Kash Patel’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Hey, welcome back to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I am joined by other people from Above the Law.

Kathryn Rubino:

Great title, Other People. Yes.

Joe Patrice:

Yes.

Kathryn Rubino:

Kathryn- Today is the role of other people we played by Kathryn Rubino.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

There you go. And?

Chris Williams:

No, I’m the person. I’m not other people. Oh, you’re not other people. I was waiting for my role to be introduced.

Kathryn Rubino:

Oh, well, that is Christopher Williams. We’re all here at Above the Law.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. And we meet every week to discuss the big stories from the week that was in legal. But first, we have a little bit of small talk with the Superman fanfare there. So how are things going, everybody?

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, I did some spring cleaning, which is really scintillating topic of conversation, but it was in fact what I did. And I rearranged my furniture, which always seems like it’s going to be easier. It’s like, “Oh, just move this there and that there,” and Bob’s your uncle. And then you start pushing stuff and you’re like, “This is going to take a

Chris Williams:

Minute.” Yes. Furniture. That’s nice. So the ballroom thing.

Joe Patrice:

Oh yeah, yeah. There is that.

Kathryn Rubino:

Not so small, the talking there, but okay.

Chris Williams:

Well, little medium talk. I had an immediate thought and I’m like, I’m not seeing it elsewhere. I don’t know if I’m crazy, but it looks like the guy who got arrested looks to be like he’s been stopped by police for traffic reasons, for no reason. How was he alive? They killed black folks for a lot less. So there are people that are kind of conspiratorial. It’s like, “Oh, this was a hug, blah, blah, blah.” My thing is like, how is he still breathing?

Joe Patrice:

Of all the conspiracy theories, that does seem like one that should be getting a little bit more play.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. Then a dude got choked out for apparently having a fake 20 in a cigarette. He shot for fire and they found him. The only thing is he wasn’t wearing a shirt. Come on.

Joe Patrice:

And supposedly gunfire was supposedly exchanged and I guess a bunch of Secret Service agents missed him multiple times and yet still brought him down. I don’t

Chris Williams:

Know. Yeah. I know there’s a thing with Secret Service and prioritizing whiteness, but you should not have storm troopers as your main shooters.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Right. It is-

Chris Williams:

Nothing? He didn’t get hit once.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Yeah.

Chris Williams:

Right.

Joe Patrice:

Once? Seems weird. But again, we are not-

Chris Williams:

Not to accuse the administration of having a fake shooting, but at least the other one had catch up involved.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. We’re not indulging in the conspiracy theory stuff, but it is … Look-

Chris Williams:

And then the immediate, “Oh, this is why we need a ballroom.” Nobody got hurt.

Joe Patrice:

Well, and that’s Kathryn’s story, not for this week’s episode necessarily, but that is Kathryn’s story that you can read now as you’re listening to this detailing that within, what, a few hours of the shooting, the DOJ was already jumping on demanding that the case to block the construction of the ballroom be dropped, which as I put on social media, you’re never beating the false flag allegations like that. You got to realize that it’s just going to feed the conspiracy theories if your immediate response to it is, “Let’s see if we can get a litigation advantage here.”

Chris Williams:

And I hate to be like the petrocharm remembers guy, but back in my day, people actually died in false flags. Now we get even-

Kathryn Rubino:

Remember?

Chris Williams:

Things used to be paid in blood.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. Wow. Wow, wow, wow.

Joe Patrice:

So that has been an interesting wrinkle in our historic wrinkle in history, I suppose.

Chris Williams:

Which all these weekends have been. Exactly. It has been unprecedented time for the last three, five years. I would just like a precedent. Can we have a precedented week?

Joe Patrice:

I mean, the Supreme Court doesn’t care about precedent anymore. Oh, yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Hey, listen, for a legal show, that’s gold. Oh,

Chris Williams:

Okay. Okay. For everything else that is fool’s gold.

Joe Patrice:

That is really horrible for everything else, but for this show, that’s gold. All right, everybody. We should get started. We have a big story this week that actually was multiple articles of the week because it was- Kept going and going and going. Kept going and going and going. Cash Patel, who as of this-

Chris Williams:

Wait, are you talking about his drinking tap?

