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...
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021....
Published: | January 22, 2025 |
Podcast: | Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer |
Category: | News & Current Events |
Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is on the wrong side of the law facing a multi-count indictment related to the alleged fallout of a hard-core gambling lifestyle. All while routinely arguing multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court. Legen…wait for it…dary. Also Proskauer proves that every rose has its thorn and Yale stares down on of the most epic downgrades in law school history.
Joe Patrice:
We are back.
Kathryn Rubino:
Hi.
Joe Patrice:
Hi, this is Joe Patrice from Buffalo. I’m here with Kathryn Rubino.
Kathryn Rubino:
Hi.
Joe Patrice:
And Chris Williams.
Chris Williams:
Hi.
Joe Patrice:
And we are, you are also all of Above the Law, and this is Thinking Like A Lawyer where we run down some of the big stories of the week that was in legal to give you a fast and dirty review of what’s cool in law from the week. That was, I
Kathryn Rubino:
Would just like to say that I am here working today. We are recording on Tuesday the 21st. I’m doing this under duress.
Joe Patrice:
Oh, okay.
Kathryn Rubino:
Because
Joe Patrice:
Oh, I’m sorry to cut you off. We moved on to our new segment. No, it was
Kathryn Rubino:
Good that I figured you would, and that this is in fact small talk. What I’m about to say was I am annoyed because today is Onyx Storm Day. The third book in the Imperian series was released last night at midnight. I actually went to a release party at my local Barnes and Noble and it was super fun and it was about 98% women, and I think that several of the non women that I saw there were driving groups of women. So it was a great time. It was very crafty. It really felt very wholesome for a midnight based event, but I did not get a chance to read very much of the book, and that is my preferred.
Joe Patrice:
That’s why you’re under duress.
Kathryn Rubino:
Yeah, it’s my preferred method of dissociation right now. So I like to read about my dragons. Please.
Chris Williams:
See, I thought you were going to talk about the thing everybody else is thinking about on January 21st Tuesday, Ohio State, not Dame, which is Martin Luther King’s Day was yesterday, which was great. That’s also true. It was a beautiful day for diversity, thinking about the future of the country, his legacy. Yeah, so that’s all that yesterday was about him.
Kathryn Rubino:
And it is true that the Ohio State did win a national championship, which really just, I have to imagine sticks in your CR as an Oregon alum. Joe,
Joe Patrice:
It’s not even in my craw on that front. I mean, I understand they make a lot of money with the playoff, but I mean this was a farce, right? Because they won the national championship, they automatically moved to being number one on the season, like number one. Meanwhile below them are a bunch of teams that did better just because we do this incredibly stupid expansion.
Kathryn Rubino:
Moneymaking endeavor.
Joe Patrice:
Moneymaking
Kathryn Rubino:
Endeavor. Did you see though the Woody Hayes quotes that’s making the rounds again today in a lot of college football circles. Woody Hayes apparently had a quote being like, you can’t call yourself a national champion if you lose the game. The only thing it matters is whether or not you beat Michigan. So to be clear by Woody Hayes’s standard, the Ohio State is not in fact National champion
Joe Patrice:
Noted. Ohio State hater. Woody Hayes.
Kathryn Rubino:
Yeah,
Joe Patrice:
No, it’s just ridiculous. And I’ll say this, and this is part of the absolute sacrilege of this stupid format. If you’re Ohio State and you were undefeated going into the Michigan game, you’re better off throwing the game. Throw the game that way. You don’t have to go to the Big 10 championship game, which could be a potential, or maybe you don’t, I guess with one loss you might still get in, but you might set up a situation where you don’t have the risk of an additional loss against a big team. You keep yourself healthier and you just go into the playoffs. You do what you do
Kathryn Rubino:
There, you get the extra game because in a lot of ways, right, all four teams that had a buy in the week, one of the playoffs all
Joe Patrice:
Lost. Lost.
Kathryn Rubino:
And that was supposed to be a good thing that you got a week off to help heal yourself. But there’s already a built-in break between the end of the regular season in college football and the start of the playoffs.
Joe Patrice:
Yeah, just be the five seed.
Chris Williams:
Oh no, somebody has to play Joe, guess that’s small talk. Got to talk about the goings on in this legal week.
