrasing here, people are suggesting I didn’t talk to justices. That’s not true. I did talk to justices about the investigation. Full stop. I then didn’t ask for affidavits or anything about them as part of the investigation. Which it’s so clumsy. When things get hyper specific like that, it actually kind of becomes clumsy because what you’re saying is, “Well they said I didn’t talk to them, as in didn’t investigate them, but I did. Full stop. But I did speak with them about the fact there was an investigation. Full stop. And then I didn’t do any of the actual investigating stuff.”
It’s designed to give the impression that, “Well, yes, of course I did talk to them too” but it doesn’t actually say that. It is very precisely written to suggest, “No, I didn’t actually investigate them or talk about them in that way. I just kind of casually mentioned there was an investigation” or that kind of conversation at some point.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean to me, the third part of that statement is actually the most damning because even if there was real probing sort of questions lobbied towards the justices at any point, they still — the Marshal still was like, “But we’re not going to put you through the rigors that we are asking everyone else to do.” No justice had to go through the indignity of having their cell phone records looked at or having their text messages looked at. They didn’t have to sign anything under threat of perjury. They don’t have to do any of that. Every law clerk did. A bunch of permanent employees did but not the justices. They’re too good for an actual investigation into what they say is one of the worst crimes against the Supreme Court.
Joe Patrice: Right. Which is A, exactly how the Hobby Lobby leak allegations were resolved by doing nothing. And, you know, it’s been pointed out before there have been leaks from the Supreme Court before and the justices have always turned out to be the actual vector. So, you know, adding two and two together seems to be too hard for the court. Anyway, there was — to your point about how the indignities are piling up, there was this deep dive that the New York Times posted that Jodi Kantor worked on that we’re speaking with bunches of current and former employees of the court and it seems as though no one over there is feeling very good about this.
Actually, there’s a lot of resentment. It has caused a lot more fractures within the court the way this has gone down and you know it’s one of those situations where it was better to do nothing than this. I’m not saying that as a normative statement, I’m saying that as a strategic statement. From Robert’s perspective trying to reclaim the dignity of the court, this investigation seems to have only made everything worse for everybody on his end. Yeah, couldn’t happen to more deserving institution.
All right. Well, this is looking down. I see that we have a bunch of messages but –.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh no, I’m busy right now because I’m recording a podcast. If only.
Joe Patrice: Yes, if only when you were doing your legal work you had someone else handling those and in taking those calls.
Kathryn Rubino: Right, so you can focus on the task that you are trying to accomplish and not get distracted by telephone calls when you can have a virtual receptionist take care of that mundane work.
Joe Patrice: So let’s hear from Posh about exactly that.
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.
Sharon Nelson: The Digital Edge podcast where the law and technology intersect. I’m Sharon Nelson and together with Jim Calloway, we invite professionals from all fields to discuss the latest trends, tips and tools within the legal industry. Stay up to date on the rapidly changing Legal Tech landscape with the Digital Edge on the Legal Talk Network.
Joe Patrice: All right. So you know what time it is and it’s not really this same?
Kathryn Rubino: Howdy Doody time?
Joe Patrice: Oh wow. So we’re going to keep going further back. All right, okay. So then with that –.
Kathryn Rubino: You did not expect to a 50s reference right there, did you?
Joe Patrice: I did not. I did not. It’s not really related to this but it’s enough that we can use our favorite sound effect.
Kathryn Rubino: I do love that sound effect.
Joe Patrice: It is great, right?
Kathryn Rubino: It is definitely my favorite.
Joe Patrice: Oh yeah. All right, so layoffs. This is not really about layoffs but it’s about Goodwin who we talked about their layoffs before. It’s a new wrinkle in that.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. So we previously talked about Goodwin laid off a bunch of people including a bunch of attorneys. I think about 90 attorneys were laid off and then not even a month later, they turned around and are adding large amounts of attorneys from Pepper.
Joe Patrice: Troutman.
Kathryn Rubino: Troutman Pepper. Which is very interesting. Now of course, and I’ve gotten a lot of back channels on this particular story saying, “Well, this makes sense because they need to diversify their book of business and I’m sure the attorneys that are moving over have a very desirable book and I’m sure that you know Goodwin is looking forward to adding those numbers to their ledger.” Great for them. But there is something about the feel of it, right, that on one hand you’re laying off people and on the other, you’re bringing a bunch of new folks in, right? It shows you how disposable and how cog-like associates are really thought of at a firm because it’s about the role that you have been assigned and whether or not that role is useful. It’s not about your ability as an attorney as much as it is how you plug into the pre-existing system.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So this Troutman group, it is more of a life science kind of related group. From my takeaway of it was that, it’s a real testament to something that we’ve been saying about these layoffs a lot which is we both, I think we’re both on record as saying these layoffs do not feel like prior layoffs like the great recession layoffs. These are not across the board. They seem to be very focused on a few practice areas that are having trouble.
