Law Firm Summer Bonuses Have Started… Will They Continue?

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

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

Kathryn Rubino:

Hi Joe Patrice. I’m Kathryn Rubino.

Joe Patrice:

Oh yeah. Hi, how are You?

Kathryn Rubino:

I’m doing good. How about yourself?

Joe Patrice:

Great. Is there anyone else on this line?

Chris Williams:

No.

Joe Patrice:

Great. So that was Chris Williams. We are some of your editors at Above, the Law

Kathryn Rubino:

friendly neighborhood, Above, the Law editors.

Joe Patrice:

And we are here as we usually are at this time of the week to run down the big stories from the week that was in law or Above. the Law. And that’s why we are here. But first as always, we begin by trying to seem like we’re normal people with a little

Kathryn Rubino:

Smell talk.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. So what is going on with everybody? You survive the heat dome?

Kathryn Rubino:

I barely remember. I mean, I’m here so apparently I did in fact survive it. I mean, to be fair, I don’t think I really stepped outside during said heat dome. Well, that’s not true. I grilled a lot, which actually is a pretty warm way to spend the limited time that I have outside, but it is in fact

Chris Williams:

What I did. Yeah, why would you do that? Only thing

Kathryn Rubino:

Because grilling you have a short window where grilling is both the most efficient way to cook and also the most delicious. Right? There’s something that hits so hard about the char that comes on a piece of chicken that has been grilled with a little bit of barbecue sauce.

Chris Williams:

I aggressively disagree. Some good char is just as delicious in the winter first off and second, the only thing that is weather appropriate to be grilling right now is either ice or ice. It is too hot

Kathryn Rubino:

Care

Chris Williams:

I did for

Kathryn Rubino:

Yourself did grill some pineapple, which was pretty tasty with some grilled shrimp is also what I did a different day. I dunno. I mean listen, sure Char tastes good whenever you get it, but it’s just, I don’t know. There’s something about the heat that makes me crave that kind of grilled and I mean, my heart clear wants to say barbecue. Yeah,

Chris Williams:

There’s something about the dehydration

Kathryn Rubino:

I, it’s grilling, I don’t know, maybe it’s something that’s nostalgic for childhood, but a burnt hot dog, it just slaps right about now.

Joe Patrice:

Fair enough.

Kathryn Rubino:

You stayed inside Crested looks like.

Chris Williams:

Well, for the most part, but I will say I think this was last week. I think it was on Monday, so it wouldn’t have been during the last time I had the opportunity to have small talk. I saw Prince Asterisk live and yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Dead. He’s dead.

Chris Williams:

So it was a group called the Prince Experience and they’ve been doing impersonations for 12 years now. So it was nice. The closest I’m going to get to experiencing a Prince concert, my only mistake was that I wasn’t completely voice gone at the end of it, but I damn sure tried my best. I would not be surprised if people thought I co-wrote Darling Nikki at the end of that shit. It was a really good time. It was a really good time.

Kathryn Rubino:

Oh, that sounds like fun, Joe. Did you do anything that was not legal tech related?

Joe Patrice:

No, not particularly. Well, you just got me thinking about with the

Kathryn Rubino:

Ai, God dammit, you’re going to talk about AI

Joe Patrice:

No, with the tribute band concept, the Prince experience is a relatively normal and I just always remember there was a Captain Beefheart tribute band called something like Admiral Pork Brain. I think it was always a big fan of that. I mean if you’re going to do it,

Chris Williams:

It just sounded like you’re saying obscure primus song titles.

Joe Patrice:

No. Yeah, Admiral Pork Brain is absolutely.

Kathryn Rubino:

Could you imagine what you could remember besides remembering Admiral Pork Brain?

Joe Patrice:

How does that not, once you’ve heard that, you’re not going to forget that. That’s the name of the Captain Beef Hart tribute.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, to be fair, I am not sure I’ve remembered that Captain Beefheart was a thing until you mentioned it right now.

Joe Patrice:

Amazing.

Kathryn Rubino:

I try to prioritize the stuff I remember well, I mean usually fail,

Joe Patrice:

Look, but there’s no off Ion on the Genius Switch.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, I did watch an episode of Strawberry Turkey this weekend and get really mad that they had a new villain that was neither the peculiar Purple Pine in nor Sour grapes. And I was like, well you have villains available in the cannon. Why are you creating a new one? This one was like a private equity dude. It was weird. I’m not a fan of the Strawberry Shortcake reboot.

