Biglaw’s Big Billing Bonanza

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Hello. Welcome back. Yeah, welcome back to another edition of Thinking Like. A Lawyer. I’m Joe Petris from Above Law. I’m joined by Kathryn Rubino, who’s already sounded off, but Okay.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hi. Well, I’d already signed it. Signed,

Joe Patrice:

I guess. Yeah. And Chris Williams.

Chris Williams:

I’m here too.

Joe Patrice:

Excellent. And we are doing our usual recap of the stories that were of the week that was in law.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yes, that is accurate.

Joe Patrice:

Although the week that was, I think we’ll cover this a little bit in our small talk section whenever that begins. And obviously I have no control over it, as you know, it just kind of kicks in

Kathryn Rubino:

When I speak so you can interrupt.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, there, it’s there. It’s there. It’s our small talk section. Yeah. So the week that was not particularly active because it was a holiday, thank God. Yeah, it was a, it’d be after,

Kathryn Rubino:

In fairness, the beginning of the week started with declaring President King. So I don’t know. Wasn’t active is accurate.

Joe Patrice:

Fair enough. But since we last recorded, shall we say, has not been particularly active, but yeah, so we had a four day weekend. For those of you who are practicing lawyers, what a four day weekend means is a time when people don’t go to the office.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I remember those days, and I am quite thrilled that I actually have time off these days. But I did. I had some family over for the long weekend and it was great. But one of my nieces had left a window open at night and the bathroom light on, she left the bathroom window open and the bathroom light on. So when I went in there, it was Moth town USA drawn like the actual moths to a light. There were hundreds of moths of all shapes and sizes and colors. I mean, well, I mean, it’s white to black, but every shade in between there. And I literally, I called my sister. She was not on the same floor as me, and I was like, you have to come up. It was late at night that I found this, and so I didn’t want to wake the whole household up, but I made my sister come and be moth killers with me. It was not my favorite moment of my long weekend.

Joe Patrice:

That was a moth about moths is kind of what we had there.

Kathryn Rubino:

Wow, okay. You tried. Okay. We’ll give you credit for the effort.

Joe Patrice:

You’re familiar with what that is, right? The storytelling competition. Alright. Okay. Yeah, go on. No, I think you made it up. Oh, okay.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think he actually wants an explanation, Joe.

Joe Patrice:

Oh yeah, it’s like a storytelling competition. That really is the end of that was the whole description there.

Chris Williams:

Gotcha, gotcha. Well, to Kathryn’s point, there is a thing that I really appreciate retroactively. So I guess it’s that third kind of fun. You know how they have the times of fun where it’s like a thing that’s like a cliche. You get to experience it like, oh, that’s actually a good metaphor. There was one time I had a possum in the house and then I saw it playing possum. I was like, oh shit, it’s doing the thing. It’s doing the thing. So you saw actual moth to a flame or There was a time where I went skydiving and I was like, oh, this is a bird’s eye view. It’s actually apt. So at least you get to experience the joy of metaphor.

Kathryn Rubino:

The moth thing is funny too, because the sister that I was just talking about actually went to a recent moth and she was telling me about how going to it and watching it and whatever. But that was just funny. It was just funny for me. No one else. Okay. Joe, what did you do over the long weekend?

Joe Patrice:

I got ill, oh, that’s sick. Yeah. Yeah, it was sick. It was a sick weekend. Yeah, no, so it wasn’t great on that front, although it was, I’m now going to sound a little bit too much like a lawyer, but it was good that it happened over a weekend, so that didn’t spoil any of the time that I could be working.

Kathryn Rubino:

You’re acutally the worst. Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Oh god. So I was like, it wasn’t a problem, but I slept for a whole day. But yeah, no, really, I think it’s a

Kathryn Rubino:

So are you contagious now?

Joe Patrice:

No. No. I think it was like food poisoning or something, I don’t know. But yeah, so it wasn’t great, but I’m feeling a little bit better now. So that’s

Kathryn Rubino:

Improvements something.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, improvements for the win. So that’s about it for myself.

Chris Williams:

One last thing, for anyone that was interested in the podcast discussion from last week, I definitely got that from a guy. He goes by a etymology nerd. I think you can find him on the socials. I just spiritually believe in citation. So if you found that interesting, you can find a lot more shit like that if you go find e etymology nerd.

