Rankings Drama Hits Law Schools, Law Firms

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I’m joined by some Above the Law colleagues. I’ve got Kathryn Ruino here.

Kathryn Rubino:

Hey.

Joe Patrice:

And Chris Williams here.

Kathryn Rubino:

Merry Christmas.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, right. That’s going to be great because people are going to hear this and they’re going to wonder if they’ve gotten the latest episode. Yeah. But no, it was not Christmas. We did just finish, I guess, Eastern Orthodox Easter.

Chris Williams:

I think that’s accurate.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

I like to think Christmas is a state of mind. I’m always in the gift of giving spirit.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Well, you know it was just Easter because Donald Trump just sent out the picture of himself as Jesus healing people.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, that really happened.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. And there was one thing … Oh, by the way, at this point, we’re veering to small talk.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, that’ll do it.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yes. I remember during the first Trump takeover, well, Trump presidency when people were flaring the alarm because there was a mention in Revelation about trumpets and they were like, Trump and Pence is a little too on the nose. But him now shaming the Pope and posting himself as Christ is straight up antichrist behavior. This is in the book that people haven’t read. Yeah. Not to give any spoilers. Also, I won’t say what happens at the end of the passion of the Christ, but if you’ve read the book, if you’re actual member of the book club that has done the reading, you should know that these are the signals. And I say this as an atheist. I don’t even think my soul hinges on this, but I’ve read a couple of the chapters and I’m like, “Hey.” Even JK Rolling isn’t this on the nose when it comes to character performance.

I’d be like, Jesus Christ, but Trump would be …

Joe Patrice:

Wow. Yeah. So anyway, it had just been Easter.That was all we were really trying to get at there. But yeah, no. Yeah. So wild times, wild times around here.

Kathryn Rubino:

Potentially the end of them.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, anyway, so that’s pretty good small talk for us right there, unless anybody has anything else to add.

Chris Williams:

No, I mean, end of the world is pretty … It’s the end of small talk, I think.

Joe Patrice:

Oh no, there are. I didn’t hit the sound effect. Those are the trumpets.

Chris Williams:

No.That’s why you wanted to end small talk there, because

Joe Patrice:

You wanted it to be safe.

Chris Williams:

I was pretty short, I think, actually, for small talk, but you thought that the jok might not make sense. Might not.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Right.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. See what you did there or hear it.

Joe Patrice:

So let’s begin today with the biggest story from last week. One of the big stories every year, the US News and World Reports Law School rankings came out. US News and World Report is what used to be a newsrep magazine, but is now a rankings magazine since that’s most of what anybody remembers them doing anymore. For sure. That’s

Chris Williams:

How they make all their money.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, I think so too. Anyway, so they have ranked law schools as they have done for decades now. I mean, I’m sure it was boring and usual and nothing crazy happened, right?

Chris Williams:

Well, there’s some pretty big news. Yale Law School has fallen out of the top spot.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, hold on. I have a … There we go.

Chris Williams:

Yes. Yale has fallen to a tie for second with the University of Chicago and Stanford stands alone as the number one law school according to US News. And we’ve known for a while, we’ve talked extensively on this podcast that the US news rankings are to coin a phrase bullshit, but nothing makes it as clear as this fact because if you get into Yale, you should go to Yale.

Joe Patrice:

I think that’s true. I feel as though for a long time Stanford has been creeping up kind of parallel.

Chris Williams:

Listen, I have no … Listen, if you get into Yale and Stanford, whatever, your life is going to be fine. I don’t care what your options are. But if you’re like, “Hey, maybe I should go to Chicago over Yale.” I’m like, “You’re wrong.” You’re wrong. No, you should go to Yale. And Harvard is way pulling up the rear here in a tie for

Joe Patrice:

Fifth or something. We’ll get to Harvard. Chris, you had something to say.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, I was going to say, if it’s between Yale and Chicago, the food’s probably better in Chicago. I don’t know.

Joe Patrice:

Well, yeah. Okay.