Chris Williams:

One thing I wanted to say, and this also harks back to my weekend, that turns out there is an off switch on the genius button. Anybody that’s caught up on this season of the boys knows what I’m talking about, but for anyone that isn’t, you should check it out. It’s a nice show. It’s got to the point where the Republicans arguing, realizing the show is making fun of them, which

Joe Patrice:

Happens every season. What’s been getting me, it’s not like it’s a subtle, not subtle parody at all. It is

Chris Williams:

Not. But also a lot of the people that are coming from that are Republicans, the states are coming from don’t score the highest, don’t reading comprehension. So sometimes you got to beat that dead elephant

Joe Patrice:

Until they get

Chris Williams:

What’s going

Kathryn Rubino:

On. There you go.

Joe Patrice:

It is interesting though, as a purely just kind of commenting on sociology has something happened in society where there’s a segment of the population who just does not grasp that they’re being parod and they take everything way too wrong. I mean that suggests that there’s some kind of broader breakdown in communication and I think it’s driven and

Kathryn Rubino:

In education.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, I think I’ve read about this. It’s a French term. It’s called Stupid

Kathryn Rubino:

St, I believe is how you pronounce it.

Chris Williams:

But yeah, even back the, even the ancient times when the Simpson was cutting edge, there were still people that didn’t get that. It was a very clear critique of the nuclear family even though the guy worked at a nuclear

Joe Patrice:

Literal nuclear pipe.

Chris Williams:

So I think there’s a long line of the stupid, or even not everybody picked up that a modest proposal will satire

Joe Patrice:

For sure. Yeah. So I guess my theory on this is that there’s certain media that is now being consumed, not so much Fox News, but the Newsmax and Os of the world that read so much as self parody but are attempting to be genuine that it’s numbed people to the actual concept of parody. That’s my new thinking on this subject. I will take no questions at this time. Alright, well, okay, so we’ve rambled for a little bit about this. Let’s move to real topics for the week. I guess let’s begin with a quick aside to the big thing that really matters in Above the Law world Money. We have some news about some more money.

Kathryn Rubino:

It kind of started a few months ago when we started getting tips, which to be fair were probably more wish casting than anything else saying, come on, don’t you think we’re about due for some summer bonuses? And again, we hadn’t really heard that much, but enough to throw together a what are you hearing kind of an article. Lo and behold, if you wish it hard enough and long enough, you apparently get it. Well, at least some folks are going to get some summer bonuses. Summer bonuses you’ll recall happened during Good Times when there’s a lot of extra money floating about. And it’s a way to, for firms to further share the wealth quite literally. And Litigation Boutique Houston Henigan offered some as well as McCool.

Joe Patrice:

So boutiques, boutiques offer bonuses sometimes faster than other places because that is

Kathryn Rubino:

The literal lack of bureaucracy in action,

Joe Patrice:

A lack of bureaucracy. And of course they operate on because they don’t bring in first years necessarily and train them up. They operate in a lateral market. So the option of sweetening the pot for somebody who wants to move over from big law is big. And so there’s some value to that. Cool. Joining of course now brings us to the idea that this is moving a slightly more mainstream. We’ve not heard any more action, but it does seem as though we would see some here soon.

Kathryn Rubino:

Some of it definitely happens kind of on the ground when people are talking about it. And so I think it is interesting that even before either of these sets of summer bonuses were announced, we are hearing that this is what associates in firms are actually discussing and talking about, sort of looking at the pre pandemic world, the 2021 world, seeing what the numbers were then. So I think it’s interesting. I think it’s a good sign overall for the health of the market. And I don’t necessarily think this is a greedy associate moment because the firms that are going to potentially make this move are ones that had a banner 2023.

Joe Patrice:

One aspect of inflation, which is now appears to be more or less under control, but for a while we had a spate of it. One aspect of that is there’s a risk of a kind of wage inflation spiral where inflation goes up so everyone pays their employees more to cover it, which then means there’s more money out there, so there’s more inflation and yada yada yada. That’s again, seemingly under control to the extent associates need more cash. Obviously everyone needs more cash, everything’s a little bit more expensive. But there is also something to be said for they are uniquely in a position where things like inflation help them out a lot because the biggest line item in their monthly budget is probably their student debt, which is nominally denoted and they will, when they get a little bit more money, it just means that debt doesn’t change money-wise, even if the value of money changes. And so they have more cash on hand to help pay that down, which is always nice. So this is a uniquely good moment for associates because while they don’t necessarily need it to survive, it will make paying down debts a lot easier.