And this kind of compounds that we saw a bunch of folks who operate in certain corporate areas of business, you know, venture capital investment and stuff like that, which areas where things are a little bit slower given the economy and more importantly the feds war on it vis a vis interest rates but other areas like investing in life sciences technology. Booming right now given that every pandemic in the world is kind of quasi happening at once. That world is still making money and so my takeaway was what we’ve said before. This is not a broad-based economic downturn within the legal sector. This is very practiced by practice-based readjustment which is not, doesn’t give a lot of solace to the people who lost their jobs here but it does suggest that this is not the long-term implosion that we’ve had in the past.
Kathryn Rubino: I agree. I think it’s good for the industry, it’s good for Goodwin. But as someone who in my lifetime has been laid off and you know in 2009 and part of these larger recessions movements, you have to imagine it’s kicking someone while they’re down, right? Because it’s like well you, your practice area isn’t good enough. It becomes more personalized, it becomes more dejecting. I think that it would really suck to feel like, not only is your firm laying you off, but they’re bringing new people in. It’s like, “Oh, you just needed my office space I guess.”
Joe Patrice: Yeah. With that said, we have been supportive. We have credited Goodwin along with Cooley for being upfront about what’s happening. That isn’t always the case. Sometimes people are let go and told that it’s basically made to believe it’s their fault but they lost their job as opposed to their partners.
Kathryn Rubino: Listen, layoffs, pure layoffs are always superior to stealth layoffs. Stealth layoffs are when they try to blame it on performance reviews or blame the associate as opposed to larger economic conditions which coincidentally are happening when your performance suddenly and out of nowhere, there’s a problem. It’s like really I’ve been here for five years and I’ve gotten great reviews until this moment.
Joe Patrice: Right. Anyway.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s definitely true. I don’t want to take anything away from the way that Goodwin conducted those layoffs. I think they were as good as they could be in that moment but I do feel for associates.
Joe Patrice: No, definitely. It is weird though that they, even though this is a sector by sector thing, there is a little bit of hutzpah involved in laying people off and then immediately turning around and announcing like just as a press matter like — you know sometimes that publicity is not the publicity you need right yet.
Kathryn Rubino: Well in fairness, I don’t think Goodwin actually has officially announced it yet. It was leaked from the Troutman Pepper.
Joe Patrice: See, that’s also an old reference.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, also an old reference, yeah. No, but I believe it came out as a result of them leaving Troutman as opposed to Goodwin being excited to announce the new folks. That’s how it became public but certainly accurate.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Your clients are expecting you to know a lot of things about a lot of things even topics like domain names.
Kathryn Rubino: Domains were definitely not covered in my law school classes.
Joe Patrice: Worse yet, your client might want a domain name to protect their brand or support a product launch that’s already taken.
Kathryn Rubino: Fortunately, GoDaddy’s Domain Broker Service can help. Expert brokers will help you securely and confidentially get that perfect domain.
Joe Patrice: To learn more, visit godaddy.com/dbs.
Jared Correia: They say the best things in life are free which either means the Legal Toolkit podcast is pretty awesome or we’re totally committed to the wrong business model. You’ll just have to tune in to find out which it is. I’m Jared Correia and each episode I run the risk of making a total ass of myself so that you can have a laugh, learn something new and why not, maybe even improve your law practice. Stop believing podcast can’t be both fun and helpful. Subscribe now to the Legal Toolkit. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Joe Patrice: All right.
Kathryn Rubino: So, how are you doing?
Joe Patrice: I’m good. You know, just watching the clock here as we record, make sure I don’t go over like you know billing 277 hours to review 20 documents or anything like that.
Kathryn Rubino: That is wild.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: That is wild.
Joe Patrice: I think we might have talked about this story when it came up in the first instance. There was a (00:23:57) associate who was let go after it came out that they had billed 277 hours to a 425 document review despite having only opened 20 of those documents over that whole time. That makes for a whopping like 14 hours per document which you know is a sign of some problems. Anyway, the bar has issued some discipline. It’s just a 30-day, it’s a 60-day technically but after 30 days, it stayed. A 30-day license suspension given a lot of the mitigating circumstances of first offense and all that. The associate says that it was just a lot of stress and depression and anxiety that was pushing this for which they have gotten. And they never intended to not look at them, they just — it was kind of one of those situations where they would bill and say, “I’ll catch up over the weekend and then it will be all good.” Yeah. And just never did. You know, and that’s fine.
I’ve always argued the story as less story about the associate who was going through stuff, whatever as one about the firm and technology because my bugaboo here. And just how is it that it took the firm three months to figure this out? And the firm says, “Oh, we didn’t bill the client for any erroneous time” which means you didn’t send out bills for three months? Come on, man.
Kathryn Rubino: Listen, we don’t know the client. Perhaps there are no quarterly billing system, who knows. But you know this kind of thing happens in a world where you’re only reviewing documents in boxes. Talk about another old-fashioned reference right there. But you know, when you had to make your way up to document storage floor of the firm and get the key to get in the room and you were just alone by yourself in a dark area going through box after box. And if the firm doesn’t catch that, that makes sense, right? There’s no system in place but with the technology that this review existed on, it seems wild that it took them this long to catch up.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. And I got an interesting email from somebody complaining that I wasn’t being sensitive to the idea that sometimes documents can take a long time to review. To which I say, no. It is possible to have a very thorny long document but 14 hours is not really going to be the issue. Now you did a lot of document review in your day.
