Supreme Court Airs Dirty Laundry

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like A Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I am joined by Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey,

Joe Patrice:

And we are going to talk to you a little bit about the big legal stories from the week. That was not a banger of a week as far as a lot of stories, but a lot of them, but a few with significance I guess I would say.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, the kind of stories that break through into the mainstream kind of thing.

Joe Patrice:

But before we get there, you know what that sound means? Small talk. We’re going to have a little bit of small talk. How’s everybody doing? Good. I mean,

Kathryn Rubino:

As good as we can get buried under unpleasantness,

Joe Patrice:

We were counseled that maybe we should lay off using the weather as a small talk topic, but that was before the snow canine hit those of us of the northeast.

Chris Williams:

Somehow the sausage is made more context on the counseling. It was good counsel. We were told that the episode, we were told that the episodes are going a little too long, so if you’re listening and you ever want to be like, here’s the reason I don’t give you five stars. Give us at least four and a half and then say cut down on the time. But yes, we spent too much time talking about the weather, which leads us into

Joe Patrice:

Well, yeah, no snow aca. Snow aca. I saw that a number of law schools are moving to online classes for the rest of the week because they think it’ll take that long for them to dig out

Kathryn Rubino:

For a full week.

Joe Patrice:

Well, at least it’s indefinitely. So I guess not necessarily for the full week, but they’re saying,

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, there’s more snow expected later in the week for large parts of the country. So just we live here now.

Chris Williams:

I guess it depends how good the surrounding infrastructure of your school is, right?

Joe Patrice:

Right. Yeah. Harvard is apparently online. So to give you a sense,

Chris Williams:

I think there’s still snow outside of my house from October. So if I was in law school, we’d be fine. We’d be online till a four. Oh

Joe Patrice:

Anyw who? So with all, yeah,

Chris Williams:

Go on. Unrelated to snow. Awesome. But still involving a cold place in my heart. Have y’all been following Punch the Monkey?

Joe Patrice:

No.

Chris Williams:

No. I don’t know. Oh, so there’s a little monkey named punch. I don’t know the story on the name, but I think it’s

Kathryn Rubino:

In. Oh yes, I did.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, I think it’s in Japan. You got not scapegoat. He actually got excommunicated. It was I guess like the little run of a litter and he got kicked out and he has this little plush orangutan sort of.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, they gave him a little stuffed animal to make him feel like he still was part of his tribe or group or whatever because he got banned from He got abandoned.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, it was so sad. But apparently there was a punch development at some point. There was a monkey that, not a human money, but a monkey that was alive actually embraced punch and it was like a all, but then I saw people and they were like, no, that monkey was just doing it for the likes and views.

Joe Patrice:

So yeah, fair. So I didn’t know that that was the name of this monkey, but I will say a non-equity partner, a good social media account to follow for some fun legal content has a meme of punch the monkey holding onto his little stuffed animal. That is Mark Junior Associates. And that one good job email from 2024. Yeah, all that’s keeping it together right now, which I thought was pretty good.

Chris Williams:

It was definitely one of those, why am I crying in the club right now? Moment.

Joe Patrice:

So what we went through, there are the lessons that lawyers can learn from punch the monkey. You will lose all attachment to human affection, but you can have a stuffed animal. Is that the right takeaway? You

Kathryn Rubino:

Can buy something that will fill that cold

Joe Patrice:

Hole, fill that void

Kathryn Rubino:

Hole in your heart. For sure. For sure.

Joe Patrice:

Alright, well with that said, let’s forge on to some stories of the week. We’ll start off with the Supreme Court. So they ruled in the tariffs case, they struck down the I-E-E-P-A tariffs that I think I got those letters right, that the administration had imposed on everybody around the world, including a remote island with only penguins. So those tariffs that Trump had put in force are now gone. It was a feisty decision though.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yes. I think that one of our columnists, Liz Di, said that they hate each other poison on the Supreme Court, which feels very, very accurate and makes me realize I have things in common with Supreme Court justices because I hate quite a few of them too.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, I firmly believe that somewhere right now, RBG and Scalia are looking up and saying, oh my God, you’re supposed to play nice with each other.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. So the crux of this decision, of course, is that the statute in question authorizes a president to respond to a national security threat by shutting off freezing assets of that country if there’s a war or whatever, and then it’s supposed to report to Congress for a congressional veto basically every six months say like, oh no, I think the attack’s gone. So you’ve lost this power. Instead, what the administration was doing was saying, this allows us to impose tariffs, which is not at all any in the text of the statute whatsoever, but they gleaned it from the concept that that would be freezing assets sort of, and they imposed them and then refused to talk to Congress about them. The Supreme Court six to three determined that that was not proper, which makes total sense, and this gets back to the main Liz die point. The opinion is like 170 pages of settling old scores