Joe Patrice:

As of this recording is the director of the FBI, though there is every reason to believe he may not be by the time it hits your ears. Cash Patel was the subject of

Kathryn Rubino:

It. By the way, did you hear what AOC said about that?

Joe Patrice:

Oh.

Kathryn Rubino:

Asked about, who should Donald Trump fire next? She was like, “Are there any other women? Because that appears to be only kind of people he’s willing to fire.”

Joe Patrice:

Yes, we did also lose the Secretary of Labor. So the Atlantic published a article with several insider accounts detailing Cash Patel’s work habits alleging that he spent a lot of his time drinking, that he’s often unresponsive and not around. He denies all of these allegations and immediately replied that he was going to sue them for all of this and made good on that pledge pretty quickly with a $250 million defamation complaint. Not quite sure why this would be worth $250 million, nor is anyone particularly sure how this would be a defamation claim given that there’s really nothing in there to suggest, I mean, put aside actual malice, which they do not have any good argument for. There’s not really anything in there that seems like a defamatory claim that they can make out. I mean, the reporter does not … I mean, if the reporter believes the sources they have, then that would be sufficient

Kathryn Rubino:

For this. Done dusted as they say. In the real technical parlance

Joe Patrice:

Other times. So breaking down this complaint though, we did a full breakdown of what was going on in the complaint and the actual malice claim is not really played out. It seems as though Jesse Binal, who’s a big figure in the big lie conspiracy, voter conspiracy circles is representing Patel. He seems to think that actual malice means the reporters are mean to you, which is not what that standard means to me. There’s actually a

Kathryn Rubino:

Bunch of case law about that.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

What it means is actually pretty well defined.

Joe Patrice:

I will say, I mean, he’s a lawyer, so it’s no excuse for him not to know. But for regular folks, for regular folks, it is one of those situations where it is an unfortunate name that we chose to give this standard.

Kathryn Rubino:

Because it sounds like you were mean.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

You knew you were being mean. That’s what it sounds like.

Chris Williams:

Well, I’m not speaking as a regular folk, but I would imagine regular folk who have the literacy level to know the word malice. Mallice is a very heavy word. It is much meaner than mean. So even on that level, I don’t even buy that. Mallice is at the level of sinful, like blood lusty.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. So it’s unfortunate that this is- He might

Kathryn Rubino:

Have a different appreciation for words than the average American.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, point is, it’s an unfortunate term. All it really means is that the Reporter, because this is a public figure, the Reporter has to know or be reckless in not knowing that the facts in the article are fake. If the reporter believes the insiders who are giving these accounts, if they subjectively believe it, even if the insiders are lying, if the reporter subjectively believes it, that would not cross the actual malice threshold. Patel has another lawsuit going against someone who may- Pad. Well, we’re going to get that.

Kathryn Rubino:

The tends to be passed.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. So that was actually where we were going with that. Has this other lawsuit against someone over similar statements and tries to bootstrap that into this complaint by claiming that the Atlantic knew this other lawsuit was out there, which means they knew that these claims were probably false. That lawsuit got dismissed this week because there’s no actual malice here.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, yeah. And in that case in particular, I think the statement was that Patel had been more visible at nightclubs far more than had been seen on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building. And the judge was like, “That was obviously a joke.”

Chris Williams:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

No person was like, “Oh, I’ve thought that he meant I’ve clocked him and I can tell you the times.” It was clearly like a quippy little thing said on Morning Joe. No one took this for a statement of pure fact.

Chris Williams:

Did Patel hire Drake’s legal team?

Joe Patrice:

No, but he did, as we said, he did have one of the key figures in pushing voter conspiracy theory cases as his legal team, who has not seemed to be … That was an unfortunate timing on getting that case tossed as soon as he makes this one. There’s also some, just a side story, this is not the most important story about it, but there’s some reason to believe that AI might have drafted parts of this complaint. There’s some errors in it.

Kathryn Rubino:

Turns of phrases that

Joe Patrice:

ChatGPT

Kathryn Rubino:

Is big fan of.