Kathryn Rubino: I have, yes.
Joe Patrice: Fourteen hours on a document?
Kathryn Rubino: Is it possible? For sure. But it would be something I think that was known as a cork of –.
Joe Patrice: As a hot dog or something?
Kathryn Rubino: No, I was thinking more of very long spreadsheets, hundreds even thousands of pages worth of documents and particularly, if you have to do a production review and a certain column or reference has to be redacted, that can take a very long time to get through. If it’s redaction and it’s a spreadsheet and there are different versions of it that are similar but not identical so you can’t really copy the exact redactions, that can take a while. But that would be something that is known about that particular review.
Joe Patrice: See, I don’t know. I feel like the long spreadsheet idea, I hear that but I feel like there are tools that deal with that now. Like when it becomes onerous and a bunch of numbers and stuff like that, it’s no longer the sort of situation where somebody is billing 14 hours for. It is now a situation where tools are utilized to find that information and redacted.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m not saying tools won’t make it go faster but again, it depends on the client the way that they use these spreadsheets. Some clients use like Wiki style documents which means edits are made on top of edits and these become very long documents very quickly but a lot of folks use the notes section of where, “Oh, it just looks like numbers, it’s nothing I need to redact here. This isn’t privileged.” And then all of a sudden it turns out an attorney has column 3 and made all the notes about it and you don’t necessarily know and you have to go figure out like what that’s in reference to, what their role on that particular matter. If it’s just about a financial thing then that may not be privileged but if — I can see a document taking a long time. Maybe not 14 hours but again, who knows? If it’s 3,000, 10,000 pages, who knows? But again that is that is a quirk of a particular review that is absolutely known ahead of time. Because they’re giant to even download, right?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. No, I mean I hear that. I don’t know. It just strikes me that once a document crosses the level of complexity where it could plausibly have taken a human being 14 hours to get through, it is now entered an area where in the — I mean, we’ve had now computer assisted review for 15 years or so now.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. I’ve used it, I get it.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I feel like it enters a point there where that is not the kind of review that’s happening anymore.
Kathryn Rubino: Again, I’ve seen things but I will say that that is not what happened here very clearly.
Joe Patrice: And that’s the sort of thing that theoretically the firm would have known.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. Yes. A hundred percent yes.
Joe Patrice: At least before three months.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. And again, that’s the sort of thing where as an associate, if you’re noticing that it’s taken you this long because of whatever intricacies of that particular document population, that’s something you alert a supervisor to, right? You tell the other associates on the case. You tell the junior partner. You say, “Hey, just so you know, these documents are ginormous. We have to do the following kinds of redactions on them. Just want to make sure you’re aware.” Maybe it makes sense to tag them as a review for later and continue with the rest of the review so that we can get things out the door or you know whatever.
Joe Patrice: And that may be a junior’s role to do that too but it is also a senior’s role to be keeping an eye on that.
Like when somebody has taken 28 hours and only gotten through two documents, that’s when you begin the conversations of, “Is there some reason this is happening?”
Kathryn Rubino: Right. I mean, I think certainly on a week by week basis you should have some sense of what’s going on your document review if you’re in a supervisory capacity at all.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and so that’s why I view the individual story as more of a tragic story and I view the firm-wide story as more of a lesson to be learned by other firms to not find this happen again that there is tech out there. Anyway, cool.
Kathryn Rubino: But you should be using. I’m sure they actually had the tech but actually keeping track of it is a different story.
Joe Patrice: Adoption is the watchword.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m sure it exists to be clear. I’m not sure it’s being utilized the way it’s supposed to be.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. If you wanted to hear people talk about how important adoption is all the time, you could also check out the Legal Tech Week Journalists Roundtable which is a show that I am a guest on.
Kathryn Rubino: You are? Every week?
Joe Patrice: Indeed, every week. And if you wanted to hear more about other issues, –.
Kathryn Rubino: You can check out The Jabot. It’s about diversity in the law. Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Right.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s a great little show.
Joe Patrice: And you can check out other shows on the Legal Talk Network that you and I don’t happen to be on all the times so there we go.
Kathryn Rubino: If you want to hear more of these sorts of stories, you can always read about them on abovethelaw.com.
Joe Patrice: You could.
Kathryn Rubino: You could follow ATL blog on Twitter.
Joe Patrice: That’s true.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m on Twitter @kathryn1, you’re @josephpatrice.
Joe Patrice: That’s right.
Kathryn Rubino: Good stuff.
Joe Patrice: You should subscribe to this show if you haven’t already and leave a review. Say something nice. Put some stars. All of that helps more people.
Kathryn Rubino: Find us as a legal podcast.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s right. And yeah, with all of that said, I think we’re done and we will be back next week.
Kathryn Rubino: Be back next week.
Notify me when there’s a new episode!
|Published:||January 25, 2023|
|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.