Kathryn Rubino:

And I think the other thing to note just big picture industry wide is something we’ve mentioned a few times is that there seems to be an additional striation happening in the market between, I don’t want to necessarily put a number on it, but let’s say the top 50. There’s a distinction between the top 100 firms and the second hundred that we are all kind of accepted. But I think that there’s something happening that’s this super tier going on and I don’t know if it’s actually full 50 or this is kind of being played out in real time, but there’s definitely a layer and we don’t really have a name for it yet of big law firms that will potentially be able to make these moves. They’re moving the ball on salaries generally are really doing a lot in the lateral market, are changing the way partners are compensated in order to attract more rainmakers to their firm. And I think that this is just more evidence, especially if it gets bigger than just a handful of firms once you get into the 10 or 15. I think that’s really when there’s momentum there. But if it gets to that level, I think you’re going to really see a break, a further break between the tippy top and sort of the rest of the am law 100.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Alright, with that said, let’s take a break right now and we will be back sooner than you can imagine. Okay. You have a good imagination. It wasn’t

Kathryn Rubino:

Any sooner

Joe Patrice:

Imagined, but it was exactly.

Kathryn Rubino:

Especially how long you thought it was going to be. Yeah,

Joe Patrice:

Imagine that. So the Supreme Court continues to meet and continues to trickle out opinions. Its term is now over as far as it’s scheduled time, but it still has tons more to do and it is slowly trickling those out. Last week we had an interesting opinion come down, which was the Rahini opinion, which came out of the Fifth Circuit. This was an opinion involving a human avatar from a grand theft auto game as one, a guy who was involved in multiple shootings within a few weeks of each other and because he just kind of fired guns when people didn’t get their orders right at restaurants and stuff like that. This person though had entered years in the past as part of a domestic violence case. He had entered voluntarily an agreement that in exchange for not being prosecuted there he would agree not to have guns and then he had guns and got in trouble for that. The fifth Circuit had ruled that even though he’d voluntarily entered this in this agreement and everything, the right to have guns is so sacrosanct that you can’t even agree to give up your right to have guns and therefore this was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court heard this case and ruled in a fractured eight one opinion with everybody but Clarence Thomas writing something kind of separate agreed that yeah, maybe we can take guns away from domestic abusers.

Kathryn Rubino:

Your take is one of the more interesting and probably correct, which is

Joe Patrice:

That, well, I’m one of the few who made my take completely about the concept that they’re just a bunch of drunks who just woke up. Sure.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I think the hangover grew is real.

Joe Patrice:

You don’t see that in the slate coverage.

Kathryn Rubino:

But what I was going to say more specifically was that Clarence Thomas is right, but also wrong.

Joe Patrice:

So the frame that I have for this is if you’ve ever been in that situation where you might be in a bar or whatever substance that changes your brain chemistry, you choose and when your buddies make a lot of big plans and a lot of bold plans while you’re in that situation, and then the next morning you guys are

Kathryn Rubino:

Going to go to Vegas

Joe Patrice:

Right

Kathryn Rubino:

Next week we could do it. Look how cheap flights

Joe Patrice:

Are. Yeah. That happens. And then what happens is most of you wake up naked on your kitchen floor with a half eaten meatball sub and you think, well no, we’re not doing this. I thought

Chris Williams:

I saw you in hangover two, I swore,

Joe Patrice:

But you do have one friend who you expect everybody to be on board with. Yeah. That all happened. We’re all going to forget it. And there’s the one friend who still believes Clarence Thomas is that friend the rest of the Supreme Court, a conservative majority who had ruled in Bruin that the Second amendment

Kathryn Rubino:

Is a super

Joe Patrice:

Right, exists on vibes and there is no right to ever regulate guns. The rest of the conservatives in Rahimi made various different concurring justifications, excuses why they can’t go to Vegas next week, reasons why they think it is okay that they have some regulations here. And Clarence Thomas writes a lengthy descent where he’s just like, that’s not

Kathryn Rubino:

No, you guys, we definitely planted, don’t you remember we were on Kayak and

Chris Williams:

Are you telling me the guy that’s like, Hey, that bump stock shooter is actually pretty skilled, still was like

Kathryn Rubino:

