Law School Ranking Chaos And Biglaw Trump Deals Turn Sour

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Well, welcome back to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer.

Chris Williams:

That’s scary. That’s scary. Let’s go back to doom and gloom.

Joe Patrice:

I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law and I’m super happy because we are all happy here these days, right?

Kathryn Rubino:

That is pretty fae happiness.

Joe Patrice:

Oh no, this is

Chris Williams:

Genuine. My name is Chris. Yeah, my name is Chris and y’all can’t see Joe, but I can blink twice if you need help.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, so we are from Above the Law. Me, Kathryn, Chris here. We are going to go through as we usually do our big stories of the week, so that I’ll give you a quick summary of what’s going on in legal. They are not going to be nearly as chipper as I am right now because that’s the nature of things.

Kathryn Rubino:

It’s 2025.

Joe Patrice:

Yes. But we are going to begin with a little bit of small talk. Small talk. So how is everybody doing? Is everybody as happy and wonderful as I am?

Kathryn Rubino:

No one’s as happy as you are.

Chris Williams:

There is no light behind your eyes as you say these things. There hasn’t been in years anyway. There’s the Joe. I know. Keep it consistent people. No, I had a good weekend for the last few years I’ve been talking about wanting to get back into cycling and get more active, and this weekend I actually put money where that wish is. I bought a helmet, which is for the cycling, and I bought a pair of shoes to ideally run in. I want to try running a little bit. My shins already hate me for it, but it’s getting warmer out.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yes, yes. That is factually accurate despite the fact that where I live, there was snow this weekend, which was horrifying. There’s nothing quite as depressing as April Snow. That’s pretty much the worst.

Chris Williams:

Well, sometimes it does snow in April. It’s one of my favorite Prince songs.

Joe Patrice:

I feel like April is the Northeast’s secret weapon for snow. It always seems to sneak up in April.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I mean, I didn’t love it. My child, however, really enjoyed being able to go out in the snow. That’s good. She, she’s now old enough. She’s nearly two where when she would get the snow on her little gloved hand, she would start licking it. Like this is weird and interesting, but fortunately for me because it is in fact April, it melted before I actually had to do any of the shoveling. Yay. But I did basically just get a cute little photo shoot of my baby running around in the snow. So I guess there’s that. No, that’s good. Well what about you Joe? Do you have a personality besides faux happiness?

Chris Williams:

Oh no, no, no.

Joe Patrice:

Damn has to be.

Chris Williams:

Put that on a soundboard.

Joe Patrice:

No, I’m trying to get myself reacclimated to being at home for a week and I don’t have any conferences to go to for a couple of weeks, so that’s nice. That’s all.

Chris Williams:

Do you have the recurring nightmare where you’re asleep and you’re like, oh shit, I forgot a conference. Sydnee. You scurried? Yeah. Don’t

Kathryn Rubino:

You have another one coming up this month?

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, yeah, there’s another one this month, but

Kathryn Rubino:

Maybe there’s too many.

Joe Patrice:

There are a lot. But this one, this should be the last one for a while. Then we go into the summer before we get more,

Chris Williams:

You need to be passive aggressive and show up with a shirt that says this conference could have been a zoom call.

Joe Patrice:

Most of them can’t be Zoom calls. Look. Yeah, so this season will end here. Then there’ll be a big summer one and then the fall and now there’s another one in the fall that an inaugural conference that I’m going to. So the fall will have,

Kathryn Rubino:

So they’re adding conferences is what I just

Joe Patrice:

Heard. Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

Because not enough legal tech

Joe Patrice:

Conferences there are going to be more. Yeah, exciting. All right, well let’s get a move on here. So we’ll begin. Let’s talk about law school. This isn’t necessarily doom and gloom. This is the week where US news and world ranking, I think is what that stands for, came out with their, sometimes I like to age myself. When I was a kid, they were a news magazine. Now they were ranking magazine and they just came out with their new list of law school, top law schools.

Kathryn Rubino:

Finally, I might add in the sense that they put out the wrong version first.

Joe Patrice:

Yes. So a little bit of the inside baseball here, we had, we always monitor their website to see when they’re going to drop it and they put it up on the website apparently wrong

Kathryn Rubino:

And before their official release time. But as any good type A based news organization, one of our colleagues, Stacey s Rescue was busy hitting refresh on it to see if they would drop early. It did. She started writing it and then at midnight, a different version dropped.