Chris Williams:

One of my favorite reasons to believe that AI wrote it and not him was that a reporter recanted facts from the pleading and he was like, “You’re lying.” Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

That was the story that I wrote about it, that Kash Patl was giving a press conference about his Southern Poverty Law Center litigation. And there were some questions, not about that case, although we will talk about that in a minute. But about his case against the Atlantic and several of the allegations, one of them was that the allegations that the Atlantic made was that he had been locked out of his computer and thought that he meant he was fired and he freaked out was what the Atlantic said. And in the complaint, it was like he was a standard mistyped lockout, but it was quickly resolved, no problem. And so they asked about like, “Well, when you were locked out of your computer,” and he was like, “I was never locked out of my computer. How dare you? Anybody who believes that’s an idiot.” So yeah, query whether or not he read the complaint.

Joe Patrice:

Not great when you’re publicly announcing that the allegations in the complaint in your own lawsuit you don’t believe are true. Courts really love when the complaint is alleging things that the plaintiff thinks is false.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I mean, the fact that the reporter in real time was able to say the complaint says the opposite of what you’re saying right now.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it doesn’t look great. Look, there’s no real chance of just giving a legal assessment, there’s a 0% chance of this case resolving in his favor that I could see. And it’s filed in DC makes sense because the only other logical place for him to file, it would be Nevada. Nevada has a fairly harsh anti- SLAPP law that would then lead to him being on the hook when this case inevitably gets dismissed. By doing this in DC, he avoids that at least.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. And I mean, I think that this is something that people have said and above the law has published this as well, but that I think the main purpose of this lawsuit is to prove to Donald Trump that Castro tells a fighter, that he’s going to stick it to them. And very similarly to how lots of Trump’s lawsuits we know are big losers, but he does it anyway to say like, “And I’m going to fight this. ” It’s kind of the bravado of the Trumpian II era. I

Joe Patrice:

Actually thought interesting, not that people have talked a lot about it, not particularly legal, I suppose, but the two bars that he allegedly spends all of his time in, one in Vegas and one in DC are both private clubs, the members only clubs. I guess that’s the only way that you could pull something off like this if you were a public figure and didn’t want folks to know about it. But it’s interesting. They’re spendy too. I think the one in Vegas is a $20,000 membership.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, somebody-

Joe Patrice:

Which in Las Vegas these days, I think that’s the price of two cocktails. Okay.

Chris Williams:

Oh, there’s a discount now.

Joe Patrice:

But yeah, no. So I just thought that was interesting, the private club thing.

Kathryn Rubino:

I mean, that doesn’t surprise me particularly. I think that you’re right that in the era of smartphones, if you are going to regularly go out and you’re a public figure, you probably have to spend that money.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. All right. Well, let’s take a break here. We’re going to keep talking about Cash Patel, but take a shifted gear when we come back. All right. So not related related, Cash Patel was in the news for other reasons this week, which is that along with the acting Attorney General, I guess, Todd Blanche, it’s unclear whether or not that’s actually his job or not because Pam Bondi hasn’t technically left yet. I don’t really know what’s going on, but he’s calling himself the acting AG. So let’s just- Good enough for me. Let’s just go with it. Todd Blanche and Patel dragged themselves out to a press conference to announce that they were bringing criminal charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center. Did this feel like something that was hurriedly put slapped together so that Cash Patel could potentially change the headlines? Absolutely. And you can tell that it really felt like it was slapped together when you started reading the complaint itself and realized that there were a series of mistakes up to and including not making any claims about in the … The indictment has no claims about one whole element of a charge of four of the charges.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I mean, listen, I want to talk about this first because it’s funny, but I don’t want to also ignore how horrifying this lawsuit is for this state of our democracy, right? But put a pin in end times, but on the, they forgot an entire element of the charge because what a clown show, like a 1L doesn’t do that. Or if they do, they don’t stay a 1L very long. Wait,

Chris Williams:

Wasn’t there a recent thing where they made the hiring requirements more lax?

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, there you go.

Chris Williams:

So there you go.

Joe Patrice:

Maybe it

Chris Williams:

Wasn’t one L.

Joe Patrice:

You lower your standards and this is what-

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. Cash Patel law school graduate of some school in New York that he refuses to put on his actual official government biography.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. He does the Capital

Chris Williams:

Tech. He’s probably School of Hardin Knox Law.

