Original Jurisdiction

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

What does it feel like to call out Donald Trump—with Trump sitting five feet away?

Not many lawyers have had that experience, but Shawn Crowley has. Along with Roberta Kaplan, a previous guest on this podcast, Crowley represented writer E. Jean Carroll in her defamation lawsuit against former president Donald Trump. Delivering a closing statement that the New York Times called “an animated and passionate rebuttal,” Crowley called on the jury to “make him pay enough so that he will stop” defaming Carroll—which the jury did, issuing an $83.3 million verdict.

The 40-year-old Crowley is one of the country’s leading trial lawyers. During her six-plus years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, she worked on several headline-making cases—including the trial and conviction of the so-called “Chelsea Bomber,” Ahmad Khan Rahimi, for perpetrating a terrorist attack in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in October 2016.

You’ll be hearing a lot more about Shawn for years to come, so get to know her through this wide-ranging podcast interview. And congrats again to her and her colleagues at Kaplan Hecker & Fink on an epic win.

Show Notes:

* Shawn G. Crowley bio, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP

* Jury Orders Trump to Pay Carroll $83.3 Million After Years of Insults, by Benjamin Weiser, Jonah E. Bromwich, Maria Cramer, and Kate Christobek, for the New York Times

* E. Jean Carroll attorney: Trump verdict proves ‘your lies’ catch up to you, All In With Chris Hayes

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

In part one of my two-part interview of David Boies, I asked the famed trial lawyer to do what he does best: analyze cases and controversies. In part two, we turned to a topic that’s closer to home: David Boies.

My husband Zach tells me that I’m too soft as an interviewer. Trying to prove him wrong, I asked David some tough questions about sensitive subjects. Do you rue the day you met Elizabeth Holmes? What do you regret about your work for Harvey Weinstein? Why doesn’t Boies Schiller Flexner have an anti-nepotism policy? What will be in your Times obituary?

I’ve interviewed David on multiple occasions over the years, and we’ve never had any tense moments—until now. If you usually read my podcast interviews, you might want to listen to this one.

David fielded my aggressive questions thoughtfully, eloquently, and graciously—which is exactly what I expected of this legal lion. But listen for yourself and reach your own verdict on David Boies.

Show Notes:

* David Boies Pleads Not Guilty, by James B. Stewart for the New York Times

* The Bad, Good Lawyer, by Andrew Rice for New York Magazine

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

I’ve come full circle. A little more than three years ago, I launched Original Jurisdiction with an interview of superstar litigator David Boies, 82, one of the most famous living American lawyers. Now I’m speaking with him again, this time for a special two-part podcast interview.

In today’s interview, part one of two, David discusses current events. Most notably, given his representation of Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, he’s critical of attempts to keep Donald Trump off the ballot based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, from both consequentialist and constitutional perspectives. He’s also not a fan of most of the criminal and civil cases targeting the former president.

This is just part one; in part two, David and I will focus on his life and career. And fear not, dear listeners: I will “go there” and ask about Harvey Weinstein, Elizabeth Holmes, the near-implosion of Boies Schiller Flexner, and other sensitive subjects.

In the meantime, enjoy part one of my conversation with David Boies. Whether or not you agree with him, he always has interesting things to say.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

For the past 10 months, the legal world has been transfixed by the Pauline Newman saga. At 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation’s oldest active federal judge. Last March, her longtime colleague, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, initiated an effort to remove Judge Newman from the Federal Circuit.

The complaint against Judge Newman was initially based on her supposed “cognitive decline” and “paranoid and bizarre behavior,” but it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Chief Judge Moore’s investigation. Judge Newman said she’d be happy to cooperate with an investigation—as long as it’s conducted by a neutral party, namely, the judicial council of another circuit.

As I have written repeatedly, I agree with Judge Newman on her due-process argument. It’s routine for circuit judges to transfer an investigation of a fellow circuit judge—as opposed to, say, a district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge—to another circuit. And there are some interpersonal issues between Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman, which I might write about in the future, that make it completely inappropriate for Moore to be leading this investigation.

I was agnostic, however, on Judge Newman’s mental capacity. I read, along with everyone else, the gossipy details in Chief Judge Moore’s various reports that made Newman sound, well, totally out of it. But I also read and heard accounts from other sources—such as journalists who visited Newman in chambers, and lawyers who saw her speak at conferences—stating that she’s just fine.

On January 4, I met with Judge Newman and her clerks in chambers, for about four hours. Last Friday, I interviewed Judge Newman on my podcast, for another hour. I’m now of the view that she’s completely lucid and sane—and I have reason to disbelieve or at least question much of what I’ve read in the takedowns of her. (I’m hoping to publish a deep dive into the drama at the Federal Circuit, which is actually quite fascinating—and if you have information or insight to share, please email me.)