Joe Patrice:

So there was a bit of an IT issue, it seems where they put up the wrong version at first, but we sorted it out and we got the actual version up then. So there

Chris Williams:

Were few, you say they were both live, right? That’s the big thing. They

Joe Patrice:

Both live, they were both live for a while at the same time, and then we got the right version. Anyway, so we have a right version. Some interesting things happened.

Kathryn Rubino:

There’s a lot more T 14 law schools,

Chris Williams:

They democratize the prestige by putting 17 members into the top 14.

Joe Patrice:

So now Kathryn, you and I wrote a joint article several years ago back when David and Ellie still worked at Above the Law, and it was kind of a internal debate, you and I versus them that T 14 is stupid and arbitrary and there’s no reason why we should stick with that number. The logic for those who are new to this, the top 14 law schools have always enjoyed a certain level of extra prestige, and we cut it off at 14. Why not 10 or 20? Well, the reason

Kathryn Rubino:

Or 15

Joe Patrice:

Or 15, the reason of course was that for the first decades of the US news rankings, schools would shuffle around, but the top 14 were always the same 14 schools. And so it took on a little bit of a cachet because from 15 on down, things shuffled, but the top 14, those were always those schools in some order, but that gave it a cache to be T 14. But there really wasn’t a reason why 14 was necessarily better than 15. It had some degree of stability and that communicates something. Sure. But in a world where that 14 isn’t stable anymore, and we’ve had over the last few years, we’ve had a school sneak into the 14 that hadn’t been there before while another fell out. Now of course, as Chris already pointed out, there’s 17 schools and top 14. Now that we’re doing this, there’s no reason to stick to this 14. It’s really anachronistic at the point that we’re moving that people are invading that top tier. But whatever

Chris Williams:

It has the importance of the 14 has the energy of your uncle that was like, I really would’ve made it had I got drafted. It’s a bygone era indicator. Great. They were cool back then, but now they’re competing with, it’s the same professors, it’s the same textbooks. You’re all going to the same places for the most part.

Joe Patrice:

I mean, yeah, I just think that we can actually talk about the top 20 now or something more rational. There’s no reason to stick it to 14 now that there’s this sort

Kathryn Rubino:

Of shuffling. But here’s the thing, right? This is the ranking that’s inherently very important to the legal profession. There’s a couple of things you got to know about that profession before you start talking to them. The first is that they are incredibly loathed to change. So here we are with 17 schools in the T 14,

Joe Patrice:

Right? Well, and that is a change. I’m just saying that saying

Kathryn Rubino:

That nomenclature is not going to change.

Joe Patrice:

The

Kathryn Rubino:

Nomen lawyers aren’t going to want to change.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, fair. I just think that we can now more fully admit that the gap between 14 and 16 is not a real substantive gap, whereas the gap between 16 and 50 is a huge deal.

Chris Williams:

I look forward to, I think this is the word for it. I look forward to the new taxonomies that will emerge the funded 10. What’ll be the schools that are still receiving federal funding a year from now? Or the winning women’s schools, which schools still admit women because after some Supreme Court case, they decided that the right to choose means that you could exclude women if you feel like it. Maybe they’ll add for religious reasons just to make it have more jurisprudential bite, but it’s coming.

Joe Patrice:

Well, I think the nomenclature thing is a good point, but in a different way. We did really blow up the HYSC CN logic, which has historically, no, that actually honestly I’ve always felt was more important than T 14. There was something to the two tiers. The Harvard, Yale, Stanford Clump and the Chicago Columbia NYU clump. Those did have a marked substantive difference in what that degree meant. Each of those stages down to the rest of the T 14 and beyond. Now that’s all scattered to the wind because people are all over the place.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean that

Joe Patrice:

Particular Harvard’s what, eight or something like that now.

Kathryn Rubino:

But that nomenclature was far less prevalent than T 14 amongst the industry. Even a TL would write headlines that were just T 14, blah, blah, blah. We never really wrote ones that were HYS.