He

Chris Williams:

Was still pro gun. Oh my God.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I mean people agreed with him on the bump stop question. The cheese stands alone now. Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

So it was interesting. I did read some takes that were this opinion pine drives home that Clarence Thomas is no longer in charge of the court’s res prudence. And I was like, hold the phone. We had that bump stocks case, the trigger.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Holster that for a second. We just had a bump stock case. So I’m pretty confident he’s still in charge. But there are limits and those limits are the meme where you’re superheroes looking at the two different buttons. The should we punish criminals or have unfettered access to guns? And several of the conservatives went with punishing criminals. But to Catherine’s point, Thomas’s dissent is quote unquote Right. If you do think that Bruin a mere two years ago, if

Kathryn Rubino:

You really read Bruin, it seems like

Joe Patrice:

If that’s the law then

Chris Williams:

That was two years ago.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Oh my God. A mere two years ago they made an

Kathryn Rubino:

Opinion. It was in the same session as Dobbs. Yeah,

Chris Williams:

Dobbs. Yeah. So that is probably the more popular one I was being discussed. But I think the arguably bigger case was the one that challenges the notion that there’s a right to family. What are your thoughts on that?

Joe Patrice:

Oh, interesting. Yes. So the family case, and actually we should transition into the third big case too while we are at it, but we’ll do the family one as well. The family case. This is the case that said, if you’re immigrant family, somebody’s here, there should be a presumptive, right? That you should be able to bring your spouse over, get

Kathryn Rubino:

A visa.

Joe Patrice:

Get a visa for them. The ruling was well, there’s a right to family, but there’s not a right that you have to be anywhere near your family, which is a bold read of those precedents.

Kathryn Rubino:

Do you remember what the right wing was like in the eighties and nineties? And they were all about family and that was literally their tagline was all about family. And then you read this decision and

Joe Patrice:

You’re like, you’re thinking of the fast and furious movies, but

Chris Williams:

Do you see this as still being part of it? Penumbra and enumeration fallout that was brought on by the way that Dobbs was written.

Joe Patrice:

See this as in some ways I view this as kind the part of the inevitable rollback of cases like Obergefell. I think they are to, that was

Chris Williams:

Also mentioned too in the dos decision where Thomas was basically signpost all the places we’re like, we’re going to target this next and this next and this

Joe Patrice:

Next.

Chris Williams:

It seems like the right to a family is one of those things that’s not explicitly said, but you feel it supposed somewhere in the document,

Joe Patrice:

Especially to the extent that the justification in the marriage equality cases was because Kennedy was unwilling to really indulge in the equal protection line as much as he probably should have. He concocted this liberty interest in it. That liberty interest seems as though that’s the sort of thing that you can use a case like this to build upon and say, you can define whatever you think your family is however you want, but we don’t have to let you have any rights based on that. You can say you’re married to this person who doesn’t happen to be in America, but that doesn’t mean we have to let them in. So that’s what I thought more was that it’s the beginning of that.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean I think you’re definitely right, but I also pushed back against the notion that there is some ideologically consistent pushback based on the way they framed Dobbs. I think that it is convenient. I think even if Kennedy had leaned really hard into 14th amendment jurisprudence in that decision, I think that it would still be very much on the chopping block and in danger because I think that what we’ve seen over the course of this term and the last several years frankly, is that it doesn’t matter. They form the conservative majority forms. Its ensures prudence in order to get the results that they want. And then they call it neutral.

Joe Patrice:

Sure, sure. I am just saying, hey, I’m saying, and I remember I was on Race war’s show on Al Jazeera America, that network that no longer exists when those cases came down and I remember being asked a question and answering it. That is a bit of, I had a bit of concern that it was based in the liberty kind of argument because I said

Kathryn Rubino:

It makes it easier, the conservative

Joe Patrice:

For sure. That makes it easier to roll back. I thought. Sure. To see,

Kathryn Rubino:

I think that’s definitely true. But I think that while it would’ve made it a little bit more challenging for the right wing, I don’t think it would have taken it off the table in any

Joe Patrice:

Way. Sure, sure. I agree with that too.