Joe Patrice:

Nice. Anyw who? So is that all we had? Well, apparently it is. Sorry, small talk is over. Hey, so speaking of working through weekends and all billing, we had a bunch of stories, the last little run about law firms and billing, and we thought we would talk a little bit about those. So Kathryn, you had a story about somebody who has billed more than humans should.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, it was some research by Reuters that looked at bankruptcy requests. The real information that we have about what lawyers really charge their clients comes from by bankruptcy filings because all of those legal bills have be approved by a court. So based on that information discovered that the FTX bankruptcy is very profitable for Sullivan and Cromwell.

Joe Patrice:

Hopefully they’re not getting paid in Bitcoin.

Kathryn Rubino:

Oh yeah. Well, that’s fair. One of their lead partners on the matter, Brian Stein billed 4,000 hours to the matter in the course of 18 months, and his billing rate is north of $2,000 an hour 23 and change almost $2,400 an hour. So that is a lot of money. I think that so far over 170 million worth of legal fees have already been approved for s and c. And there’s another outstanding 27 million requests that’s waiting for approval from the bankruptcy judge in that case. So this is why they say that bankruptcy is countercyclical and very, very useful for a law firm to have a strong restructuring department.

Joe Patrice:

So I guess I didn’t quite understand that case. I thought the 4,000 was in a year, which would be ridiculous, but it’s been 18 months. That makes it not

Kathryn Rubino:

As wild.

Joe Patrice:

No, it is not as wild. No,

Kathryn Rubino:

But it’s just really consistent. It’s about 11 hours a day for five days a week.

Joe Patrice:

Oh Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Period. That’s a lot.

Joe Patrice:

See, I calculated it more to be like it’s 50 hour weeks nonstop. Sure.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. It’s a little different than that. But to be clear, this is not the only matter that this partner is working on. Again, because he’s a bankrupt partner, we know that he is billing on other matters. Actually related to another story we wrote, when the Brown Rudnick had requested additional fees for its partner had raised its billing rate by 50%, and the judge was like, you can’t raise it by 50% and one get go. But again, that partner was only asking for a total of $1,500 an hour. And again, this guy who’s on the same matter, but on the other side is 2375. Yeah,

Chris Williams:

I wonder if he asked for the raise, he found out how much the other guy was

Joe Patrice:

Making.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I mean certainly, and to

Joe Patrice:

Some extent, I’m sure that’s true.

Kathryn Rubino:

Absolutely. And listen, I think Brown Rudnick gets some clients because they have a lower price point and that’s kind of their business model. But I think that the total amount that Brown Rudnick wanted for their partner is not noteworthy at all. In fact, associates at SNC are billing more than the amounts that Brown Rudnick was asking for, but it was that sort of all at once moment, that is what caught the judge’s eye.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, no,

Kathryn Rubino:

But you imagine how insulting that is. You’ve already approved higher rates for associates in this matter and you’re balking at my raise. That is, I mean, I get the judge’s point that all at once is it’s a lot to swallow, but also you need to look at the totals because associates are billing more,

Joe Patrice:

Right? It is a lot to swallow, but it’s a lot to swallow for clients, but not for you, you and the judge in this situation. I guess the argument is that you were brought into this bankruptcy based on that lower price point. And so even though I’ve approved this for other people, the people who brought you into this approved that price point and I shouldn’t basically like a rent control on that. I get it. But yes, it was a tough pill to really swallow when that

Kathryn Rubino:

Happened. And that was Judge Silverstein, that was the judge in that particular bankruptcy matter specifically said if this was a client you were trying to get to pay a higher rate, you wouldn’t be able to do it in one fell sweep. You’d have to sort of slowly increase your rate over time, and that’s why I’m not approving it.

Joe Patrice:

So anyway, the amount that you bill and these lucrative matters at high billing rates get to a lot of money. Big law has always had been considered a lot of money because within the legal world That’s true. That said, they are not, we’ve generally assumed that they aren’t like other professions. I mean, you could go into investment banking and make a lot more theoretically, but it seems as though somebody recently over at the New York Times discovered that people get paid a lot in law and they think it’s a lot like NBA players.