Joe Patrice:
Yeah, no dumb. Oh, well, there we go. Now that it finally hit,
Chris Williams:
Oh, quick interim thing. Before we get into work talk, if anybody at their law firm sees a partner or even an associate doing a I give you my heart salute, please let us [email protected] tips at Above the Law dot com, please. That’s all. Thank you.
Joe Patrice:
So one thing that-
Chris Williams:
I do want to acknowledge that yesterday did happen, but yeah,
Joe Patrice:
So one of the things I saw on that front that of just a little bit on Blue Sky, I made this comment, I think the discourse, I did eventually hear the Giving a Heart excuse, but the original discourse that started coming out was, oh, it’s not a Nazi salute. It’s more of the Roman fascism salute that Mussolini used. And I’m like, I don’t think that’s giving
Chris Williams:
And that’s better for some reason. And then it was like that American History X clip going around where it was literally the same exact thing. And then there was a TikTok of person who was like, okay, if he wasn’t doing a Nazi salute, you do it. You do it right now in front of your friends and family. I’m like, oh, that’s the best take.
Joe Patrice:
That’s the best take. So it is obviously the Supreme Court’s in session, like a lot of folks, when the Supreme Court’s in session, one of the best places to go for Supreme Court information is SCOTUS blog. And is anything going on over at SCOTUS blog right now?
Kathryn Rubino:
Not at the blog.
Joe Patrice:
Oh no. Scotus, blog founder, co-founder Tom Goldstein, also a partner at Goldstein Russell Supreme Court litigator is, well, last week was not as weak.
Chris Williams:
I’d say things are looking dicey, going to risk it all. I’d say things are looking dicey, but that’s the wrong game.
Joe Patrice:
That is the wrong game. It seems, at least according to a lot account indictment that has been filed against him that Tom,
Kathryn Rubino:
I love that, by the way. Let’s bring that back. Lot count. Lot of counts, indictment,
Joe Patrice:
Lot of
Kathryn Rubino:
Counts, lot of counts, lot of
Joe Patrice:
Odd over under 21. Yeah, it is over. It’s me. It’s over. So yeah, we’ve talked about a bunch of games, but poker is apparently his game of choice and he was playing in, according to the complaint, some very high stakes poker games, poker games in Macau against foreign gamblers, games against billionaires being staked. He got involved in some game between a Texas billionaire who refused to pay off an actor who beat him. So Tom represented the actor and took a cut, all sorts of stuff.
Chris Williams:
It’s one thing to cover the Supreme corporate to act like your Supreme Court justice is crazy. Whoa.
Joe Patrice:
See, well, that was the thing when Texas billionaire refused to pay. I was like, I wonder if it’s Harlan Crow? And then I realized, no, of course he pays people all the time. But so the issue here, of course it’s not necessarily illegal to play a poker game, but it is if you are not reporting these things on your taxes correctly or if you are involved in some other shady financial dealing to cover it up, and the allegations are that
Kathryn Rubino:
That is definitely what happened according to the,
Joe Patrice:
That he had winnings, he wasn’t reporting, he had debts that he was gathering. He was moving, according to this, he was moving around money from the firm to pay personal debts. He was taking money from one firm’s referral. There’s an argument about a litigation funder who gave a bunch of money, unclear whether they knew this was going for this purpose or if they were trying to fund a case and he just took it and paid off people.
Chris Williams:
Wait, in his defense, in his defense, did he have a friend that said he didn’t have to disclose this information?
Joe Patrice:
Yeah, so he is alleged to have done a lot of various problems like that. He also is alleged to have, along with his wife, who also a co-founder of SCOTUS blog that they got new mortgage and new mortgage loan home loan documents that required him to disclose debts that he then didn’t disclose some near 16 million that he was under
Kathryn Rubino:
At that time. I mean, is that really going to make a difference?
Joe Patrice:
Which if true, that constitutes loan fraud, which would be a problem. So a lot of things like that. There’s also, just as an addendum to that, since we transitioning from having talked about how he found a SCOTUS blog with his wife, he also, according to the complaint indictment had four mistresses, all of whom he set with jobs at the firm doing no work, but that way he could pay them. And
Kathryn Rubino:
So basically a first year associate,
Joe Patrice:
Well, he gave them healthcare too, which in this economy.
Kathryn Rubino:
Wow, wow, wow.