Joe Patrice:

I mean I did, but yeah,

Chris Williams:

To the tongue in cheek democratization point I made earlier, I do think people are carrying less as far as procedure, more like outcomes. I feel like the T 14 conversation has the stench of a person that knows what a signet ring is. So as people who pay more attention to things like bar passage rates and debt load in relationship to places that you begin working, you get less focused on their prestige heavy things. Like, okay, if you want to go into teach or what have you, go to Yale. So

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean that’s interesting. But also that might be true from an applicant’s point of view, and obviously applicants still think that rankings are pretty important and relevant. But I think potentially more important is the other side of that equation is the employers. If people are making these offers to law students with only one semester’s worth of grades under their belt before they’re doing these interviews and getting these offers, then it probably matters a whole hell of a lot to the employers, which law school they went to because they only have one semester’s worth of grades to make those decisions based on. So even if it’s a little anachronistic being like, well, I know that that’s a top school, I’m not really sure how this mid-level top tier school shakes out, then I think that employers probably are still leaning pretty heavily on these old,

Joe Patrice:

Well, to take Chris’s point about the debt load and stuff like that, these are speaks a lot to what the Above the Law, law school rankings were about, trying to shift it to something more about the outcome that an applicant would face. But it’s worth noting that a lot of the chaos going on in the US news rankings probably has a lot to do with most of the schools followed Yale’s lead and stopped cooperating with US news as far as giving some internal information about how the school functions. And part of that was they stopped really wanting to get into how much debt they’re putting their students in. The completely bogus but high-minded explanation of this was, well, if we have to report debt, it’s going to incentivize us to only take rich kids. And I’m like, okay, whatever. That is not at all true, but that is what they insanely said. But without that information, you do get a lot of crazy going on because without that information as well as the other proprietary information schools used to give us dues, it makes it much more arbitrary, which I have some degree of sympathy for US news here, trying to do their something approximating their old rankings with a hand tied behind their back like this.

Kathryn Rubino:

Listen, for generations of lawyers, there was only one ranking that mattered, or at least one that mattered the most. And I’m feel like we have crossed that threshold, and with this year’s rankings, we’re going to look at the decline of that ranking as the most important one and

Joe Patrice:

The ascendants of the Above the Law rank.

Kathryn Rubino:

There we go.

Joe Patrice:

Right? Yeah. But yeah, in some ways, yeah, it’s very interesting. It’s all kinds of random. Obviously you should still pay attention to it if you’re a prospective law student trying to figure out what’s going on. It still has, as Kathryn is outlining some signaling value. So you should still take it into account, but just I think we are reaching a point where you don’t want to just take any one ranking into account. I think you’re going to want to care about all of them. And one thing that tax profit blog does a good job of is pulling out some of the data and some of the data from the US news rankings and doing it separately. What was the prestige score or what was the peer score? Which those are useful too. Sometimes you don’t want to see what their methodology says, but you do care a lot of like, well, what do practitioners think of this law school?

And so they do a good job pulling that out sometimes, which is nice. The Above the Law rankings always give you an option to reconfigure the numbers for that purpose too. So plugging that. Alright, well we are back. The main topic for this segment is the main topic that’s been for the last several weeks now, which is the law firm’s surrendering situation. We got, I can’t even remember where we left off last week, but we have more both good and bad news on the good side. Sessman Godfrey is fighting back after they got tagged by the administration, which let me just jump in here with this. When you saw that they went after them, what was your response when you saw that?

Kathryn Rubino:

Of course they’re going to fight.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

I kind of had the meme of the math professor showing the direct graph. So this is how much you fuck around and this is where you find out I would not be messing with that particular firm. I love it. This is a firm that managed, managed to get Fox to settle for like $700 million. I don’t think that this is the firm you want to get into a fight with when you’re making already illegal executive orders, but it’s something they chose to do and good for them. Meanwhile, we did get a lot more bad news. I don’t remember where we left off, I think,

Kathryn Rubino:

Well certainly on Friday there was a bunch, I think five that were announced. It was Lathan Simpson, Thatcher a and o, Sherman Cad, Waller, Kirkland, Kirk Kirkland’s, right? Yeah. Those were the ones that formally settled on Friday. We had an ink league that some of these were coming. The Kirkland one had been leaked a little bit earlier than that. We had heard that Kwer had been reached out to somebody in the Trump administration, made a phone call saying, Hey, don’t you want to give us a bunch of money? And apparently their answer is, yep, we sure do, friend.