Joe Patrice:

Cash Patel is kind of the flip side of the coin of the people who say, “Well, I went to law school in Kingbridge.” That

Kathryn Rubino:

Is a joke I have made.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

That is literally the joke. Oh, really?

Joe Patrice:

Okay.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I wrote a story when- Great

Joe Patrice:

Minds, I guess.

Kathryn Rubino:

Okay. Or you read it a year ago when I wrote it.

Joe Patrice:

Probably not.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, that was an early Trump administration law school, Trump administration legal story that I wrote because Cash Patel’s official biography just says, went to law school back in New York, not saying … It makes you think that, oh, was it Columbia? Maybe it was Cornell. Where did he go to law school? And it’s like, no, think further down the rankings. Yeah. He wants a pace to be clear. Not that it’s a fine law school, but …

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Absolutely. So the indictment, rather than charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with bank fraud, like the one would normally do in the allegations that they’re talking about, they instead make it a claim under a bank secrecy statute, which is all well and good. We’ll talk about this case and the substance of it and why they think that is the crime in a second. But this bank secrecy statute includes, as an element, the crime has to be an attempt to influence the bank to do something. You have to be lying to the bank for the purpose of making the bank do something, which they don’t even make an argument why the Southern Poverty Law Center was trying to get the bank to do anything or anything that the bank supposedly did over it, which is not great for that. You need to have at least some element there.

Now, they do plead all the elements of some other stuff, not necessarily convincingly. They’re making a series of wire fraud claims. They argue that donors were defrauded, and now we can get into the substance of this argument. The argument is basically that the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks and keeps dossiers on hate groups and also helps take down hate groups. One of the things-

Kathryn Rubino:

Also known as very fine people as-

Joe Patrice:

Right, right. As the administration calls it. Well, that’s actually more relevant than just kind of a quip. Sure. So they do this work. Part of how they do this work is that they pay informants embedded within these organizations to hand over information. The SPLC actually has made the point that when they get this information, of course, it goes into their dossiers and their work, but they also, when they have direct knowledge through their informants of upcoming criminal activity, they turn that over to law enforcement, including the FBI. So this is work that they’ve done. They run these payments through Shell organizations so that these folks aren’t getting checks that say Southern Poverty Law Center on them, which probably would go bad if they’re trying to stay undercover. I

Chris Williams:

Just imagine if somebody got the check to be like, “What do you mean? I’m not in poverty.”

Joe Patrice:

So these hate groups, that’s how this … They’ve got embeds, one of which was the Unite the Right, the Charlottesville march that Trump famously said there were very fine people on both sides. It is interesting that despite it historically being very fine people on both sides, in this indictment, the DOJ and the administration is taking the stance that it was really horrible and everybody on that side was awful. And their argument is that by the SPLC paying some people involved in it as informants, that was really proof that the whole rally itself was masterminded by the SPLC. They argue that the Southern Poverty Law Center’s job is fermenting hate groups that they pay and run in order to create the motive for people to give them money. They’re claiming in their wire fraud argument that donors are defrauded over this. Most donors would say, “We gave them that money.” I knew what they were expecting them to be.

Kathryn Rubino:

This checks out.

Joe Patrice:

To be trying to take down these organizations. This is a dumb case, obviously, but it’s also one that I think has a couple of ramifications that are worth talking about. One, when you bring this case, you are signaling to all the hate groups out there that it is time for them to engage in a mole hunt, which is not great. It depends who you

Kathryn Rubino:

Are.

Joe Patrice:

That is going to put the SBLC’s informants in jeopardy. For sure. It is also going to chill any future informant who is going to say, “I can’t go down this road because I could be outed by the federal government later.” But a third element that I didn’t really put in my story, but I put on social media that I think is underappreciated is it also says that the … It’s also confirmation that the Department of Justice, despite their talk about how they’re against hate groups and the SPLCs behind them, they don’t care about these hate groups. And it’s proof by bringing this case because it’s not like this molehunt that’s going to now take place inside all these organizations is going to just look for the people working for the civil rights groups. It is going to also try to uncover people who are theoretically working for the FBI, which historically is how they- They’re actually spoiled.