Joe Patrice:
Come
Chris Williams:
On. Wow,
Kathryn Rubino:
Wow, wow, wow.
Joe Patrice:
There’s a full house joke there. Isn’t that a poker thing?
Kathryn Rubino:
It is,
Joe Patrice:
Yeah. That’s a good one. That’s a good one. It’s
Kathryn Rubino:
Also a TGI Friday thing from the
Joe Patrice:
Nineties. Okay. But no, he, Hey, and that was also became a legal story because of Aunt Becky.
Kathryn Rubino:
Oh, that’s fair. That’s fair.
Joe Patrice:
So anyway, yeah, so this is a lot.
Chris Williams:
I appreciate a good undersell. That was a good one. That was a good one.
Joe Patrice:
This was a lot. Look, when this thing dropped, I think the collective legal journalism world was like, this can’t be real. And then I think there was
Chris Williams:
A French term, it was like, oh shit, what everybody
Joe Patrice:
Say. I mean I thought this can’t be real. And with each subsequent page I read, it seemed even less real. Over at the lic conspiracy, they did a timeline where they matched up the indictment versus arguments he had in front of the Supreme Court and basically from what they were scratching together from the allegations, it was basically he was alleged to have blown like $10 million and then a couple weeks later had two consecutive Supreme Court arguments and then turned right around and was doing all this while juggling mistresses, which gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen,
Chris Williams:
That is work-life balance.
Joe Patrice:
I was going to say this is what peak performance looks like. That is he was flying to Macau and doing these things. He brought a duffle bag according to the indictment, a duffle bag back filled with 960 something thousand dollars. Customs asked him about it and he said he had winnings, but then he didn’t tell the IRS about them according to the indictment, which they’re going to find out. Anyway, I wanted to also add though that in the indictment there is one of the most lawyer shit things I’ve ever seen, which is in paragraph 25. In preparation for these matches, Goldstein sought out and sought and obtained guidance and coaching from two professional poker players, professional gambler one and professional gambler two as well as others to study the historical playing patterns and betting strategies of his three opponents and hone his strategy against them as part of his preparation for the heads up match with foreign gambler. One Goldstein authored and discussed with professional gambler one and professional gambler two, a 24 page memorandum detailing the strategy and tactics he had devised based on foreign gambler, one’s playing patterns, Goldstein’s past mistakes when playing him information gathered from other poker players and computer simulated practice. Goldstein also updated and revised the memo and created versions of the memo reflecting the changes made to further improve his chances of winning. He tracked changes on his 24 page memo that he put together on this, and that is the most lawyerly thing I’ve ever heard.
Kathryn Rubino:
Brilliant.
Joe Patrice:
This takes over from the probably apocryphal memo that a partner assigned a summer to do, reviewing all the restaurants in the area or whatever it was. That probably didn’t happen, but this definitely did. Well, actually, I guess we don’t know that. We don’t know. It’s still an
Kathryn Rubino:
Allegation. Federal government has reason to believe the
Joe Patrice:
Federal government has very strong reason to believe that this actually happened. Anyway,
Chris Williams:
So I might be showing my hand here as a non gambler, but why the duffle bag of money? Did he have a bank account that couldn’t have been digital? You just, that
Kathryn Rubino:
Makes it easier to track
Chris Williams:
If you’re not and the duffel bag. Well, no, but think of the comparison.
Kathryn Rubino:
No, I think it’s much more likely that a duffel bag of cash does not get noted by the federal government in some way than a digital transaction. Right.
Joe Patrice:
Well, hey, on that note,
Chris Williams:
You can’t get some Bitcoin or something.
Joe Patrice:
So on that note, on that note, during the kind of definitions stage of the indictments, paragraph 21 notes, cryptocurrency was a type of, and I have never been less surprised to see a word show up in an indictment than by that point seeing the word crypto. I was like, oh yeah, here we go.
Kathryn Rubino:
Bless. Well, he’ll have his day in court I suppose.
Joe Patrice:
Well, maybe. So that is a great transition. He has made a series of bets over the last few weeks that hopefully for him will pay off. The first of which was he wrote a lengthy editorial article in the New York Times about how Donald Trump is perfect and shouldn’t be accused of anything because he won an election that’s basically getting acquitted of state crimes. That article when it came out seemed a little wild, like a little out of place. We didn’t quite know what was going on there. But then this happened, and then he has now hired two of Trump’s personal lawyers, basically the only two who aren’t about to go take over the Department of Justice, and they are representing him in this case, which certainly raises the specter that there’s an attempt to try to get pardoned here.