But you don’t have to take my word for it when it comes to Judge Newman’s condition. Listen to our almost hour-long podcast conversation—or watch video clips of the judge that I’ll be posting later this week, at her request—and judge for yourself.

Show Notes:

* Pauline Newman bio, Wikipedia

* Colleagues want a 95-year-old judge to retire. She’s suing them instead, by Rachel Weiner for the Washington Post

* Fed. Circuit’s Newman, 96, Fights Colleagues From Sideline, by Michael Shapiro for Bloomberg Law

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

Belated Christmas greetings (if applicable). We spent the holiday with my parents, who hosted a Christmas party on Saturday, and we took a family photo in front of their lovely Christmas tree. I also took the weekend off from Judicial Notice, but I should be back this coming weekend with a double edition (so please feel free to send me nominations, since I haven’t been as diligent as usual about following the news).

I did not take the week off from podcasting. Instead, I have a special treat for you: a 2023 year in review—including picks for Lawyer of the Year, Judge of the Year, Law Firm of the Year, and more—plus predictions for 2024 about the Supreme Court, the Trump criminal cases, and free speech and First Amendment law.

I’m pleased to be joined for this adventure by a very special guest: one of the nation’s most insightful and fair-minded legal analysts, Sarah Isgur. She’s probably most well-known to Original Jurisdiction readers as the host of the excellent Advisory Opinions podcast, which I frequently cite in these pages, and she’s also a senior editor at The Dispatch and a contributor at ABC News. She clerked for Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit and graduated from Harvard Law School.

It was an eventful year in legal news, so there’s tons to cover—let’s get to it. Thanks so much to Sarah for joining me for this rollicking review of the year that was.

Show Notes:

* Sarah Isgur author page, The Dispatch

* Advisory Opinions, The Dispatch

* Advisory Opinions, Apple Podcasts

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

If you’re looking for a more meaningful New Year’s resolution than losing five pounds, I have a suggestion for you: do more pro bono. To make it concrete, maybe even set a numerical goal for yourself, like 50 hours.

Over the years, as Biglaw firms have grown in size and profitability, many of them have invested more in pro bono. As a result, there now exists a job that really didn’t exist when I graduated law school: “pro bono counsel.” These lawyers oversee the pro bono programs of Biglaw firms, which means they get to work full-time on pro bono, backed by Biglaw resources (and earning Biglaw salaries). Not surprisingly, these roles are some of the most highly coveted jobs not just in Biglaw, but the entire legal profession.

As part of my continuing focus during the holiday season on pro bono and public interest work, I decided to interview a Biglaw pro bono counsel. And as is my wont when picking podcast guests, I decided to go straight to the top: my latest guest is Jacqueline Haberfeld, global program director of pro bono at Kirkland & Ellis, the world’s #1 law firm in terms of both revenue and profits per partner.

In our wide-ranging conversation, Jackie and I discussed her path to becoming pro bono counsel, some of her most meaningful projects, how firms handle political and reputational concerns related to pro bono work, and how to get a job as pro bono counsel today. I hope you enjoy this interview—and I hope that it inspires you to do more pro bono work in the coming year.

Show Notes:

* Pro Bono | Social Commitment, Kirkland & Ellis

* Notable Women in Law 2021: Jacqueline Haberfeld, Crain’s New York Business

* Innovation: Jacqueline Haberfeld, pro bono counsel, Kirkland & Ellis, New York Law Journal

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

With the holiday season upon us and the end of the year not far behind, now is a time to be thankful for our blessings—and to keep in mind those who are less fortunate. Toward that end, last week I highlighted the new class of Skadden Fellows, who will spend the next two years meeting the legal needs of people living in poverty.

And this week, I’m welcoming to the podcast someone who has devoted her entire legal career to serving the poor: Twyla Carter, attorney-in-chief and chief executive officer of The Legal Aid Society (LAS). Before taking the helm at LAS, Twyla worked as a public defender and at the ACLU, making a name for herself as a leading advocate of bail reform.

In our interview, we explored Twyla’s impressive career, which listeners aspiring to enter the public-interest world should appreciate. But I also posed tough questions to Twyla about some of LAS’s more controversial projects, including its work on New York City’s “right to shelter” mandate, which LAS is defending in court amid claims that it is unworkable, and whether criminal-justice reform, which Twyla has worked on for years, has gone too far. So please do check out this episode—and consider donating or volunteering to support the Society’s important work.