Kathryn Rubino:

We’re settle all family business

Joe Patrice:

Today. Yeah, there was 20 pages of the actual decision and then a bunch of footnotes and bitchy concurrences and dissents where everybody tried to settle everything. In particular Gorsuch, who that guy, it must be wild to clerk for him at this juncture. Your whole job is not so much writing an opinion that’s going to have the force of law, but to write 63 pages of tracks about everybody else that you work with.

Chris Williams:

One quick thing, speaking about opinions that don’t have the force of law, I made the dumb decision of trying to watch Trump run through a EPA as he called it, and he kept saying, well, Kavanaugh great mind, totally wonderful mind sober minded, no beer at all. He kept talking about the descending opinion as if it was the majority, but yeah, Gorsuch was great. He was like, you three are idiots and you idiots. He just like, I was like, damnit, first off you got Trump saying that the Supreme Court is corrupt, and you got him saying that the other judges are idiots. Why am I agreeing with these people?

Joe Patrice:

So Gorsuch’s opinion, my favorite part of Gorsuch’s opinion is he tries to tries to snipe at people. I mean, Gorsuch was sniping at people in the majority with him. He went after the liberals saying like, oh, well now you must support the major questions. Doctrine didn’t when you were saying that mask mandates were authorized. And I thought Kagan handled that brilliantly with a little footnote where she was like, I mean, he seems to want some converts and I feel kind of bad telling him that we’re not.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, that was a good one. That was a good, all of these kind of back and forths, I think maybe distracted from the craziest part of what was contained in the decision, which is Clarence Thomas’s dissent, which was like, but we used to have kings.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Thomas took the argument fascinatingly that well kings could impose tariffs unilaterally, and there’s nothing really to suggest that the constitutional conversation took that power off the table for a king, and therefore I guess a president has it by. Right. And there was a war in between there. Well, no, theoretically the things, the powers that existed at common law continue to exist in his mind unless the constitution overwrote that. And yeah, I will say there were some people on social media who said, say what you will about this Gorsuch concurrence. He does one thing that frighteningly few justices have done over the years, which is explicitly call Thomas for being crazy. And he does just go straight to that and be like, well, Avi, this is obviously insane.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, we’re laughing about this and I think for court followers it is pretty entertaining to read and to think about and to have folks highlight the lines you might’ve missed on your first reading. But as Chris alluded to, there was a follow-up press conference and now there are more tariffs because nothing says arbitrary and capricious deciding it’s 10% one day and then being like, I meant 15.

Joe Patrice:

Well, yeah, that’s the issue with the new tariffs. One of the reasons why he was so happy with the Kavanaugh opinion is the Kavanaugh dissent does spend a lot of time explaining other statutes that could be invoked to impose tariffs. That said, all of those statutes have other problems. The most obvious of which was there’s one that I believe the one that they’re now trying to utilize specifically has 150 day tolling period. So it can’t really be imposed, which then sort of ameliorates any value it might have towards any company who’s trying to make a business decision about a strategic decision because 150 days is not anything to really sneeze about. And there was also the issue that some of these statutes and whether or not a president could invoke them in these situations, those are questions asked at the oral argument in this case, and the government’s official position was, no, no, no, we can’t. That’s why we need these. So if you believe in a stoppel in any sort of way, it seems as though they are

Kathryn Rubino:

Stopped the government definitely.

Joe Patrice:

It seems as though they should be a stop from trying to take the contrary position now, but

Kathryn Rubino:

I would love to be in the room when some lawyer has to try to explain to Donald Trump the concept of estoppel and then hear Trump try to repeat it forward. How does that get mangled in that dementia Aled brain of his? I think that would be a really fun thing to be able to watch.