Chris Williams:
Even in his legal defense, he’s still hedging his bets.
Joe Patrice:
Oh, if only he had stormed the capitol, he’d be fine already. But
Kathryn Rubino:
This is all happening. You folks out there, this all
Joe Patrice:
Happening. This is wild.
Kathryn Rubino:
This is happening.
Joe Patrice:
This is one of the more notable Supreme Court litigators who runs the primary outlet for news about why
Chris Williams:
Sometimes I think to myself, what is the thing that would have a person be involved in gambling? Like, oh, maybe their day-to-day life is a little boring. No, the Supreme Chris is doing a lot of shit. His work life should have been interesting.
Joe Patrice:
This is absolutely a if true. This is absolutely a writing the high all the time kind of situation. I would think, oh my God,
Kathryn Rubino:
I guess it’s
Joe Patrice:
Goldstein. Of course. Also not to distract, he’s also the author of one of the best cease and desist letters of all time, which was where he was representing a guy who threw a porn star off a roof. That was a wild one.
Kathryn Rubino:
That’s a choice.
Chris Williams:
What’s that movie? I think it’s Jason Stam is like he’s a headman or something and he needs to have his heart. Is it?
Joe Patrice:
Well, they gave him some kind of franked
Chris Williams:
Or something.
Joe Patrice:
It’s Frank, I think. Yeah, they gave him some sort of drug where he couldn’t slow down or he die.
Chris Williams:
Yeah. This is Godes blog crank cross episode. Nice. Jason Stadium used to play this man in a biopic,
Joe Patrice:
Well, former Above the Law editor David Latt in his new venture. He wrote an article about this where he was very much, I think that on the back end, Goldstein’s going to come out and write a book about this and it’ll be a movie and yada yada. And I mean, I don’t know, it feels like this has already been several movies, but it’s kind of like rounders in reverse.
Kathryn Rubino:
I wonder Toby McGuire will be in it.
Joe Patrice:
I mean
Kathryn Rubino:
Wondering, just wondering.
Joe Patrice:
I’m not speculating, but Toby McGuire is widely speculated to be a very big poker player. So that could well be who the actor is, not the actors alleged to
Chris Williams:
Do it. Nice. I did not cast a reference. That was good.
Joe Patrice:
Yeah, no, that is trying to figure out who the people are in This is kind of a fun pastime. There’s some,
Kathryn Rubino:
Who’s the litigation funder?
Joe Patrice:
There’s some speculation about who California Billionaire one is and stuff, but anyway,
Kathryn Rubino:
Law firm partner two,
Joe Patrice:
Law firm two. Yeah, well there was also there a law firm partner two, but it was like said as Goldstein and Russell named Partner two, and I’m like, that’s real easy to work out. There’s only two names, but anyway. Alright, well we should take a break and move on to something else as much as it’ll not live up to this conversation probably. All right, we’re back. Kathryn.
Kathryn Rubino:
Yes, friend
Joe Patrice:
Prosser.
Kathryn Rubino:
Yeah, we’re talking about them again.
Joe Patrice:
Okay. Is news Roy over there?
Kathryn Rubino:
It is not.
Joe Patrice:
Not Rosie. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino:
Okay. Anyway, last we talked about Proscower. They were telling associates that they did not bill enough hours to get their bonus. The only problem with that information is that no one knew that there was an hours requirement,
So not a great look. Very kind of shady under the table kind of stuff going on. A lot of angry people, some of which are alleged to have missed the invisible threshold by sort of single digit number of hours. And were only told after all the time was in for the year, so they couldn’t do anything about it. Apparently, according to Tipster at the firm, nine minutes after our article went live talking about this, there was an internal email letting folks notice that there would be a town hall style meeting about their bonuses and requirements. And what it lets folks know is that there is in fact an hours requirement for 2025 fiscal year, which I believe actually started in November. For them it will be 2000 hours not going over. Great.
Joe Patrice:
It is a lot, especially if it’s all billable and if it’s all, there’s no outs for pro bono work and stuff like that.