Kathryn Rubino:

Alright. And also, by the way, back to the Rahimi fifth Circuit, yet again gets

Joe Patrice:

Slapped,

Kathryn Rubino:

Slapped

Joe Patrice:

Down, great transition. So fifth Circuit gets slapped down again, first amendment case.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. There was also the Gonzalez v Trevino case, which was I had written about previously because it was this unlawful prosecution sort of argument. There was a city council person who had a petition going against a city manager who was friends with the mayor. And when the petition, she presented the petition, she accidentally put it in her binder for minutes, not very long. And as a result, the mayor involved the police department and had her arrested for improper dealing of government paperwork basically because she accidentally put it in her binder for a few minutes. When the DA got ahold of the case, they were like absolutely not and was pretty quickly dismissed. But she was arrested, she was put in a jail cell and all this stuff. So she had a retaliation lawsuit saying that they impeded on her first amendment rights and the fifth circuit was not, you can have immunity. The police department, the mayor has immunity for all of these actions. And actually James Ho was in the dissenting in that opinion saying, no, the government really is not allowed to prosecute its political opponents. And turns out he was right.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. The Supreme Court determined in a kind of quick procurement decision that no, you can’t, can’t

Kathryn Rubino:

Do this, you can’t

Joe Patrice:

Do that. Now Alito wrote a longer opinion than this one. Right? Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

It was a kind of curious pure per curium because several people still wrote Concurrences and Concurrences were written by Alito Kavanaugh and Brown Jackson. So that was a lot of

Joe Patrice:

Things. So my takeaway on that, and I think I mentioned this in passing at the time when it came down, what to you was that Alitos opinion reads? It probably was at one point the majority opinion and then not. And I just kind of mused that. But I do see on social media, I think Professor Vladek said this same thing, was just, this really seems as though Alito was supposed to write this opinion. And then ultimately the rest of the court enough votes on the court were like, well, we’re not going that far. Let’s just spit out this couple paragraph per cum. What made

Chris Williams:

You think that was the original?

Joe Patrice:

Well, when you have a opinion that is very conclusory, like a few paragraphs doesn’t seem like it’s all that much. And then you have this concurrence or dissent, frankly, it works the same way that delves into the facts does more than it needs to do. Almost as though it was a fully formed draft beforehand and then something changed. That was my takeaway on it. Now what Vlad’s point is, which I think is supercharges it, and he’s obviously this is his job to stare only at the court. So he may had a better argument on it, which is that when you look at the apportionment of opinions from that reading, from the oral arguments, that one was part of Alito should have written another one. And so this is the missing one that was assigned to Alito in some ways because the only argument that isn’t what happened here is there’s one remaining case and Barrett has not written a case from that particular read. And so if Vlad’s argument is that means that one has to be Barrett’s and this one was the one that was supposed to be alitos and that was very compelling. So it took my,

Chris Williams:

Well

Joe Patrice:

Maybe and supercharged it a little bit.

Kathryn Rubino:

But once again, we have the fifth court not even vying, securing its place as the most ridiculous federal circuit,

Joe Patrice:

Most ridiculous federal circuit, but perhaps not the most ridiculous court. We’ll get to that when we get back after this break. So with that excellent transition, that was good. That was good. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So we talk about some courts being crazy, they don’t have much on what’s currently happening in Atlanta. Explain the state of the universe of this YSL trial for us.

Chris Williams:

I refuse to do that. I will only say that that is a JR Martin levels of world building. I am not capable. I can give you some symptoms. So for the one thing is what it recently blew my mind. I’ve been following this case for over a year now. I remember back when it was just like a, oh my god, they bought chicken from a strip joint. That was the big story. But oh my. Now we’re at a point where Brian Steele, who’s young thug’s main attorney, he’s like, you don’t think it’s weird that you judge are also a witness in this case? And then the judge is like, nah.

Joe Patrice:

So this is the massive Ricoh trial about the idea that young

Chris Williams:

Slime life, which is a music label, is also a gang.

Joe Patrice:

Right. And that he was running it visa and conspiring with all these people, yada yada. This case has been crazy from the beginning. It took nine months

Chris Williams:

To get a jury together.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it is been a mess for a long time. But the most recent run of insanity began when Brian Steele made the point, Hey, it’s come our attention, your Honor, that you had an ex parte meeting with one of the witnesses and the prosecutor. And it also appears to be from what we hear, that at that meeting the witness said, I planned to perjure myself and you all were like, sounds great. Now without having the facts of this out there, that is what we in the business call wrong. But rather than suggest that, well obviously that didn’t happen. The judge started getting very irate that Steel had heard this, claimed that there was a privilege issue, unclear what privilege it was. He said, attorney client, that’s not how that works. Certainly not when people other than the attorney and the client are involved. I don’t know, prosecutors, judges, things like that

Chris Williams:

More. And a couple of days later we found out that about 13 other people were involved because at first

Joe Patrice:

It

Chris Williams:

Was more woody, more thought it was

Joe Patrice:

17. I thought it was 17. Look, it’s

Chris Williams:

Insane. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole Marvel universe was in there. As time goes on, more people are involved, worse things happen. And I’m like, should this should have been a different judge weeks ago.