Joe Patrice:

So this is a great segue here. You want to give us so much money. This is a subject of an article I wrote, which was a little more thinky, a bigger think piece kind of article for people of a certain age and pop culture dom focusing on Empire Strikes Back and the deal that Lando makes with Darth Vader because I think it’s really instructive and it really guides how I look at these deals from my age group, having learned that lesson in negotiation when I was five years old when this first deal happened, the deal that Paul Weiss originally cut was to get rid of a bunch of stuff and throw one of their former partners under the bus, but also to commit $40 million to pro bono causes that Trump supported. And it was heavily hinted that what this meant was that they’d kind of reached an agreement that there were certain veterans groups and such that were not anathema to the right and were acceptable to the left, and they would do some pro bono work for those groups. And that’s what it was really billed as since then from both Trump himself as well as people like Steve Miller and his press secretary, Caroline Levitt. They have made very clear that their interpretation of this deal is that what has actually happened is that the firm has committed that amount of money in free legal work for the administration doing whatever the administration chooses to quote a sign, to use the word that Trump himself used, assign the firm to do.

This is not what I think if you had truth serum Paul Weiss thought they were agreeing to, but it is nonetheless where we are now and

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I mean to push back a little bit on that, that’s certainly what the Trump administration believes as far as we’ve been able to figure out. No one’s actually started any of this work. So I don’t know how this is all going to wind up shaking out and who’s responsible for who’s the assignment partner in this deal. But I think until they actually see a law firm doing this work, it’s still a bit of a question mark in my mind.

Joe Patrice:

So here’s how this plays out. I already know that they don’t have any spine to stand up for themselves. Right? That’s true. So when Trump says you’re going to negotiate coal leases for us, I don’t think that that’s the moment they go, well, then the deal’s off. They caved over absolute nonsense. They’re not going to do it now that they’ve already pledged fealty.

Chris Williams:

As soon as you said that my red flag went up, I was like, what do you mean this law firm thought they were agreeing to, it’s their job to no contracts. I think they knew very clearly what they were agreeing to, they would’ve clarified.

Joe Patrice:

See, now I disagree. I think that the deal, probably the text of this clearly unenforceable and illegal deal,

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, that’s what’s going to be

Joe Patrice:

The real problem. I’m sure the text of this says that they’re just going to do some work for a couple of veterans organizations. But you’re right. So I think the problem is they are thinking of it like it’s a contract. They did think of it, we have made a deal and now it’s in writing and now we’re done. As opposed to the reality of the situation, which is Darth Vader’s going to change the deal and make Le and Wooki go on the ship.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, the actual truth social post said that Trump posted, said that Paul Weiss, that was the first one, will dedicate the equivalent of 40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump’s term, which is different than some of these later deals to support the administration’s initiatives, including assistant our nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, the president’s task force to combat antisemitism and other mutually agreed projects.

Joe Patrice:

And now it has become, I’m going to assign them. Yeah, it said

Chris Williams:

Including but not exclusive.

Kathryn Rubino:

That’s the right, but it does says mutually agreed. Right. Which I imagine if there is pushback from any of these firms, that is the language that is going to be

Joe Patrice:

No, I will also point out that’s what he said in his announcement of it.

Kathryn Rubino:

This is from the Trump announcement,

Joe Patrice:

Right? Paul Weiss immediately said after that first deal that his post isn’t exactly what we agreed to, which whatever. But the point is it doesn’t really matter what they agreed to. It’s not going to play out that way. They are going to be asked to do more because why not at this point you already have them. You just make them do whatever you want. They clearly are not going to stand up for themselves because they already have proven that they aren’t going to stand up for themselves.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I mean you’re making arguments, but also Paul Weiss in particular has assured their attorneys that no one will be forced to work on one of these bodo manners unless they want to. And I don’t know who’s doing these, who’s negotiating tariffs on behalf of the administration. Is it Brad Karp himself? We don’t know.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, well we know it’s not their pro bono chief because their pro bono chief

Kathryn Rubino:

Pieced out

Joe Patrice:

Has already pieced out on this preferring to dedicate his time to actual pro bono causes instead of being a blank check for the administration. We’ve also seen some of these other firms to segue a little bit, we’ve seen some other, what I’m calling loud, quitting situations. Obviously we had some associates leave from a lot of these firms, but we’re seeing more high up people. Obviously this pro bono, this pro bono person from Paul Weiss was a council. Wilke lost its longest serving lawyer, a former partner. He aged out how they structured their firm. So he was a council at this point, but a former partner who had been on the management committee, this is not a slough within the Wilkie organization, has decided to leave and make a public announcement about why they’re doing that. Yeah, we are. We’re seeing people move and a o Sherman hours before the deal, I believe it was over 500 by the time it finally happened, over 500 of their folks had written saying, you can’t do this.