Kathryn Rubino:

There are arguments to make. They might not be good ones, but they’re still there.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. And listen, who cares? You have a Yale, you’ve Yale on your resume for the rest of your life. Whatever food you need to eat for three years, that line is never going away. You will always be called a lawyer from blank law school.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Just looking at this list, I feel like New Haven’s not where you want to eat compared to San Francisco and Chicago. But yeah, no. You’ll be fine. You’ll be fine. Sure.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. And we kind of lampshaded the Harvard situation. It is actually, I’m sorry, it is not tied for fifth. It is alone in sixth.

Joe Patrice:

Right. Horshit.That means both Penn and UVA have moved into a tie for fourth.

Chris Williams:

If you get into Harvard and UVA, go to Harvard.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I mean, unless there’s a monetary reason not to. I agree. There’s … Yeah. It’s going to

Chris Williams:

Be a pretty big one too.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, I think that’s right. Of course, all of these rankings went haywire when Yale started a trend of people not sharing … Schools not sharing their proprietary data to make the rankings more accurate. Yeah, we’re kind of living with the fallout of that. People used to joke about our above the Law Rank law school rankings, which have not come out yet because we wait for more data than US News does, but they will come out and you should consider them when they do come out. They’ve always had a different order, our own rankings, but that’s because we very transparently say that we focus a lot more on financial return on investment. And so Yale, while probably still where you should go, we are focused more on, hey, who gets you into a job easier and so on and so forth. And Yale often gets people into jobs that are harder to quantify, like president of some country.

Well, that’s the kind of thing that you get

Kathryn Rubino:

With

Joe Patrice:

A Yale degree. So ours have always been a little different, but the US news ones being this wild is crazy. So after Harvard, there’s a tie between Duke and NYU. I am, as an NYU grad, aghast at the idea that we’re tied with Duke, but whatever. Not that Duke’s not a great law school. I mean, it’s-

Kathryn Rubino:

Wait, the Manny school- I don’t

Joe Patrice:

Know. Nixon went there. So you got that on your resume, I suppose.

Kathryn Rubino:

I was going to say the mayonnaise, but-

Joe Patrice:

No,

Kathryn Rubino:

No, not

Joe Patrice:

The mayonnaise.

Kathryn Rubino:

That’s a strong regionalism, I guess.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, no, this is the basketball team has a law school. Sure, sure. Yeah. Gotcha, gotcha. Then there is a three-way tie between Northwestern Michigan and Columbia at nine. How do you feel about that?

Chris Williams:

There’s lots of reasons that I’m not personally attached to as a Columbia law grad that point to the rankings being bullshit, that is just more.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah.

Chris Williams:

Listen, for years, decades, the order was Yale, Harvard, Stanford, YSL, YHS. And then it was-

Joe Patrice:

CCN.

Chris Williams:

CCN, Columbia, Chicago, NYU.

Joe Patrice:

Right.

Chris Williams:

Those are the top, that’s the very top tier is those three schools. The second tier is the next three schools. Michigan, horseshit. Horseshit.

Joe Patrice:

And well, so far, all the ones that we have named are at least schools that have T14 pedigrees, which the T14 being what we used to call the 14 law schools that were always the top 14 in some various order. Now we have kind of broken that ceiling because coming in at 12 is Vanderbilt for some reason. Yeah. Look, it’s also a perfectly fine school in that kind of tier down, I would say, the not T14 group, but this- The top

Chris Williams:

20 law school,

Joe Patrice:

For sure. This one really reads to me as folks are trying to figure out ways that they can take advantage of the algorithm that US News is utilizing. Then you have Cornell in at a tie at 13 along with UCLA, another school that is usually in that kind of discussion, but not quite in there. And Chris, do you want to announce the last one in the new quasi T14? Well,

Kathryn Rubino:

Yes, and I wanted to say something else. Was GoBears, blah, blah, blah. But also as I’m hearing this, I’m wondering, to what degree are we actually just not arguing about the number of angels that can dance on a pin? Yes, if you go to Yale law, of course you’re going to end up being a politician somewhere. If you go to Stanford, if you go to these places, you’re going to get a good job. You’re still going to be graduating from a very prestigious thing that test making companies spend millions of dollars in advertising on just to sell the dream of just landing in these spots. If you get in, you’re fine, whether it’s the second school, which appears to be Yale now or Harvard. And I think it’s a little funny that part of the, even if there are changes that go into the waiting that plays out with where these schools place, it feels like there’s a strong nostalgia ranking, like the idea that the things that have been the same for 20 years have to be the same for 20 years.