Kathryn Rubino:
Well also I think going from the, we don’t have a stated hourly requirement to 2000 to 2000 to also several of your peers, even if you got your bonus, several of your peers might not have gotten their bonus if they missed it by three hours. And also we didn’t tell them it leaves a real bad taste and the comments that we are getting from insiders at the firm are just anger. So
Chris Williams:
Meet back here next year when it’s time for them to get the bonuses and they’re actually like, you know what, it’s 21. Because my thing with this is as a firm, when you do this, you dash your credibility against a boulder before you just make stuff up after the deadline and now you’re creating a new deadline. What’s the guarantee that this isn’t also subject to change?
Kathryn Rubino:
Yeah, a hundred percent. And apparently during the meeting, they also noted that the hourly requirement might change from year to year, but they were assured that they would know ahead of time. And tips are so like, why would I ever believe you?
Joe Patrice:
Yeah, that is the problem. You have to, limits aren’t necessarily a problem, but you have to be upfront and clear on what those, I mean that was last week’s conversation, right? Last week we were talking about another firm.
Chris Williams:
Limits aren’t the issue, but reliability is.
Joe Patrice:
Yeah. Last week we were talking about another firm who post everything ending going Oopsie, you needed more time.
Kathryn Rubino:
Yeah, this is really ridiculous. And apparently we’re also getting stuff from people who used to be at the firm making clear that this happened in previous years as well. And that sort of just the discontent bubbled over to the point in which we’re hearing about it this year, but it may have been going on for who knows how much longer. And it just feels like a really underhanded way to, I think you’re right, Chris, kill your credibility with not just your current associates, but with future associates as well. There are plenty of law firms that give that out with either no bonus or no hours requirement or very clear or have had the same number of hours for years and have always been very upfront with their associates. And if you have lots of offers from big law firms, I just don’t know why you risk it and go,
Joe Patrice:
I mean the argument is that depending on what your practice area is, I guess, but Proskauer, one of the things that has always been attractive about that firm is they do have a fun and interesting client base and they have a fun and interesting client base that tends to offer their real stars an opportunity to get really cool next jobs.
Kathryn Rubino:
Well, if you don’t care about sports, you’re probably not going to Proskauer,
Joe Patrice:
But it is the sort of place where you do well for a while and then boom, you’re the general counsel of an NFL team or something like that. So that gives them some luxury to push people around on this front because they have, people want that experience. I
Kathryn Rubino:
Mean, I’ll also say, and I think this is true for a lot of young attorneys or people starting their legal careers, even if they’re still in law school, everyone thinks that they bright shining star. That will be the exception that will get that NFL job. That will be the one who hits their hours as opposed to, and this comes up in a lot when there are sort of stealth layoffs. Everyone thinks that they’re the one that, of course I’ll bill enough hours. I’ve always excelled because people who go to law school tend to be Type A personalities that if succeeded in every aspect of their lives, at least academically. And this is another sort of extension of that. But the truth is you’re often, as a young associate, not in control of a lot of the factors that go to your long-term success. You might be assigned a giant case that devours all of your time that is not at all what you’re interested in or work for a partner that winds up leaving after 18 months and you’re too young to lateral with them. There’s so many factors that go into the alchemy of a successful, viable, long-term legal career and always thinking that somehow you’ll be the one that makes it out is something you see all the time from people starting their careers. And it does not work out consistently for folks.
Chris Williams:
I feel like lawyers hate math until there’s some career path they’re banking on, has an extremely low probability rate and then they’re like, yeah, you know what? I like the odds.
Joe Patrice:
Alright, US News and World Report has not released their law school rankings, but we can kind of do some cheating.
Kathryn Rubino:
Some of the a underlying data makes up about 75% of the new and improved constantly evolving US news rankings.
Joe Patrice:
So with the publication of some of this stuff, we now have the ability to identify what we think is kind of going to happen with the US News World Report rankings. Well, I guess let’s do it this way. Yale still going to be number one, but not going to be by themselves
Chris Williams:
Enough about that. Why UT 14? Let’s go.