Well, and that’s really what it is. By bringing this, the DOJ is signaling either A, they are comfortable burning their own informants, or B, they don’t have any because they’ve stopped investigating these groups.

Kathryn Rubino:

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, because there’s no way that this case doesn’t lead to undermining law enforcement efforts unless … I mean, and so it means you either didn’t think that through or you don’t care.

Chris Williams:

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s actually the more interesting angle, why this dumb case is actually very smart. Because the thing, I was interested in how this is being handled discursively. So how people talking heads on the left are talking about it, talking heads on the right are talking about it. I’ve seen some of the talking heads on the left who aren’t legally savvy. They’re like, “Oh, this might be a big thing, blah, blah, blah,” because they don’t know that there are elements that haven’t been met. So even from the left, there’s cautiousness about this maybe being a real thing and that kind of targets the legitimacy of the poverty center. But on the right, this is great fodder for a Darvo tactic where it’s like, we’re not the racist, they’re the real racist. And my thought with that is, I think one of the allegations like about a million dollars or so was dedicated to paying out informants or what have you.

That is not a lot of money in the scheme of things. It’s just not. And there’s no way that all those people who were marching on Charlottesville, they were doing it for Southern Law Poverty Center Check. They’d be in poverty if that’s where all their money was coming from. But yeah, one of the places I watched was this channel called Newsmax and what’s her name? Her name was Harmit Dillon was on there. Yeah. Oh yeah. Sure. And she was like, “We don’t have … ” Referring to the right wing protestors saying that we don’t have organic … This is verbatim. “We don’t have organic disruption. This is the best country on earth. People love to be here. What is there to be upset about? ” So the idea that the real reason that the … One, there’s the backdrop of maybe the clan isn’t all that bad, they’re good people too.

But also to the degree that they are bad is because the Southern Poverty Law Center is paying people to pretend to be bad actors. It’s great cover. It’s great cover. It’s great plausible deniability. It’s like, yes, you might’ve seen somebody burning across, but who’s to say that lighter fluid wasn’t paid for by the Southern poverty lawsuit.

It’s goofy, but-

Joe Patrice:

So Dylan, of course, runs the Civil Rights Division at this juncture. That would be the folks who would bring more civil claims against hate groups for work they do, but would probably theoretically be looped into criminal investigations even though they would technically be a separate endeavor. But yeah, it would suggest that they’re not involved in this at all, which I think we all- Knew. But now we know. Kind of knew, but yeah, I think that’s the right way to say it. We all kind of knew, but now we know.

Chris Williams:

I will say this whole thing feels like a plot point from the boys. I’m watching season five right now, and this is like, not to give any spoilers, but when they turned on the Star Lighters, this is what it feels like.

Joe Patrice:

All right. Well, let’s take a break and we’ll be back in a moment. All right. Well, it is, as I always like to say, it’s 2026, so we’re not going to be able to escape a conversation about AI in legal because it kind of dominates everything. This last week is where we learned that SNC-

Kathryn Rubino:

Sullivan and Cromwell.

Joe Patrice:

Sullivan Cromwell found itself in the middle of an AI hallucination problem of

Kathryn Rubino:

Its own. This is what I love about this particular story is that sometimes I think that maybe readers above the law have the ability to kind of look their nose down on these AI hallucination stories like silly little small practice people, small town. They don’t understand the way the big … Nope, big law does it the exact same way also with hallucinations. Not also the first big law firm to get in trouble for this, but certainly I think one of the most prestigious ones that

Joe Patrice:

This happened to. Right. Well, and that’s also a thing, and I need to take off of your looking down their noses, even to the extent that large firms have been tagged with this before, it’s been the large firms that are at the top of the Am Law 100 because they have a lot of revenue, but they’re

Kathryn Rubino:

Like- A lot of smaller offices.

Joe Patrice:

It’s happening in regional places, whatever. The

Kathryn Rubino:

Elitism

Joe Patrice:

Of SNC in New York,

Kathryn Rubino:

New York-

Joe Patrice:

Making

Kathryn Rubino:

This mistake. New York, big law attorneys are doing the exact same thing.