There couldn’t be enough things that change over the span of 20 years to where your old number one school could drop to number two. Maybe there have been some substantial enough changes between grades changes or some other factors that have actual consequences for what the ranking is. And somebody’s like, “Well, the school I went to 20 years ago isn’t for anymore. Come on now. Why does this really matter?” And part of the, why does this matter is from the schools themselves being like, “Well, we don’t actually really give a damn.” So on some level, this kind of feels like a dick measuring contest where it’s like, oh, my fourth ranking school back in 1980 is better than your fourth ranking school now in 2016. Well, so in 26.

Joe Patrice:

So they say they don’t care. They absolutely do. Deep down, you know that they all really do care. I think there’s something to that that obviously things can change over time. I feel also though that when it comes to law schools, so a lot of what’s being registered is what the value of your degree is out in a professional landscape. And if you have an NYU degree where a lot of people who are prominent in the legal industry went to NYU, know folks, still have ties to the school, still know the professors and the administration and were potentially involved in alumni activities to know what that school looks like. There’s professional signals being sent by the fact that you went to that. And that does matter over time. And I think that that reputation, even there are movements that happen obviously within these rankings, but kind of a universal sea change is hard to get because over time, because this profession is a longstanding one.

People who went to these schools in the ’60s are still out there practicing, right? Yeah.

Chris Williams:

And of the professions, law is one of the slowest to change generally. And it’s not like these schools are charging up the rankings because, oh, look, they’re teaching their kids about AI and that’s going to be really cool. Yes, some are now mentioning the notion that AI exists and that’s great, I guess, but it’s not like things are changing and they’re doing it. It’s that the US news system has broken down and people are gamifying how they do that. Employment counts a lot. And now all of a sudden you have a lot of school sponsored jobs that the people who couldn’t get jobs before are getting. There are things that these schools are doing in order to make these changes in the rankings that have actually nothing to do with how your degree is perceived in the industry. And this ranking used to be how it was perceived in the industry.

And it really correlated very strongly to that, which is why it had such a profound impact for so long this ranking. It no longer corresponds to what people think in the industry, and therefore it is no longer as valuable a tool.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, because there are other, again, as we said about our above law rankings, you can measure other things and you should take those things into account if you’re a prospective law student. That said, what is the value of the US news ranking? Its value, like the above the Law one was an input on financial return. The US news one was an input on prestige. Now that that’s kind of tossed up, what is the value of the US news ranking anymore?

Kathryn Rubino:

Should it be a thing that’s allowed to change? Factoring in Kathryn’s points, I see what you’re saying. If there was a point where the US ranking is, if they’re more explicit about it and they were like, legacy, we were a prestiging ranking system, but as time goes on, there are things we are more concerned with. We no longer will be that, but our ranking still matters. Would they be allowed to do that? Or if they were to do that, would that be an immediate pivot to some other thing? I think

Chris Williams:

It would definitely be a pitof, but also I don’t think that they wanted it to change. Yale was like, “We’re noping out of the rankings. We’re not giving you this data. A bunch of other schools piled on and now they’re floundering.”

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Chris Williams:

This is not a deliberate pivot because other things beside prestige matter. This is a, how do we stay relevant even though schools don’t want to participate?

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. And there’s always been movement within these rankings. And like at marginal movement, in the initial rankings, like NYU was always good, but was like in the top 10 and it moved up to four by the time I went because of major investments that were being done by the dean to lure faculty and make changes and those were perceived.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. And things like giving money to or throwing money out to get better academics, to get more things that we actually invest in the student body and make them have a better experience. That all makes sense. And it used to be that the difference between six and five was giant in everyone’s head. And now, I don’t care. I don’t care that NYU is seven. I think this is a silly list. I know how good NYU is.

Joe Patrice:

So Stanford currently number one, in the initial rankings way, way back in the day, they were in a tie for fourth. Do you know who was third back in the day? Yale Harbor were up. Yeah.

Chris Williams:

They were one and two back in the day, Northwestern?

Joe Patrice:

Michigan. Okay. So yeah. All right. So welcome back to Form maybe a little bit for Michigan here. Yeah,

Chris Williams:

They never left the T14. Of course not. Yeah. And I think that that kind of thing mattered. And I think that it’s fair to say that this is not even US News’ perfect form of the rankings.

