1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates…

Careers

Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates of color, NALP Foundation says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 9:19 am CDT

The attrition rate for associates in law firms was 20% in 2024, up from 18% in 2023 but still lower than the historic high of 26% in 2021, according to the NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.

The attrition rate was slightly higher for females than males, at 22% and 20% respectively, and was “markedly higher” for associates of color, at 24% compared to 19% for white associates, according to selected findings from the NALP Foundation’s newest annual Update on Associate Attrition, a detailed report on firms’ associate hiring and departures for 2024.

An April 24 press release summarized the findings.

More associates are leaving in a shorter time frame than in the past, according to the data from 119 reporting firms in the United States and Canada. In 2024, 74% of associates left their firms within four years of their hiring, up from a high of 72% in 2023. That is a departure from the five-year historical pattern for departures.

The survey also found an increase in hiring and departures at the surveyed firms. In 2024, 6,092 associates were hired by reporting firms, up from 5,236 in 2023. The number who left—4,125 associates—was also higher than in 2023, when 3,875 associates left firms.

Fifty-five percent of new associates were hired at the entry level, rather than laterally. The difference is even more pronounced in the largest firms of more than 1,000 lawyers, where 61% of associate hires were at the entry level.

Fiona Trevelyan Hornblower, the president and CEO of the NALP Foundation, sees some trends in the findings.

“This new data shows shifts in the talent market are emerging, with the rise in entry level recruiting, as well as earlier departures by associates,” Hornblower said in the press release.

More larger than smaller firms responded to the survey. Only 17% of responding firms had 100 or fewer lawyers. Thirty-seven percent of the firms had more than 500 attorneys.

Law.com covered the results.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court appears likely to rule against…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2025, 12:46 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to side with U.S. gun companies arguing that Mexico cannot sue over the flow of firearms into the country because of a 2005 law providing gun-makers with immunity for third-party crimes committed with their products.

“After a nearly two-hour argument,” the Washington Post reports, “a majority of justices—if not a unanimous court—appeared likely to block the lawsuit from proceeding, with several suggesting Mexico had not shown a close enough connection between guns made in the United States and drug cartel violence.”

Several other publications also reported that the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to gun company arguments, including Reuters, the New York Times, CNN and SCOTUSblog.

Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not shield gun companies because they sell to “red-flag dealers” known for illegally selling to straw purchasers who traffic guns across the border. Mexico’s suit seeks injunctive relief and about $10 billion in damages, according to an ABA Journal case preview.

The suit cites a provision in the law that allows civil liability when businesses knowingly violate a state or a federal law regarding the sale or marketing of firearms or when the the companies aid and abet the violation. The violation must also be the proximate cause of the harm—in this case, drug cartel violence—that is the basis of the suit.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had allowed Mexico to pursue the suit.

Suit defendants Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, a gun distributor, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 1st Circuit’s decision. Initial defendants included seven firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler, but a federal judge dismissed six of them for lack of personal jurisdiction while the cert petition was pending, according to a brief filed by the gun companies.

Noel J. Francisco, a Jones Day partner and a former U.S. solicitor general during President Donald Trump’s first term, argued for the companies.

Mexico “asserts that defendants are liable for every illegal sale by every retailer in America because they know that a small percentage of firearms are sold illegally and don’t do more to stop it,” he said. “If Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”

In an exchange with Catherine Stetson, a lawyer for the Mexican government, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the suit does not contend that gun companies violate any U.S. laws.

Instead, the suit allegations “just go to whether or not the defendant had knowledge that at the end of the day, … some dealers might be doing something wrong,” Jackson said.

The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. This ‘reinvigorated’ doctrine could be used…

Constitutional Law

This ‘reinvigorated’ doctrine could be used to challenge Trump’s tariffs

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 5, 2025, 11:59 am CST

Importers and others who want to challenge tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump could argue that he doesn’t have that power—but the argument isn’t a slam dunk, legal experts say.

Trump has cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, a law giving presidents authority to restrict trade in some circumstances, as authority for his power to impose tariffs. At issue is whether the IEEPA gives Trump that power and whether the “major questions doctrine” leads to the conclusion that it does not, Bloomberg Law reports.

Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on imports from China, but he paused threatened tariffs of 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico. Trump said tariffs are needed because of “the grave threat to the United States posed by the influx of illegal aliens and illicit drugs” at the borders, creating a national emergency.

Under the major questions doctrine, Congress must “speak clearly” when authorizing an executive branch agency to make decisions of vast economic and political significance, wrote Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, at the Volokh Conspiracy. If a statute is ambiguous, the presumption is that the power was not granted.

The major questions doctrine has been “reinvigorated” by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down the federal eviction moratorium and vaccine mandates imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloomberg Law says.