Chris Williams:

I mean at the echelon they’re getting paid everybody’s balling, but as a kid, you think about the people that are making a lot of money. You do think about, at least me personally, I thought about people who are in sports or acting like they’re the ones making millions. I never thought about lawyers as being the ones that are getting million, millions of dollars in checks as just growing up

Kathryn Rubino:

As a kid. It’s not people who are starting in the legal field that are getting millions of dollars where Bronny James got a million dollar, 2 million contract as a rookie. Well,

Chris Williams:

Sure, but you have to start somewhere. And I think that as we think about the narrative about what lawyers make, how much they make, I don’t think the average person thinks about people making 20, 30 million a year and they think, oh, an attorney or a partner in the same way that they would like a superstar, your lawyers, we have the special knowledge, but the person running down the street, I don’t think that person walking down the street would think partners at a law firm are making LeBron money.

Joe Patrice:

Well, that’s very true, and we see this a lot every few years. There’s one of these stories where somebody’s billing stuff has to come public bankruptcies or something like that, or public filings. Somehow it comes public and everyone freaks out. Can you believe how much lawyers are getting paid? And it’s like, yes, pretty easily we can. That said, but the purpose of this story was that historically, while making millions is something that lawyers are capable of doing, reaching the eight figure payout is a new trend, largely because of these increases in rates and these very lucrative billings, these very lucrative high billing cases driven a lot by, I believe the article’s argument is that a lot of this is driven by the influx of private equity money into the industry that didn’t really used to be there before. When clients were corporations and stuff like that, that were a lot more checks on how much we’re paying lawyers.

The in-house counsel or a lot had other people to answer to boards and stuff like that, that you wouldn’t get away with paying exorbitant amounts of money. But private equity doesn’t have that concern so long as they end up making their billions at the end. And so you now have these law firm partners who are being compensated in the eight figures. Now, the comparison to the NBA though in this story that makes this a little extra ridiculous is when we say eight figures, eight figures covers a lot, almost a hundred, almost a hundred million dollars worth. So when you get to, it was comparing these folks to NBA players, but it’s comparing somebody making an $11 million score in a year by running a very profitable private equity or m and a group versus somebody getting a 75 million contract, which is not the same thing. No, no.

Chris Williams:

Well, I mean, there was also the point where I was like, so sure, you might not be a partner at a firm making LeBron James money, but you might be making, what if you making Bronny James money? You’d be like, where the fuck is my cash? And the one thing I didn’t really mention about didn’t talk about much in the article, but it kind of hinted up with the LeBron versus bro is the bimodal pay the way that goes. But yeah, I would just imagine just some lay person just thinking about the people that are making eight figures. They’d assume they’re a celebrity, but just thinking that the people are relatively unknown to the general public. Just making eight figures is a weird way to think about how you can generate wealth.

Joe Patrice:

Oh no. I assume basically every person who works at an investment bank makes eight.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I was going to say maybe I’ve lived in Manhattan for too many years, but it seems like there are plenty of people that I assume are making that much.

Chris Williams:

If you live in Manhattan and you have the I, you went to NYU and Columbia and You’all been in the industry for a decade, but the average person does not have that set of experiences. The average person who sees a person in a suit is like, oh, they’re maybe making six figures or they’re making a lot of money if they’re comfortable. But I don’t think that the average person is aware that you can make eight figures and just be some dude at a firm.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, interesting. Well, I definitely think it’s new as the lawyer aspect. I was just saying that I feel like the financial industry has been here for so long.

Kathryn Rubino:

I’m looking forward, dude in finance.

Joe Patrice:

But

Chris Williams:

If you were in New Jersey and you were like, oh, I’m hungry, I’m going to go get a sandwich from Wawa. Do you think the average Wawa employee or Wawa customer knows that you can make six, eight figures a year doing investment banking?