Joe Patrice:

All right. Well, we should take a break and we’ll be back in a moment. Well, it is Rankings Day here above Law because we have another set of rankings to talk about. This time we’re going to shift and talk about law firms. Vault has put out its ranking of the most prestigious law firms in the country. And they also do rankings by region and by practice area, but it’s a big prestige fest for law firms themselves. With the Vault 100, what are takeaways from the new ranking of O law firms?

Chris Williams:

Yeah. So Gravath came in number one, Waktel’s number two. Shocking. Yeah, not shocking. The opposite of that word. One of the bigger takeaways is that this ranking came out last year right after the big law firms started inking deals with the Trump administration. So they were very much out of step and in a way that is nothing, no fault of the vault, but just-

Joe Patrice:

Ooh, that

Chris Williams:

Rhymed.

Joe Patrice:

Good job.

Chris Williams:

But it is not their fault. The survey had ended before any of these deals were announced. It was shocking. Don’t forget when it actually

Joe Patrice:

Happened. Oh

Chris Williams:

Yeah. And there was no way to predict that this would’ve happened. So the rankings did not reflect any of this. These are the first rankings that reflect the nine big law firms that inked deals and had a major, I think, hit to their prestige. Most of those firms saw a dip in their rankings. And if not, what number they place the scores that put them in that place. Skadam, Latham, Kirkland, Milbank, Simpson, Thatcher saw their average scores drop overall. And Paul Weiss took a hit in the rankings, a pretty big one, I think as well. They’re taking, I think, the biggest reputational hit as it applies in the vault rankings. And I don’t know how we think about what we think about that, because they’re certainly not the only ones.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

And just to be clear for the listeners who haven’t read the list, biggest reputational risk hit means they’re number 13 now. Still very high. Oh no, they’re still … Not that T14 matters for big law firms, but they’re there.

Joe Patrice:

Fair, fair, fair. Yeah. No, it’s not like they’ve completely fallen off or anything, nor should they. They have multiple lines of business and it’s a full service law firm with a lot of elite clients. That said, it feels as though Paul Weiss is getting more of a hit for these deals than anyone else is. Now, granted, they were first, which made them more visible as the face of it.

Chris Williams:

Well, I think it’s more than just that they were visible because they were first. I wonder, and listen, I can’t have a counterfactual here, but if the first one doesn’t fall, do any of them fall. And I think that the reality is Paul Weiss had a tremendous reputational hit as a result, and everyone knew that that was going to happen if there wasn’t, oh, kind of this follow-on. I’m not sure a lot of these firms would’ve inked these deals.

Kathryn Rubino:

I don’t know. I feel weird about the tarnishing effects that bad business decisions have as far as history, because the thing in my mind is IBM is still in business. If being a part of the Holocaust wasn’t enough to tank IBM, Paul Weiss making a shitty decision with Trump. In a generation or two, this will be a blip. That’s mine.

Chris Williams:

I think maybe, but the other part of it is that it has something to do with their ability to do their job as well. The whole notion of how can you defend clients potentially against the government when you won’t stand up for yourself against the government. I think that there’s a reason why a lot of litigators in particular have left these firms because there’s a real … How can you defend me? You can’t defend yourself, I think really has a reflection on their ability to lawyer.

Joe Patrice:

Well, and I think that’s a good point. And I think that actually may speak to why Paul Weiss is getting more of a hit than some of the others. And it may obviously being first is one thing. Who knows, to your counterfactual, the fact that Sullivan Cromwell was involved in pressuring them to take that deal according to reports, that suggests that maybe somebody was going to be first. But

There is something to be said for Paul Weiss, historically, like when I was coming up, Paul Weiss was known for litigation. That was their bag. They were a full service firm, but that’s the litigation place. You go to Wachtell if you want to make a bazillion dollars on transactions and you went to Paul Weiss if you were a committed litigator. And that’s where being able to stand up for yourself matters in ways that transactional work, less so to the extent that you’re trying to make deals that are for the best. And I think there’s an argument that when a firm like Kirkland, which is known for a lot more transactional stuff, when they make a decision like this, does it hurt their transactional prestige? Not as much. Yeah. Whereas Paul Weiss is taking much more of a hit because of the fact that it had so much vested in the litigation side of things.