Joe Patrice:

So the judge, I don’t even know, judge holds steel in contempt, tells him he’s going to put him in jail on weekends. Judge challenges this Supreme

Chris Williams:

Court, superior Court jumps in

Joe Patrice:

Supreme Court, jumps in Georgia, Supreme Court jumps the gun over the intermediate level of appeals. It goes, we’re going to be taking this immediately. So to give you a sense of how maybe the rest of the legal community sees things operating here. Now the steel has also made the argument of course, that the judge should recuse himself for a variety of reasons, supporting perjury and ex parte communications, bad things. But also the question of whether or not he did those things is now an issue because he would be a fact witness in whether or not those things happen. And so he’s fact witness. So this should be gone the standard for,

Chris Williams:

I just think we should take a moment. Just imagine what this would actually look like. Where he puts his gavel down, walks down into the witness box.

Joe Patrice:

Well, yeah. I mean it just can’t happen. Right. And once a lawyer even is a fact witness, they can’t be there, let alone the judge. This obviously doesn’t come up very often because most judges don’t do this. So the standard for this motion is that the judge is supposed to accept as true the allegations in the complaint and assuming they’re true in the not complaint to use the legal term bar, but in this motion, assume these are true and do whatever, which would lead to them recusing themselves instead decided, well I don’t agree. Every day something even dumber happens. In this case it, yeah, it is getting to the point of high parody.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. So what he said was in open court was that it was permissible for a judge to participate in the coercion of a prosecution witness and in shielding Brady material from disclosure. And that such content doesn’t even appear to be wrong.

Joe Patrice:

And we hadn’t even gotten to the whole Brady aspect of it.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, go. Yeah, it’s so much. There is so much in this case. I’m trying to think, what have I said? What haven’t I said for example, I don’t think that I said there was one point where the prosecution brought up a case that they thought was on point and to try to pin this on Young Thug, Brian still walked up, said I was the lead lawyer in that case. And actually you’re wrong on that so much.

Joe Patrice:

I guess that’s a trend too, because that’s sort of what Thomas said in that gun case. I wrote this opinion.

Chris Williams:

Oh my God.

Joe Patrice:

Whenever you’re wondering, can court get crazier? Not than what’s going on down there. There’s so

Chris Williams:

Many twists. M Knight, Shalon should be somewhere taking notes

Joe Patrice:

With, now I want the

Kathryn Rubino:

People to do a treatment of this case

Joe Patrice:

With the state Supreme Court now getting involved on some level one kind of hopes that that is the signal sending that maybe the judge will understand from their take on this limited motion that things won’t go well if he continues to stay in the case. We will, of course C.

Chris Williams:

And the thing that gets me is he’s a chief judge. This isn’t just some Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Although I don’t know how that particular courthouse works, obviously in federal courthouses, that’s just whoever’s been there the longest. So it doesn’t necessarily, I mean it’s not quite that, but it is mostly that. So it depends on how that gets handled. Obviously the Supreme Court of the US doesn’t work that way at all, but different ones do it different ways. I don’t know. But he might be just the chief judge by default. The two greatest words in the English language as Homer Simpson would put it to bring another Simpson’s reference into this show. We’re all over the place. Yeah, look at us. Alright. Hey everybody. Hey. Thanks for joining. You should subscribe to the show so you get new episodes when they come out. You should give reviews, stars, write things. It’s all helps out. You should be listening to the Jabot Kathryn’s other show. I’m a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist round table. We also have many shows from the Legal Talk Network that you should be checking out. You should be reading Above the Law every week. So you see these and other stories before we talk about ’em here. You can follow it on social media. ATL blog. You can follow me at Joseph Patrice, her at Kathryn one Chris is writes for rent Blue skies, same deal except on Joe. Patrice over there. And I think with all of that we’re out done.

Kathryn Rubino:

Peace.

Chris Williams:

Peace. Bye.

Continue Reading