Joe Patrice:
Well, so let me be fair. So right now Yale and Stanford are tied, right? It is possible based on this data that Yale falls below Stanford, right? It is very, very, it’s slim. Like the predicted number of this raw score is like it’s 100 is number one. Yale’s coming in at like 99.555 or repeating sort of. So they’re right there. The possibility of any kind of thumb on scale stuff, that’s part of the black box that US News uses could change this,
Kathryn Rubino:
Right? And there’s still 25% of the figures that are out,
Joe Patrice:
But Stanford on raw score has overtaken Yale.
Kathryn Rubino:
The other thing is, and we kind of alluded it to the top of this segment, US News has recently changed how they come up with the ranking and they have been accused in the past of putting their finger on the scale so that it looks right. So I would not, despite this raw score differential, I would not be even a little bit shocked if Yale and Stanford were still tied in the current ranking or in the 2025 rankings.
Chris Williams:
I genuinely believe Yale is, Yale is one of the criter and they’re like, well, you got to factor in Yale’s Yale.
Joe Patrice:
Well, you mentioned Wash U. There is some reason to believe that Wash U might well find itself in the top 14 under this new accounting
Kathryn Rubino:
Too. Vanderbilt is the other school.
Joe Patrice:
We
Chris Williams:
Don’t mention that name in this household and those batches put me on a waiting list,
Kathryn Rubino:
But it’ll be interesting. Listen, the US news rankings are always interesting moment. I think that the fact that there has been shakeups in how they figure out their ranking, a lot of the law schools opting out of providing information to us. News has obviously done some damage to the overall prestige of the ranking and trying to figure out what they are. So we’ll see what happens.
Joe Patrice:
To add to this. Derek Mueller from Notre Dame does some calculations too with this data. And as our article notes that projection with some of that getting similar numbers as the predictions that are coming from Spivey, they’re suggesting that Chicago may even get ahead of Yale, which that’s wild. Meanwhile, why so I don’t know.
Chris Williams:
I feel like a good amount of why Yale was ranked number one consistently so was because of the prestige factor. People go to Yale and they go on to teach or become the leader of some strange nation. But if you look at things like employment statistics or what have you, there are other areas where schools do better than Yale and if there’s a change in the weight of those things, it would make sense that other schools would be higher.
Joe Patrice:
So much is based on stuff that prestige, institutional momentum for things stay. On the other hand, look, these numbers, even if they don’t all fall the way that they’re supposed to, we are in kind of a chaos zone already, right?
Kathryn Rubino:
Sure.
Joe Patrice:
NYU and Columbia are clear down at 10 in this projection, which these are two schools that bounce between four and six in normal.
Chris Williams:
That said, we’re neighbors now.
Joe Patrice:
Yeah, right. I mean, Harvard falling, there’s like five names before you get to Harvard. That’s somewhat ridiculous.
Chris Williams:
How does the perspective list compare to our ranking?
Joe Patrice:
It’s a great point. It is actually a little bit closer than it used to be. So it used to be the Above the Law rankings.
Chris Williams:
We rarely had Yale at one, right?
Joe Patrice:
No. Yeah, they don’t because so much of what we do is reliant on outcome-based outcome, and a lot of people from Yale don’t end up getting big law jobs. So we were in a position where ours did have Yale a little bit further down and also cares about how much things cost, which is why some other schools were further ahead. But I will say a lot
Chris Williams:
Of, we probably had UChicago above Yale,
Joe Patrice:
I can’t remember necessarily, but I will say that schools that have hit traditionally been darlings of our ranking where we take into account, Hey, you’re going to get a good deal and end up with a good job on the back end. Have always been places like Virginia, duke, Penn, all of which are doing really well in the US news rankings these days. So it seems as though the US news rankings are moving closer and closer, merging into ours a little bit more. Oh well. All right. Well, I think that concludes what we are going to talk about today. Thanks everybody for listening. Subscribe to the show so you get the new episodes come out, leave stars and reviews and all that. You should also listen to Jabo Katherine’s other podcast. I’m a 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 to read these and more stories before they come out. You should follow us on the social medias at Above the Law dot com, on Blue Sky, at Joe Patrice, at Kathryn, one at writes for Rent.
Yeah, I think that’s it.
Kathryn Rubino:
Peace.
Joe Patrice:
Great. Thanks.
Chris Williams:
Peace.
Notify me when there’s a new episode!
![]() |
Above the Law - Thinking Like a Lawyer |
Above the Law's Joe Patrice, Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.