Chris Williams:

I don’t think he could generally process the word stop.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, fair.

Joe Patrice:

I mean, trying to explain, just remind me a totally different topic, but of my favorite onion headline of the weekend, which was aid weirdly begins fifth explanation of why Trump can’t Pardon Prince and do. Yeah, it does seem like trying to explain to Trump how things work must be a difficult task.

Kathryn Rubino:

It’s a terrible task that you can absolutely avoid if you just don’t work for the

Chris Williams:

President. Oh, right.

Kathryn Rubino:

Thomas

Chris Williams:

Will probably say that Trump could though, because that common law

Joe Patrice:

From president.

So now we enter in this interesting situation, I think with Trump. Then also, of course, part of the argument is you can’t arbitrarily and capriciously do these things. As Kathryn pointed out, then he puts a 10% tariff on everybody under his imagined new power, and then he changes it to 15, which certainly makes it look like it has the same problems as it did before. But for a Republican majority facing a midterm that they aren’t particularly popular in, it can’t be great to now have Trump pushing this and demanding congressional action to authorize him to keep going when the dirty secret and the reason why three conservative justices were in the majority here is the conservatives probably don’t like these tariffs anyway. So now you’re going to have a battle where some of them cross lines and get sniped at. So fun times at the Supreme Court, people are mad at each other. It is a lot of fun to dig through some footnotes to see who’s the gossip girl moments of who’s mad at who and who doesn’t sit with each other at the cafeteria.

Kathryn Rubino:

I’m sure we’ll hear a lot more.

Joe Patrice:

Alright, well let’s take a break and be right back. So law school story kind of the week is that the Pentagon has blasted out to armed service members who are entering law school a little warning that they’re not going to be able to go to several law schools. And by several, I mean all of the T 14 except for the University of Chicago and the public schools. That said, they say there is a follow-up list that will list the public schools, and my guess is Berkeley will be on there at least. So you could probably assume that all T 14 schools except Chicago are going to be on this list and along with several others. So the Pentagon has decided that you do not get to go to law school if you’re an aspiring military lawyer. You can’t go to any of the good law schools.

Kathryn Rubino:

So the thing that really gets me about this, I mean, well, there’s a lot, but one of the things I suppose that get me about this is that what a way to really stop people from applying to fle and the other government programs at a time when you need government JAG lawyers in a way that no other administration ever has. People are leaving the DOJ in droves, and one of the many stop gap measures they’re attempting to use is that by forcing JAG attorneys to go work for the DOJ in all these kind of ICE immigration cases, plus they’re also seeing JAG lawyers as immigration judges. That’s another thing that’s also happening. But you’re using the JAG Corps as a, you can’t tell me no, you have to kind of legal jump team. This is what they’re actually doing with the JAG Corps. So they really, really, really need it right now and being like, Hey, you can’t go to Fordham Law School or if you’re currently enrolled you to disenroll, figure out a new plan

Joe Patrice:

Or

Kathryn Rubino:

Continue and potentially have to pay all that money back that you’re not intending to. This is,

Joe Patrice:

Well, yeah, the transfer situation is more convoluted. It’s not actually clear what they intend to do with people who are halfway through. Theoretically they’re going to force them to transfer. But this document, the document that got leaked is specifically talking about folks looking to enter, but also

Chris Williams:

Transferred to a lower ranked school. By the way, that’s the thing I think is hilarious. It’s like I

Kathryn Rubino:

Want everybody to go to as law.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. George Mason is not on the list. So yes, as law is an option, bunch of Maria,

Chris Williams:

I got good news and bad news, mom. Good news is you’re right. I did make it to Harvard. Unfortunately, they’re too woke.

Joe Patrice:

I believe Washington is also on this list.

Chris Williams:

Yes, I believe that’s accurate.

Joe Patrice:

So all of our law schools would be banned too.