Joe Patrice:

Maybe I think the sheets people would know, but not the Wawa people Sheets. Yeah,

Chris Williams:

Sheets would know. But yeah, no, but I think just as far as the way that the average person thinks about it, I don’t think they would think a lawyer is making dozens of millions.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it is definitely new. This is

Kathryn Rubino:

Why all these parents are pushing kids to be lawyers. Yeah,

Joe Patrice:

It is definitely new from the lawyer perspective, this is a new trend to be this lucrative. And I mean there were m and a groups that used to get into these amount where the partner at the head of that group was actually getting these kinds of amounts, but they had to pay out the Article 40 guys or the Forti Act guys and the tax people, they had to be paid out of that kill because they aren’t really generating revenue. They’re actually only servicing the group. And so the actual compensation at the end would not reach this, but now crossing that threshold,

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I, and I think 20 million is really the number that we’ve seen or heard more than seen because again, mostly this is based on rumor. Increasingly firms are redoing how their partnerships are even constructed in order to be able to offer that because they think that being able to offer a 20 million payday to a partner generates so much more than that for the rest of the firm.

Joe Patrice:

And that does mean that when you get paid that you do have to produce, usually

Kathryn Rubino:

That has a toll on folks’ mental health as well too, which has been another aspect of this story.

Chris Williams:

But at that point you can also afford a therapist. Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

That’s fair. No time to go to the sessions,

Chris Williams:

No time to go there, but you can afford one.

Joe Patrice:

The firm can bring one into the office for you. I remember when I first was starting out, Wachtel obviously is long paid the most for associates, and I remember what I was starting out hearing the story that somebody at Wachtel was going to get coffee middle of the day, every day going down and getting coffee, whatever. And the firm went up to ’em, were like, why are you leaving your office? And he’s like, oh, I just go down and grab coffee and come back up. And their response was okay. And then the next day there was a coffee machine, like a high-end espresso machine in his office. Now you don’t have to leave,

Kathryn Rubino:

But it actually probably takes longer to make the espresso. Those machines are temperamental

Joe Patrice:

Fair. Alright, well some people are making eight figures, associates are not. We had some stories of summer bonuses coming, a few firms jumped into that pool and then not

Kathryn Rubino:

Many got

Joe Patrice:

Quiet. So what in the world is going on? Usually we get a feeding frenzy.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think that the firms that made the decision to do summer bonuses are smaller or specialized in some way, litigation, boutiques, other kinds of boutiques, ip. So there’s not that real pressure for the rest of big law. I think if an AM law 50 firm were to make the move, there might be some reverberations as a result. And obviously if Cravath does it, then everyone feels that they at least have to figure out whether or not they’re on that level. But I think that unless and until that kind of who are our traditional movers, it’s Cravath, Millbank, Paul Weiss, Davis, Polk. If they don’t do anything, then I think that everyone else is just going to abide their time.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it sounds like the prevailing argument is going to be that you wait until the annual bonuses time to do all this.

I dunno. I get that. I understand that that’s all that they technically need to do and want to be a little conservative with things. That said, you do that when you feel like there’s some trouble in the offing, but right now you see there are increased firms who say just today as we’re recording, there was another report of a firm that’s decided that they’re going to announcing to the world. They’re going to go on a hiring frenzy a few weeks ago had a firm say that they wanted to hit a thousand lawyers through the lateral market in the next couple of years. When you have firms making those kind of push the chips in announcements, this is not the time to be. Let’s wait and see.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well maybe I think that a lot of the hiring though, and at least for some of those firms that have made those statements is not necessarily in the associate rank. A lot of that is about getting lateral partners and maybe the partners bring over an entire group that’s increasingly popular where you’re not just hiring a partner, you’re hiring the rainmaker three of their partners that they work with and maybe five or six associates that kind of work with the group and bringing everybody over together, which is great, but I think that’s more how they’re doing it where in those instances making the associate pot sweeter is less relevant. Those associates are going to go with those partners. They feel like that’s where their career trajectory is taking them and getting that head partner that rainmaker over is why we’re seeing the things we were just talking about, those $20 million paydays and that kind of stuff. And that’s the lateral frenzy that we’re seeing.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, I just feel like a lot of those team movements are very much at the partner level and are not bringing associates They feel like I can get In a lot of ways the argument is I’m moving to this other firm because I trust that they’re recruiting associates that’ll be as good or better than what I currently work with. So I don’t necessarily know about that, but when you’re talking about a firm saying they want to hit a thousand attorneys, that’s not going to be all partners because they’re not going to share the wealth that much. So I feel like they’re still going to be paying and they’re probably going to be promising either money or lifestyle or both if that’s the situation. Unless you’re comfortable losing out on your people in the lateral market who are seeking either money or lifestyle or both, you need to do something as a differentiator to keep you in there. I don’t know. I mean