For sure. And you can see that with the change now that Karp has stepped aside, which had more to do with the Epstein stuff, I suppose.

Chris Williams:

Yeah, we definitely did because the person who replaced Brad Karp is Scott Barshay, who absolutely was internally pushing for the deal.

Joe Patrice:

Correct. But you look at that. Now Barshay comes from the transactional side. It seems though the firm is trying to almost rejigger itself into maybe we aren’t so heavily dependent on litigation.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. But I also think it’s interesting because again, to the, if Paul Weiss hadn’t fallen, what would’ve happened because places that are really corporate heavy, like the Kirklands, like the Skaddens that eventually inked deals, they didn’t actually have executive orders issued against them. There was like, oh, maybe we will. But it’s even unclear why they were being targeted just because they had a lot of money and Donald Trump knew who they were. I think that might be the only reason they were even in these conversations. And if he hadn’t gotten that victory of having some firm’s fault to him would’ve even expanded that way. I don’t know, because there’s no reason on paper why Kirkland would’ve been targeted. It’s not like they were active in the first administration against Trump or they had some partner that the Trump administration thinks is problematic. They just were deep pockets that were targeted, I think, for that reason.

Joe Patrice:

All right. Well, let’s take break. We’ll be right back. Well, we can finally not talk about billing for a few minutes and we can have a quick chat about … Oh no, I did that backwards. I was like, I think we are going to talk about it. Or are you going to talk about billing? Quite a bit of it. We cannot talk about rankings for a second and we can talk about billing the other half of … Yeah.

Kathryn Rubino:

Dammit, Cheryl, you should have said we’re not going to talk about rankings. We’re going to talk about relativity.

Joe Patrice:

Oh, yeah. Well, and now by relativity, we are not talking about relativity. Legal technology. Technology company. But we are talking about relativity as in Einstein’s theories of time. Space time. Yeah, just how spacetime operates. So a lawyer is in some trouble in Australia for billing a 36-hour day.

Chris Williams:

That’s too many hours.

Joe Patrice:

It is too many hours. It’s

Chris Williams:

Too

Joe Patrice:

Many hours. Yeah. The lawyer was represented who used to be a big law partner now works on his own, was representing a fairly rural town in New South Wales. And they managed to successfully get 1.5 million Australian dollars in a settlement, which is about 4.6 and 4.6 million in legal fees. But

Kathryn Rubino:

The bill came to you. That all sounds like monopoly money. I can’t even lie to you.

Joe Patrice:

Right. I know, right? But the bill came due and it was 10 million Australian dollars that he billed, which included several uplift fees, changing rates based on the success of the case, yada, yada, and billing 103 hours over the course of a 72 hour period at one point. The judge did not find this to be a good thing and has- Not

Chris Williams:

Compelling.

Joe Patrice:

Weirdly not compelling. Ruled against … Look, billing things like this happen a lot and they’re funny, not a lot, but they do come up every few years and they are funny. Now, they’re usually a mistake due to just bad record keeping. The time got done. It just probably got done over the course of a week and somebody accidentally put it all in the same day. Sure. That’s bad. You aren’t supposed to do that. It raises suspicions, but-

Chris Williams:

Also, what billing software are you using

Joe Patrice:

That allows

Chris Williams:

This to happen?

Joe Patrice:

If you have good software, this won’t happen. Let’s

Chris Williams:

Bring it back to legal technology.

Joe Patrice:

That said, in this instance, it seems a little more, especially with all of the extra nickel and diming that was going on towards the end that the judge found. It seems like this might have been more of an intentional effort to procure more money from the client than was due. For his part, the lawyer said that he remembers being sick that day. He remembers that his dog had died.

Chris Williams:

He basically blacked out and yada, yada, yada. Here’s my bill.

Joe Patrice:

He said his dog had died and maybe he was billing in dog time. I don’t know. For

Chris Williams:

Real?

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. What?

Chris Williams:

For real?

Joe Patrice:

Well, his dog had died. I made the joke about dog time. Yeah, he didn’t make that joke.