Chris Williams:

I like to think there were just too many people from t fourteens and good schools that were complaining about them handing over everything to Chay GPT and the only people that weren’t complaining were from ranked 64, no disrespect to whatever school is ranked 64.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, well, and Kathryn’s point is that they are utilizing JAG lawyers for a bunch of substantive stopgaps query, whether it’s good that we help them do that, but the point is they think they need JAG lawyers. So if they think they need JAG lawyers, having ones that are competent makes some sense. I want to add to the JAG lawyer thing, another story that happened last week that we weren’t going to dwell upon, but we had one of those JAG lawyers get sanctioned $500 a day by a judge because he parad dropped into the middle of 1,000,001 habeas cases that were in the midst of DHS ignoring court orders on them.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, this is all bad. And I think you’re right, Joe, about whether or not they should be or could be, but this is definitely an administration that is shooting themselves in the legal briefs here with this kind of motion. This is absolutely a group of attorneys that you are using aggressively and now you’re doing something that’ll make it less likely for you to have that group of must act kind of lawyers on call.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I actually appeared on the Dan Abrams show on Sirius, of which you can listen to, you can find online and listen to if you all want to hear my appearance there, but to talk about my argument that we need to seriously as a profession, consider disciplinary action against Trump lawyers and disbar some people for the violations going on. And I got some flack from Abrams over not sticking to, he thought I was not sticking to my guns because I was not prepared to say that necessarily we disbar this poor JAG lawyer. But I think there are lower levels of discipline that people at the bottom can face.

But it really was a testament to how everything has accelerated so much because when I wrote that article, I was very much talking about the illegally appointed interim US attorneys unquote and the DOJ senior leadership because those were the folks doing stuff. Lower level people were actually quitting in droves. But now we have a situation where there are a lot of people who are locked in at the lower levels. These JAG lawyers have commitments that aren’t going to let them necessarily walk on a dime. And so those folks, I think fall under a slightly different standard, but I think they still should be looked at for what representations they make in court because there are rules still about lying to tribunals

Kathryn Rubino:

If they’re ordered to. Yeah, I think that is a hundred percent true, and I think that that is a set of attorneys that are probably more aware of their ethical obligations even than most because they have a whole different set of ethical obligations for being in the military. So they’re perhaps more sharply aware than even the average attorney. And I do think there’s a difference between they’re being sanctioned because the DHS is not producing documents. If you have a client that you’re telling you must produce and they’re not doing it, there’s little an attorney can do except tell them these are the penalties involved. And yes, the attorney may be sanctioned in those cases because that’s how that works, but you may not have the ability to do it. And I think that is a different situation in terms of legal ethics than saying they’ve already turned over everything I’m sure of it. And in the back of your head, knowing there’s a warehouse of documents that have not been opened up,

Joe Patrice:

And it’s not just in this instance, it’s not even discovery that we’re really focused on. We’re talking about human beings who need to be released from detention. And

Kathryn Rubino:

I think you’re right. I think

Joe Patrice:

An extra layer

Kathryn Rubino:

There are also increase the likelihood of higher sanctions by courts as well as from hopefully Barr associations in the future.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. All right. Well, let’s take a break and sorry, all the military lawyers who are going to have to get their Cooley degrees or whatever, we will be back in a minute. So we didn’t really have, other than the Supreme Court thing, it was kind of a weird week of small stories that built up. And so I just have a practice hodgepodge for this last segment.

Kathryn Rubino:

I like it

Joe Patrice:

Hit me because, and this comes up periodically. You see an article in the media, can you believe lawyers are making $3,000 an hour? And I’m like, yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

It’s 4,000 is actually the top of it. But yes, continue.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. So the point is that there’s a gap of where the normies see us and understand our job and the reality of it. And there were a couple of stories this week that I,

Chris Williams:

This reminds me of a story I wrote a year or two ago. We were having this conversation between some of the lawyers that are making the most money, and I was like, they’re making basketball player money. And Joe was like, I think people have a general understanding that lawyers make a lot of money. I was like, no, I don’t think they get, I think this is, insiders know that lawyers make a lot, but the average person, they wouldn’t see people making thousands of dollars an hour.