The Supreme Court also cited the doctrine when it ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t have broad power to regulate climate change and that the Biden administration didn’t have the power to forgive student loans.

Somin argued that imposing “massive tariffs” is “pretty obviously” a decision with vast economic and political significance with high costs to the public. And the statute under which Trump claimed authority is far from clear, as were the statutes in the student loan and eviction moratorium cases, he wrote.

The IEEPA is a “vague statute” that authorizes presidents to restrict trade when there is “any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat,” Somin wrote.

Peter E. Harrell, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, also sees an argument regarding the major questions doctrine, particularly for “universal baseline” tariffs imposing a specific percentage charge on all imports.

“Courts should find that allowing Trump to waive his magic sharpie to sign an IEEPA executive order imposing tariffs would upset the balance Congress has long sought to strike when it delegates its tariff authority to the president,” he wrote in a Lawfare post.

Apart from the major questions doctrine, an argument could be made that the plain text of the IEEPA doesn’t give presidents tariff authority, Harrell wrote.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to set tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations. A president’s power to set tariffs comes from delegated authority by Congress, Harrell wrote. The IEEPA gives a president the power to ban or limit exports and imports, but the list “notably” does not explicitly include the power to impose tariffs or taxes.

Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, told Bloomberg Law that the opposite argument is that the broad powers granted by the law should include the lesser power of imposing tariffs.

The “IEEPA allows a very broad power to ban commerce, and so given that, why can’t the president do something less?” Prakash asks.

Somin sees yet another argument that the the nondelegation doctrine applies. It allows broad delegations of power when they are based on an “intelligible principle.” Some Supreme Court justices have expressed interest in “tightening up” the doctrine, and a tariff challenge “might be a good opportunity to do just that,” he wrote.

Somin doesn’t argue that a challenge to tariffs is likely to succeed.

“But the arguments are strong,” he wrote, particularly those in support of the major questions doctrine.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge accuses high-profile law firms of possible…

Trials & Litigation

Judge accuses high-profile law firms of possible effort to ‘gum up the works’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 12:49 pm CDT

A federal judge in Boston complained during a status conference Friday that lawyers from three high-profile law firms had filed so many motions and documents that they were failing to keep litigation just, speedy and inexpensive, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts scolded 11 lawyers involved in litigation over the sale of a Mexican funeral company.

Law360 has the story, summarized by Above the Law.

On the one side are lawyers from Boies Schiller Flexner, who represent Servicios Funerarios GG, a Mexican company alleging that it was misled about the financial condition of a funeral business that it bought.

On the other side are lawyers with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and with Ropes & Gray. They represent the Advent International Corp., a U.S. private equity investment company with control of the entities that owned the funeral business before its sale.

After Servicios Funerarios filed the fraud lawsuit, the Advent International Corp. filed counterclaims claiming that it was being extorted.

Talwani said the document-heavy litigation appeared to be “an effort to try to gum up the works.” Law360 published her comments.

“I don’t understand how 11 lawyers can jointly make what we are doing here difficult,” Talwani said. “It is not serving you well—your clients paying your bills—and I do want you to pass this message to your client: In order to try to keep your bills down, it would be helpful to try and figure out whether there are some things that don’t have to be fought about.”

“That might serve your clients,” Talwani said. “It might not serve your pocketbooks, and you can tell your clients that was my comment.”

Talwani spoke after the two sides were unable to agree on a litigation timeline. However, the issues extend beyond the Massachusetts case.

“The litigation has proved complicated,” Law360 reports, “as arrest warrants were filed against Advent personnel in the U.S. and Mexico.”

In addition, a related suit in Delaware chancery court sought to enforce terms of the sale agreement.

Carlos Sires of Boies Schiller Flexner told Law360 that its client “shares the court’s frustration and requested the conference because it wanted to address the delays caused by [the Advent International Corp.’s] objections to the depositions of some of its key employees involved in the [funeral home] transaction.”

Lawyers with Quinn Emanuel and Ropes & Gray did not immediately provide a comment to the ABA Journal in response to its emailed request.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. What’s next for Clio? ‘We’ll always remain…

Practice Technology

What’s next for Clio? ‘We’ll always remain focused on customer success’

By Victor Li

October 10, 2024, 3:10 pm CDT

As Jack Newton, the CEO and founder of Clio, a legal technology company, took the stage for his keynote address Monday at the 12th annual Clio Cloud Conference, happening this year in Austin, Texas, he was in a reflective mood.

The company has come a long way since it debuted at the ABA Techshow in 2008 and hosted its early Clio Cloud Conferences at the Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel in Chicago. For the longest time, the Vancouver, British Columbia-based company was content to market its practice management software primarily to small law firm and solo practice lawyers in the United States and Canada.