Kathryn Rubino:

I think it’ll be interesting. My prediction currently for year end, I don’t think we’re going to see a massive movement in the summer. I think we have occasionally seen fall bonuses. Well, although those tend to not be that large. I think we’re going to see a match of last year and the year befores year end bonus numbers. And I think the best firms might add special bonuses at the year end to match this. No, to match this or to put their own mark out there. I think that’s likely, but I don’t think they’re going to add it to their year end numbers because there’s a stigma against having a lower year end number year over year. So if they keep those year end numbers stable and then they put special bonuses, even if they’re paid in the same paycheck but just come on a different email announcement or a different section in the same email, then I think it’s more palatable to not, and people don’t expect that it’s okay to then get a jam of the month club instead of a special bonus, but you expect those year end numbers.

Joe Patrice:

So let’s talk about some testing. We have a bunch of different stories. This is kind of not stories from last week, but a series of stories over the last couple of months that just, it all seemed like a recurring theme. So theBar exam is coming up and it will be kind of an end of an error moving towards new bar exam stuff. We’re not going to have the same setup. There’s going to be the next gen bar. Is the next gen bar going to be radically different than the current bar anyway? But some people states are jumping on, many of them actually more than I think some people expected at the first run of it. But we have seen backlash of people complaining that this bar reform, it’s awful. It’s going to make things worse. It makes things too easy and bad and blah, blah blah.

Meanwhile, California is a bar that is out of money because they can’t afford to keep running theBar exam as they are when a proposal is brought up to create a new version of theBar exam that would be cheaper and allow them to not go out of business. They refuse to do that because people said, oh no, if we can’t change blah blah change, and the LSAT on the front end of the law school experience, the LSAT is getting rid of its game section, which was, thank God. I mean look, the game section was, once you figure those out, that was really the problem with it. It was easily pun intended, if you devoted the time to figuring out the stupidity of each of those games that comes in, because they all had kind of a theme to them. It was the sort of thing that you could get pretty quickly

Chris Williams:

Based on the people’s average scores on that. Y’all are in the minority here. Most people fall at

Joe Patrice:

A very long time. Well, I think that’s right because people didn’t learn to gamify them. That’s the problem. And that’s part of what created, that’s a good point. It’s part of what created the real problem with it, which is it was less of a test of intelligence than a test of your resources to spend the time to learn how to do it. Whether it was by paying for prep courses that taught you, there were really the game section. All of those are different questions, but there were like, what, six models and yeah, there were six different models of what the problems were and they all had a different trick to them and they just repeated those same six with different facts over and over again. And once you knew the games for those six bottles, you got a hundred on that section. But a lot of people who weren’t able to go to prep classes or didn’t spend the time pouring over some books that taught all those tricks couldn’t get it.

But the people, but dumb people who did have that time and those resources could easily get a hundred on them. So it really skewed the results of everything. So that’s a good reason why they get rid of it, because it was kind of a shitty way of handling what was supposed to be an intelligence exam. That said, the response to it has largely been another sparked culture war largely of conservative groups. I don’t know why this is a conservative talking point as opposed to anything else but largely of conservative groups calling for this, getting rid of the game section, the worst thing that could happen and that it’s making lawyers dumber. Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean I think we also have to remember that getting rid of the game section was precipitated by a lawsuit. It was because of folks that had visual impairments and couldn’t necessarily do, the gamifying, couldn’t necessarily draw the diagrams that are necessary in order to really ace this section. They sued over the fact that there’s a section that you need to be able to diagram in this very specific way that is not really feasible for a section of folks who are differently able. So there was a lawsuit. This is part of the settlement of that lawsuit.

Joe Patrice:

And so your connection to that is because it came from a discrimination lawsuit. That’s why,

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean I think that’s definitely part

Joe Patrice:

Conservatives are particularly

Kathryn Rubino:

Upset. I think that is why conservatives are upset. But I also think that why it’s also kind of screaming into the void. It is just now about the culture war aspect. There’s no way for them to sort of undo this because it’s part of a settlement agreement. It’s only screaming into the void for the sake of getting on television, conserve for newsmax to pick them up.