Joe Patrice:

So there’s this ongoing situation where people see the jobs differently, and where this came up this week was we had this ongoing Epstein situation. We had Les Wexner, the Victoria’s Secret guru who was in a deposition with the House Oversight Committee, and he delivered an answer to have his attorney lean over and just say, okay, I’ll kill you if your next answer, you answer any more questions with more than five words.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, that’s fantastic. Lawyering.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it was 10 out of 10, it was caught on the microphone. So good work audio engineers for having a microphone that had that up the

Kathryn Rubino:

Unsung heroes of

Joe Patrice:

Deposition. I think it was intended to be quiet, but it was not.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, it’s very funnier that it wasn’t kept quiet, but honestly, that is legitimately great advice.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, sure. Well, this is what kind of got me thinking about it is the divide on social media was wild because there were all these people going, this is proof of how guilty he is. This is how despicable lawyers are. And all of law Twitter was like, ha, good for him for saying it so bluntly.

Chris Williams:

Everyone who complained does not know the value of a good lawyer. That’s lawyer. That’s the lawyer. That’s the lawyer. You take a lien out on your house for, you need a lawyer that tells you to shut the hell up and it’ll be like, you’re going to thank me for this extra later.

Joe Patrice:

And in some ways, and this is the part that I think a lot of people struggle with, and I remember when I would prep witnesses, I would make this point to them a lot, which is, it’s not that they’re guilty and you’re trying to stop them from a Perry Mason style confession. The reason why you tell them to shut up like that is for everyone’s benefit. The questioner themselves has an agenda and they need to get certain answers and they aren’t getting helped by you going off on a tangent. Yeah, you are probably going to find yourself lying because when you talk effusively like that, you start to ramble, you start to speculate. And what I used to tell witnesses is, I know you want to in conversation, you want to help the person asking the question

Kathryn Rubino:

A dialogue,

Joe Patrice:

And it’s a dialogue and you kind of go off. But I was like, but you need to understand you are obligated to tell the truth. And if you’re speculating, that’s not the truth. Right. And that’s a hard thing for people to really glean.

Kathryn Rubino:

And I think that it is worth noting that there is a distinction between a q and a, which is a deposition and an active conversation to which both parties are participants and those are different animals, and they sound similar sometimes. And I think coaching your client on the fact that they’re different and the ways that they’re different is ridiculously important.

Chris Williams:

If my mom was to see this be like, oh my God, did you hear that death threat? I’d be like, listen, mom, what you need to understand is that lawyers are a type of fairy and they use words differently then how usual people do. What he actually showed was that he cares so much about his client when he threatened to kill him.

Joe Patrice:

Wasn’t that ojs line if I did it was because I loved them so much.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, yeah.

Joe Patrice:

And I guess the other story from the week where the real world saw a different world than lawyers did is we had another in the now burgeoning cottage industry of legal little niche practice of litigating over boneless wings.

Chris Williams:

Oh my God. This story in just stokes of fire and flame in my heart, this is another one of those things where you don’t understand the work that the lawyer is making thousands of dollars an hour do they just make arguments that facially are, as the French say, stupid, but have legal weight? So there was the most recent one that really grind my chicken. There was a case arguing that effectively that if you go to a place like say Buffalo wow wings, I think was the actual location, and you order boneless wings, that what you’re ordering is chicken prepared in a particular way that a boneless wing is effectively winged. They take chicken meat, do whatever hot dog esque science process that they do to it, batter it, fry it, and that’s your bone chicken wing,

Joe Patrice:

Which is to put this into context. So before we get to that, I’m going to put the context of a few, like a year or so ago that we had a different case where somebody,

Chris Williams:

Right, that focused on the boneless

Joe Patrice:

Element. Yes. So this is the side half. So the boneless element was while back in Ohio, someone bit into a boneless wing and nearly choked to death because there was a bone in it. And the court decided

Chris Williams:

You would not expect

Joe Patrice:

Yes, because you wouldn’t expect to,

Chris Williams:

You’d think you’d because of the name, they might’ve de-boned the boneless wing. But no, apparently

Joe Patrice:

So in that instance, the state supreme court was like, you have no reasonable expectation that boneless means boneless, which I thought was a bit of a stretch. Now this is the wing side of

Chris Williams:

It. Yes. Now, so this New York case is saying that you have no reasonable expectation that the wing be a wing

Because, and here’s the thing, it’s one of those things where it’s like sometimes the gunner wins in real life, whoever was on the legal team said, no, actually wing does not refer to the part of the animal that’s vestigial. Actually, what it refers to is the style of cooking, what have you, which facially dumb because like I say in the article, I see no reason why under this legal theory can’t start calling their hash browns potato wings. And before we make the argument, well, Chris, that’s dumb because potatoes aren’t animals that don’t have wings. That doesn’t work because the court made an analogous argument between boneless chicken wings and cauliflower wings. So they’re not even paying attention to the anatomical aspect of bones at all. So you can’t,