Kathryn Rubino:

Right. So it had been leaked that a and o was in talks with the administration then the sort of rank and file had a and o chairman organized and had over, as Joe said, 500 folks signing on saying, please don’t do this. And then shortly after it’s like, we’ve absolutely done this.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, I mean we talked about this a bit last week, but we’re going to see a bunch of associates leave real fast then we’re going to see a trickle over the next few months. I think most associates, it’s very heroic, the folks who are able to leave on a dime, but a lot of folks have loans they have to pay and have made life choices that they have to pay off and they can’t leave without another job lined up. And that process takes some time. But I think they’re answering recruiting calls and they are finding new homes. So we’re going to see departures there. As far as the older folks, as we said, I think it was last week that I had this conversation. That’s a much longer ship to turn, but it is one that they are going to start finding a platform where their clients will be comfortable and have continuity.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think it’s interesting, and I’d be interested to hear what or to see what happens in terms of will there be new firms created to born of this, especially if you have folks coming from multiple different big law entities that are leaving for the same set of reasons that might have complimentary client bases. We might have new firms that enter the AM law 200 as a result long-term of this.

Joe Patrice:

So one tactic that firms are currently engaged in, and they were engaged in this before all of this obviously, so I don’t want to suggest this is new, but one thing is a lot of clients, especially big corporate clients, use multiple firms for different work.

They have usually a short list, but they use firms for different work. And a lot of the more savvy big firms, their partnership recruitment organization internally has been spending a lot of time identifying who their clients also work with and then targeting the teams at the other firms and bringing them under the same roof and an attempt to consolidate and build synergies and all the buzzwords that people in corporations use. But that was something already happening at this juncture. If I’m from a firm that’s under the radar at I share work with Skadden for a particular client, I am really aggressively going to the hoop to grab that team right now and get them under the roof.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think that’s right.

Joe Patrice:

Anyway, so is that everything we had to do on Surrender Gate? I can’t even remember

Chris Williams:

Two things I wanted to say one, and I feel like this is part of what we’ve been saying, but I do want to wrap it in a nicely in a bow for any potential law students listening, you’ll hear people talk about golden handcuffs and they’re like, oh, if you get into a big law, you might make six figures, but somehow you’ll still be living paycheck to paycheck. Because once you get the house and you get the car and you have the kid, you have to make sure the picket fence stays painted, those costs accrue. But there’s also the moral costs of getting locked into a firm that might decide who needs the rule of law in adversarial representation. So it’s one of the things that you need to think about at the level of ethos. What is the thing you’re willing to work do? What are your costs where you’re willing to leave? And the second thing was just quick aside, I was wondering what was the sort of making of the sausage moment in your mind where you were like, wait, this is a galaxy right here as far as the Star Wars tie in, but that’s neither here nor there.

Joe Patrice:

All right here in the last few minutes, it is worth discussing a little bit of the substantive law. There is court battles going on about a lot of things, but one of them is about the extra extraordinary rendition of these folks that the administration has sent to El Salvador. Originally the argument was that they were going to send gang members who they didn’t really have any evidence to criminally convict here, but they assured us they were gang members and that they were going to send them with payment, so they were going to sell them to El Salvador to house in El Salvador prison. The original agreement said that that would last one year or whenever the US agreed on a different, told them that they wanted to do something different. It has now come out that several of these people, part and parcel of them not having any evidence for this, several of them appear to have nothing to do with gangs, and the government has even conceded that one in particular has nothing to do with this and was sent due to an administrative error.