Joe Patrice:

Right. So it was revealed in this instance, I think it was Boice Schiller found it who was on the other side and flagged, “Hey, looks like you’ve got some issues here.” SNC sent a letter to the court saying, “Hey, we … ” Self-reporting that they had been alerted to the fact that these issues existed, and then they provide an appendix after going back through all their work, an appendix of where there had been mistakes and it was lengthy. And some of them were mistakes that were not necessarily the worst things in the world, errors in the exact way the quotes were and things put in weird places, but mistakes and mistakes that you theoretically would catch. And as I pointed out, this is an issue that with AI that I keep coming back to, it is a valuable tool, but it is not a replacement for the time-honored legal workflow of somebody has to sit down and read these things- Several of somebodies.

… and verify them. And yeah, that’s the time, the hours that get billed of somebody sitting there going through each one and printing out the case and

Kathryn Rubino:

Making sure everyone’s in there. Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

And it sucks, but that has to be done. And there are products, I would be remiss not to mention, I’ve written about them before. There are things I wrote about Briefcatch recently, but they’re not necessarily alone, but that’s like a- Notable one. … notable product I recently wrote about that have now AI driven products that can read the brief and flag mistakes. It can find the mistakes for you, and that’s valuable too, and that is a great starting point that narrows down this inquiry. But at the end of the day, there’s no replacement, especially at this level- For the

Kathryn Rubino:

Billable hour.

Joe Patrice:

Well,

Kathryn Rubino:

There is a replacement for the billable

Joe Patrice:

Hour, but

Kathryn Rubino:

There’s no replacement

Joe Patrice:

For … This is what you’re paying SNC

Kathryn Rubino:

For, and

Joe Patrice:

It will

Kathryn Rubino:

Still- There’s a reason why you hire them.

Joe Patrice:

It will still be cheaper to utilize AI for a lot of these tasks, and then devote this time on the back end. You can’t view the fact that AI can speed things up as a reason why every aspect of the workflow needs to be automated. And it’s this drive to automate every step that gets people in trouble, I think. And that it’s going to be the new challenge, because that is going to be what dumbs people down. It’s going to be the idea that we move from, “Hey, it can accelerate this part of the workflow,” but then human comes in to, “Well, it can do everything, and maybe a human just looks over it real quick.” And that isn’t the way this works. There has to be human intervention at logical points at break points, and it needs to be constantly there because mistakes can compound upon each themselves and can get lost in that process that you need to let the people read the stuff.

Chris Williams:

It’s only a matter of time before somebody creates an LLM that catches AI mistakes, and then they name it somebody, so then they can say, “Well, somebody looked at it.

Joe Patrice:

” Yeah, and I think you need those sorts of products to make this to reduce mistakes.That is a great first filter. It’s going to catch potentially all, but worst case, 90% of those mistakes. And that means that when the human goes through it, it’s going to be an easier task, but they still have to do it.

Kathryn Rubino:

Can you just imagine, listen, the vibes at a big law firm are bad at best. Could you imagine what it was like over the weekend, because it was inevitably a weekend when they were Making this appendix of every mistake that they made in this brief. It would’ve been awful to not even be on the case, but just happen to be in the office as this is going down. Yeah,

Joe Patrice:

That’s a bad vibe we. Anyway, so point is everyone should be concerned. Everyone should be careful. That is not a reason not to bring AI into your workflow because it is going to be essential to get things done. But it is a cautionary tale about how you need to pay attention. And I think that is everything we got, I think. Yeah.

Chris Williams:

All

Joe Patrice:

Right. So thanks everybody for listening. You should be subscribed to the show so you get new episodes when they come out. You should be listening to The Jabo, Kathryn’s Other Show. I’m also a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist Roundtable on Fridays. And there are also shows on the Legal Talk Network that you should be listening to. We read Above the Law. So you read these and other stories before we talk about them here. You follow on social media abovelaw.com on BluSky where I’m at Joe Patrice. She’s at Kathryn One. Chris at Writes for Rent. We all also have a limited presence at Twitter, I suppose, although I’m Joseph Patrice over there. And everything. Bye. Peace.

Continue Reading