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. See, I came down on the, I think the wings is correctly a style here, and I know it’s weird that it’s that way, but there’s no better way to make clear buffalo that buffalo sauce is a thing that buffalo wings is a thing. And so if you’re making a boneless version of that out of nuggets, the term wing probably, and I

Chris Williams:

Also thought, okay, it’s okay Joe. I say this respectfully as a colleague, if you say five more words, I will kill you. There is an easier way to say this. You just say buffalo style chicken nugget,

Joe Patrice:

Right? Yes.

Chris Williams:

Which gets at the concept completely and has no need to evoke borid simul opera of wings and them no longer being related to the thing they’re supposed to represent. Just call it a nugget. Call it a nugget. That’s what

Joe Patrice:

It’s, but again, as we talked immediately after your story, there are a lot of these instances in culinary, in the culinary world where something, because of the style of cooking was applied to one thing, it no longer is, but we still call it that like mince meat being mostly dried fruit these days because, but it used to be that sort of

Chris Williams:

Thing. Well, I’ll tell you one thing. If I find mince meat at a Buffalo Wild Wings, I’m going to be even angrier than them calling cauliflower nuggets. Cauliflower wings.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Chris Williams:

And to be fair to your point, I will agree in part, I do think that there are things you can say that invoke cooking styles. The cooking style at play here is buffalo. Buffalo evokes a particular Correct. I

Joe Patrice:

Agree with that.

Chris Williams:

Yes. Buffalo evokes a particular style of cooking a wing in New York, oddly enough, that involves buffalo sauce, that’s fine. But winging it is some shit you do on the fly. Winging it is not a preparatory method.

Joe Patrice:

I’ll say another reason why I didn’t really, I had a different take on this case, is that I thought about what was the basis of it when the original boneless case, the guy choked. So I understood that lawsuit. In this instance, the lawsuit seems somewhat bad. Faith from jump. Is somebody really out there saying, I was harmed because I had breast meat instead of wing meat?

Chris Williams:

Well, here’s my thing. There are a couple cases of false advertisement in my mind. I also think of being the damage from the McDonald’s hot coffee case different. Although that is distinct in my mind. I do think that there’s a way that discursively, how these things get talked about is similar to the McDonald’s coffee case,

The Red Bull suit over false advertisement where there was like for you the winners, it was Red Bull, it gives you wings, another wing case. I think that that was fair game. Red Bull does not give you wings. They should not be advertising that they do that now they change it to wings and that’s fine I guess. But I do think there is room for holding corporations generally restaurants specifically accountable to their being facially reasonable understandings of the things that are on the menus. If I order a thing that says Wing and I don’t see not a near bone part, I’ll be like, what is this? What is this?

Joe Patrice:

So

Chris Williams:

As far as keeping things accountable, the law is a good mechanism to do that. Even if this is a goofy example of that being the case,

Joe Patrice:

I think you need damages LA I don’t know. But whatever. It is interesting though, the way in which we have so many things that are not what they claim to be.

Chris Williams:

Just to be clear, the Red Bull, it’ll give you wings case that paid out like 10 million. So who knows if there was a big enough class action suit involving chicken wings, those pennies add up, it could be millions of dollars. That is what will happen here. But as far as, there could be cases that involve large amounts of damages over whether a thing’s a wing or a nugget. That’s just my point.

Joe Patrice:

Alright, with all of that, I think we are done. Thanks everybody for checking out the show. You should subscribe to show, get new episodes when they come out, give us reviews. All of that stuff helps you should be subscribe, blah blah blah. What else? Oh, listen to the Jabot Kathryn’s other podcast. I’m also a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist Roundtable. There’s other shows by the Legal Talk Network that you can listen to read Above the Law. So you read these in other stories before we talk about ’em here. You’ve got social media above law.com. Imad Joe Petris. Chris is at Writes for Rent Kathryn’s at Kathryn one. And with all that we are done. Peace.

Continue Reading