Show Notes:

* Twyla Carter bio, The Legal Aid Society

* Leading Bail Reform Advocate to Take Reins as Legal Aid’s First Black Woman and Asian American to Serve as CEO, by Andrew Denney for the New York Law Journal

* Legal Aid Society Appoints Twyla Carter Attorney-in-Chief, CEO, Bloomberg Law

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

If you’re looking for something to watch as the weather turns colder and we spend more time indoors, allow me to suggest HBO’s No Accident. This documentary, directed by Kristi Jacobson and produced by Michelle Carney and Alexandra Moss, tells the story of Sines v. Kessler, the landmark civil-rights trial against the white supremacists behind the notorious “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017.

One lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, and as such a star of No Accident, is Karen Dunn, one of the nation’s top trial lawyers. I try to make my guests timely, and Karen is a great guest for that and two other reasons. First, last month she became co-chair of litigation at Paul, Weiss—a firm that has been making lots of news itself, thanks to its aggressive hiring of lateral partners. Second, ‘tis the season for presidential debates—a topic Karen knows well, having served as debate coach to President Barack Obama, in his successful reelection effort, and Secretary Hillary Clinton.

If you’re interested in either trial practice or the intersection of law and politics, then you’ll enjoy this episode. I’m grateful to Karen for joining me, as well as for all she does to advance equal justice in our country.

Show Notes:

* Karen L. Dunn bio, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

* No Accident, HBO

* Paul Weiss Looks to D.C. to Add Leaders in Litigation Practice, by Patrick Smith for the American Lawyer

* Boies Schiller Expands In D.C. By Hiring Young Legal Superstars, by David Lat for Above the Law

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

When I wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe titled Big Law’s Cancel Culture, I got an earful from folks who complained about the use of the term “cancel culture” (which was picked by the Globe’s copy editors, not by me). There are many folks who argue the “cancel culture” doesn’t exist or, if it does, it’s greatly exaggerated.

While I have concerns about the term “cancel culture”—it carries baggage, causing some people to stop listening—I still do use it. My approach to language is more descriptive than prescriptive, so if a term or phrase is useful, it’s generally okay by me. When you say “cancel culture,” people know what you’re talking about, and I don’t know of an alternative term that refers to exactly the same phenomenon.

Cancel-culture denial tends to be more common on the left. I wonder, then, whether some progressives might be more willing to acknowledge it now that some on the left are arguably getting “canceled” for expressing pro-Hamas, pro-Palestine, or anti-Israel views. (Please note my use of the term “arguably”; I’m not here to debate the merits of these controversies, which are very fact-specific, and I condemn anything that crosses the line into threats, harassment, and other speech not protected by the First Amendment.)

Indeed, cancellation comes from all sides—a major theme of The Canceling of the American Mind, an excellent new book by Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and Rikki Schlott, a columnist for the New York Post. Lukianoff is left of center and Schlott is right of center, but they agree that cancel culture is real—as they demonstrate in their book, before offering possible responses.

If you’re concerned about free speech, cancel culture, and related issues, then you will enjoy my interview of Greg Lukianoff—one of the most eloquent, steadfast defenders of the First Amendment and free-speech values, for more than 20 years. Thanks to Greg for speaking with me, for writing this book, and for defending the freedom of speech and thought in our great nation.

Show Notes:

* Greg Lukianoff bio, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

* The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All―But There Is a Solution, by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott

* Sick of Cancel Culture? One Man Has a Surprising Solution, by Evan Mandery for Politico

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at [email protected]. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!

As the new academic year gets underway, I’ve been having a law-school module of sorts here on the Original Jurisdiction podcast. After interviewing Professor Amy Chua of Yale and Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt about current issues facing legal academia, I thought it might be useful to get a deanly—actually, the proper word is “decanal”—perspective on these topics.

My latest guest is Professor D. Gordon Smith, who recently completed his service as dean of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, aka BYU Law. I’ve admired his work for years, dating back to when we both started legal blogs in 2004—Underneath Their Robes for me, and The Conglomerate for him—and I was pleased to see him become dean of BYU Law in 2016. During his seven years as dean, he was an innovator in legal education—and this was reflected in BYU Law’s dramatic rise in the U.S. News rankings, from #46 when he took over to #22 today.

In our conversation, Professor Smith discussed BYU Law’s unique mission as a school “[f]ounded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” as well as changes he instituted that contributed to its climb in the rankings. But we also covered broader topics like the bar exam and lawyer licensure, professional development, and our nation’s access-to-justice crisis—so this episode will interest not just legal academics, but anyone who cares about law and the legal profession. I’m grateful to Professor Smith for his time and insight, as well as his contributions to both legal education and the profession more generally.

Show Notes:

* D. Gordon Smith bio, BYU Law School

* Our Mission Statement, BYU Law

* BYU Law Dean to Step Down at End of Academic Year, BYU Law School

* 6 Questions With BYU Law School Dean D. Gordon Smith, by Rose Krebs for Law360

Prefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.

Sponsored by:

NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email [email protected].