Joe Patrice:

And it also is such a weird argument to make because they argue that this is going to make for dumber lawyers. I don’t understand how that could possibly be that it is a task that at no point did I ever use in my legal career the ability to figure out whether or not Johnny was taller than Polly.

Chris Williams:

That didn’t help you with your billing when

Joe Patrice:

You were, it did not

Chris Williams:

Calculating your point sixes.

Joe Patrice:

It did not. Yeah. Actually a math function that taught me how to calculate time in tenths of an hour would’ve been way better.

Kathryn Rubino:

Don’t worry, there’s a computer program for that or seven.

Joe Patrice:

It’s true.

Chris Williams:

I do think one element of the logic games being kicked, I mean Kathryn definitely is right about this being consequence of the lawsuit. But I think that historically minorities have done the worst on that section of it. So part of it is also like a DEI bad backlash that isn’t just the disability differently able approach to why things needed to change.

Joe Patrice:

That’s a good point. And I also wonder if that is a crossover, if that also applies to the question of having the resources to do that. Oh, for

Chris Williams:

And is the thing about, it’s me personally, I took a Kaplan course, I had the run of it. I ended up not being, having my score took it again. But at that time I was in a really bad place. My uncle died and I was also working just doing a bunch of other stuff. It didn’t click for me even twice. So I just want to say it’s not just, if you can afford to take the course, then you get it all. I still didn’t do it. I’m not the smartest person, but it just didn’t click for me. So there are people out there where just taking the thing itself isn’t a magic bullet. But yeah, it’s been a hard section for multiple reasons besides the fact that there are people that can’t do the graphs.

Joe Patrice:

And I mean obviously that’s true of tests as a general matter, right? There’s always going to be situations with testing like that. But the extent that this one is not particularly useful in any way for figuring out how to do law. I actually, I remember when they first announced this, I said that the only defense I could come up with for the game section was because it was something that if you sat down and figured all the learned all of these incredibly foreign to the brain riddle solutions that you could then do well on that, it was a sort of a test of your ability to learn something completely for it was almost like learning a new language. And so it was almost like a language test. That’s the only defense I could potentially come up with. But it also is one that yes, learning to think like a lawyer is learning a new thing, but it also is a thing that you learn once and then you don’t have to do again. Because otherwise after that the job becomes incredibly rote.

Kathryn Rubino:

And I mean, the other sort of answer to your fundamental question is why is there’s such a hubbub about changing all of these tests? It’s because lawyers are fundamentally little C conservative. They don’t like change. I did it. Okay. You

Joe Patrice:

Should do it too. You should be penalized too. Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

That’s why I think it’s a human tendency, not necessarily an admirable one. But I mean, I understand why there is that reaction. I

Chris Williams:

Also think that part of the pushback against change is that the money is in the status quo.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I mean yes and no though, right? Because the California program was to bring a private company and to bring Kaplan in, right? To do I think that’s what they had said. And so that was private privatizing it.

Joe Patrice:

Well, no, I mean it’s already privatized because it’s the NCBE. Oh, sure. So basically the NCBE who has a monopoly on theBar exam overcharges. And so Kaplan came in to say, we can do it for less. And the cow bar got scared off of doing that. Meanwhile, yes, the NCBE, which is unquote not a private company, it is a quote nonprofit that has quote, a hundred million dollars in assets. Anyway, with all that said, I guess we’ve come to the end of our time here. Thanks everybody for listening. You should subscribe to the show, get new shows when they come out. You should give it reviews, stars, write things. All of that’s valuable. You should be listening to other shows. Kathryn’s the host of the Jabot. I’m guest on Legal Tech Week Journalist Roundtable. You should be listening to the other shows on the Legal Talk network.

You should read Above the Law. So you read these at other stories before we talk about them. You should be following social media at ATL blog at Joseph Patrice at Kathryn one at Writes for Rent. I paused there. I was like, do I still have to explain the numeral one? And they’ll, it’s fine. I think it’s fine Now, prefer the podcast before they know this section. If you’re still listening at this point, you definitely have heard it before, right? I mean like when we break down like this though, because it’s almost like waiting to the end of a marble movie to see if we do something else. You a Shwarma scene where he’s like, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

That was a great little,

Joe Patrice:

You should watch. No, you should. Oh and blue sky seeing things except it’s Joe Patrice for me. And that I think is everything. Bye. Peace.

Continue Reading