Kathryn Rubino:

Just to be clear, this is not what happened, but I do wonder if at some point they’ll be like, “Well, we only worked on this matter for 18 hours or so, but when you factor in the amount of time that AI saved us, it is as if we worked for 42 hours.” So we’re billing you for the 42.

Joe Patrice:

And so that’s been long my argument for why I think the billable hour is finally on its last legs. And I’ve written about this a couple of times. The ethical rules prevent you from doing that. You can’t say, “Hey, this should have taken 42 hours, so we’re billing for 42 hours.” You can only bill ethically the time that actually happened. That said, you can value bill. You can say, “I’m not billing you for time. I’m billing you for this motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is generally worth $50,000, so I’m billing you $50,000.” And however much time it took to get there, that’s not a factor. It’s just that’s what it is. Ultimately, I think the ways in which AI can accelerate work, it is going to get to a point where either, and I talked on a recent NPR interview about this, either lawyers are going to say it was 42 hours, but now it’s 10, so we’re just going to accept less money.

Chris Williams:

Unlikely.

Joe Patrice:

Unlikely. Or they’re going to have to start saying, “This used to take 42 hours. The value of 42 hours for us was 50 grand, whatever. So we’re just going to bill 50 grand for every motion to dismiss.” And yeah, sometimes that means they’re going to put in more time than they wanted. Sometimes it means they’re going to put in less time and get a windfall out of it, but I think that’s where it goes. And I think the counter argument are people who say, “Well, they’re just going to raise their rates to like $10,000 an hour to make up for this. ” That’s

Chris Williams:

A lot harder, I think for clients to swallow.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I think if I’m a client, you tell me you billed five hours at $10,000 an hour, I’m going to go, “Bullshit, you could have been done in three.” If you told me, “Hey, the value of this is 50 grand, take it or leave it, ” I can justify that to a

Chris Williams:

Point. And it’s also more predictable for in- house clients, so they meet their budgets a lot easier because that’s a figure that they can really predict, I think, in a more substantive way. But listen, this is not the only billing kind of snafu that got our attention this week. Wilmer Hale’s $35 million bill came under fire. It’s a British case, but New York or rather American lawyers involved, but Alberto Safar was their client heir to the billionaire.

Joe Patrice:

Who I have litigation ties to. Yeah.

Chris Williams:

Well, there you go. So he’s contesting the $35 million bill and we got quite a bit of details as a result, including a partner, DC partner that built 19.3 hours in a single day. See, less than 24, so doesn’t have that space time issue, and a total of nine timekeepers that racked up 130.2 hours over a single 24-hour period. And listen, the judge involved, and we don’t actually know what’ll happen. The judge really just ordered further inquiry into the bill. And some of what they did is commensurate with the work that was performed. It was high stakes litigation. It was really intense. So a lot of that kind of stuff, but the numbers are eye popping.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. The thing that caught my eye, in addition to just the number of hours, it seems like there were partners that decided to just give themselves a pay raise during the thing. So there was a point where they made their hourly rates like $265 more than what they agreed to. Correct,

Chris Williams:

Correct. It bumped it up to over $2,000 an hour. And listen, the judge did say that those increases were largely inflation based, so not pure bilking of the client in the way that that first case we talked about seemed to be, but still something you’re supposed to disclose and agree upon with your client. So this is all why the assessment is coming Wilmer Hale’s way.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. All right. Well, I think that’s all that we have right now. Thanks everybody for listening. You should subscribe to the show to get more episodes when they fall from our lips onto the computer. You should- That seems

Chris Williams:

Weird

Joe Patrice:

And gross. Yeah. Whatever. I’m trying to shake it up.

Chris Williams:

Maybe don’t shake it up that way. Cool.

Joe Patrice:

Subscribe to the episode Give reviews and stars. Do that without taking into account the way I just phrased it, I suppose. Then you should be listening to Kathryn’s other show, The Jabo. I’m also a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist Roundtable. You should be listening to other shows by the Legal Talk Network. You should be reading above the Law, so you read these and other stories before we talk about them. There’s also social mediabaw.com. I met Joe Patrice on Blue Sky, Kathryn’s at Katherine One. Chris is at Rights for Rent. And I think that’s everything we’ve got for now. Peace. By

Kathryn Rubino:

Peace.

Continue Reading