The Supreme Court weighed in on, in a couple of cases. They reaffirmed that there’s due process rights for anyone who’s getting deported. This opinion did not make particularly clear how that works for people that already got deported, but they’re sure that there’s due process rights, whatever that means. And then they also got involved in this particular wrongful administrative error case and wrote an opinion that we talk a little bit about sometimes word play and the importance of where we all did debate stuff, the importance of topicality. The decision says that the lower court had said that the government needed to effectuate the return of this person. The Supreme Court said, no, we’re not necessarily comfortable with the word effectuate, but nine oh unanimously, the court said that they need to facilitate the release of this person. Since then, the government’s response has been, despite the agreement being for one year and that we’re paying this country and that we agreed that with this country that we controlled these people still they are now saying they’re completely out of our hands and they belong to El Salvador. Now what are you? And they are also taking the stance that facilitate does not mean that they have to do anything other than make sure that if the person did magically show up here, we would not have any obstacles to him coming back in. They say that facilitate only means that we not have any internal obstacles to his return. Now, this is where the topicality stuff comes in because the court did not say facilitate his return. They said facilitate his release, which means that the government’s current interpretation of the word facilitate is nonsensical grammatically.

But here we are and they have been taking this stance for the last several days. The lower court judge appears very interested in contempt in the near future. I guess the real question on this is where, what happens to the Supreme Court here? Supreme Court is saying things kneely mouthed, though it is they’re saying things to try to reign in the administration and they are being told it appears they’re now being told that the administration is just going to ignore them. This is what I would consider the word constitutional crisis. But where are we?

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I mean that’s a great question. It certainly is a constitutional crisis and especially because what I anticipate the next move from the right is to file articles of impeachment against the judge involved. This is the worst case scenario. This is what everyone kept on saying wouldn’t happen, but it is, and of course it was going to happen.

Chris Williams:

I think the most Justice Roberts would do is make a Blue Sky account and tag Trump in an unflattering meme. Yes. That’s about as far as we’re going to get from him.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it was interesting that the chief was able to marshal even Alito and Thomas joined the more broad claims obviously in both of these, which

Kathryn Rubino:

By the way, yeah, it is amazing that he got them all to join. But let’s be very clear. It is you can’t disappear people without due process.

Joe Patrice:

That

Kathryn Rubino:

Should not be controversial.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, and of course, that’s a good point. So he managed to get unanimous support for this claim. These very broad based hay we’re not Chile in the seventies. What he did not get though was unanimous support for actually fleshing that out with any kind of, you

Kathryn Rubino:

Actually can’t be.

Joe Patrice:

And that’s where the descents to these orders have come in, which have been the three more liberal members of the court on all of them, and occasionally a CB. So it is not perfect what they’ve done, but at least the broad values are being proclaimed, which means that when the government, the Department of Justice comes up and says, we aren’t going to do this, that is running afoul of all nine.

Chris Williams:

There’s a point where, I dunno about if y’all remember this, but definitely where Romans in law school where I was, I was reading a case and I was like, this is history rhyming sort of thing. This all feels like the all deliberate haste when the Supreme Court uttered in desegregation. So I just imagine this is what it would’ve been like to live in that period where they’re like, what does all deliberate haste mean? Rather than facilitating or,

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I kind of have been thinking about the way this operates as the reverse of the classic articulation. This administration has been first as farce, then as tragedy, and I think that really defines this, that flip, that Napoleonic flip. Anyway, well, so on that happy note, let’s, until

Kathryn Rubino:

Now, we get why your happiness is

Joe Patrice:

Filled. Oh yeah. Full circle. So until next week, thanks everybody for listening. You should subscribe to the show to get things when they drop, leave reviews, write things, give stars, all of that helps climb up those algorithms and be seen by more people interested in hearing about legal news. You should be listening to other shows. Kathryn’s the host of the ot. I’m guest on the Legal Talk Week journalist round table. If you want to talk about Legal Tech. The Legal Talk Network has a bunch of other shows that we aren’t on that you should also check out. You should be following Above the Law because that’s where we write these and more stories every day about this industry that you could be reading. Before we talk about ’em here, you should be following on social media. It’s at Above the Law dot com. On Blue Sky. I met Joe Petris, she’s a Kathryn one. Chris is at Rights for Rent, and I think that’s everything.

Kathryn Rubino:

Peace.

Joe Patrice:

See you next week.

Continue Reading