Today, the company is worth $3 billion and has expanded to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand while sponsoring an NHL team and packing convention centers for its annual conferences.

According to Clio officials, they hope to get even bigger in the coming years.

With the newly announced generative artificial intelligence productivity assistant Clio Duo leading the way, the company now boasts a suite of products aimed at helping lawyers with tasks including billing, accounting and client intake.

The goal is to dramatically expand its presence in the world of mid-market firms while establishing itself in more countries.

Ronnie Gurion, the chief operating officer at Clio, says the company is looking to be a global brand and already has relationships with consultants, lawyers and firms in nearly 130 countries in addition to the ones in which they already have a significant presence.

“We’ve really honed our go-to-market strategy over the last couple of years,” says Gurion, who joined Clio in 2021 after working in various executive roles for Expedia, Orbitz, Airbnb and Uber. “We expect to supercharge that now.”

Citing the findings in the company’s latest Legal Trends Report, Gurion points out that lawyers are leaving billions of dollars on the table, and that even the slightest bit of help could make a huge difference in terms of increasing productivity and bringing in more money.

“The rate of adoption of AI has been mind-blowing and exciting,” Gurion says. “Even a few minutes of savings can go a long way.”

Gurion acknowledges that the midsize firm market is wide, vast and diverse, with different needs and pain points compared to solos and small firms. Nevertheless, he asserts that Clio, which defines midsize firms as having between 20 to 200 lawyers, is well-positioned to serve them, pointing to the company’s emphasis on customer service and customization options.

To help the company realize its expansion goals, Clio, which is also an advertiser with the ABA Journal, plans to aggressively hire sales people, according to Jenny Dingus, senior vice president of global sales at Clio. Despite its plans to expand, Dingus says the company will maintain its focused, specialized mindset and hopes to use that to help Clio enter new markets.

“At our core, we are a legal tech company,” says Dingus, who spent 10 years at RingCentral, a cloud-based communication platform, before joining Clio in 2022. “All we do is support legal professionals and their needs.”

And as those needs expand, Clio plans to accommodate them. According to Jonathan Watson, the chief technology officer at Clio, Clio Duo does not yet have legal research and writing capabilities, nor is it capable of analyzing a firm’s past matters to help guide decision making on fees, billing rates, budgeting and internal strategy—but those options are on the horizon.

“Like any growth stage company, we have to think how our culture will evolve over time,” says Watson, who joined Clio in 2017 after working as director of engineering at Shopify. “But we’ll always remain focused on customer success.”

How do Canadian court systems and protocols differ from American ones? Let me count some of the ways.

1. Order in the court

I practiced in the Canadian courts for ages, and I have never seen a judge using a gavel in the courtroom. Yet there is not a caricature of a judge without a gavel in his hand. This must be an American creation.

I don’t know what the purpose of a gavel would be, in any event. The voice from the bench readily gets heard throughout. It’s not as if the courtroom is the size of Yankee Stadium. I believe the reason why the American judges have gavels is protection. They may not be Magnums, but I’ve seen these hammers, and a zealous litigant might think twice before lunging at the bench with his fingers.

2. What is a continuance?

Apparently, when American lawyers want to postpone or reschedule a hearing, they ask for a continuance. (I casually draw this conclusion after recently bingeing on Law & Order).

In Canada, we ask for an adjournment. This makes more sense to me, as you are more specifically asking the court to put the matter over—that is, to adjourn it. It also makes more sense to me because I am more familiar and comfortable with adjournment than continuance. Adjournment for me. Now let me continue.

3. Will counsel approach the bench

Also, no such creature in Canada. People watching from the body of the court might get the idea that the judge is having a private conversation with the lawyers to their respective detriment. In addition, I guess one party might have better ears than the other and thereby pick up the private conversation. He could then wink at his less-endowed opponent and all hell might break loose.

In Canadian courts, if the judge wants a private conversation with counsel, he recesses the court and says, “I want to see counsel in my chambers.” This then really gives the litigants a good reason to feel something secretive is going on behind their backs and their respective lawyers are trying to sell them out.

4. This comment will be stricken from the record

Another all-American feature. And an amusing one at that. We see a lawyer suggesting to a witness charged with attempted murder something improper and irrelevant like, “And I understand, sir, that you have an automatic firearm collection,” and after he cries “yes!” before the opposing lawyer gets a chance to object, he demands and the judge orders: “This testimony will be stricken from the record. The jury will disregard this evidence.”

I like this one the most. Here we have 12 people who are given the responsibility of determining whether a person goes free or possibly goes to jail—or worse. Yet the judge expects them to act like morons and willfully forget some of the juiciest testimony of the trial.

In Canadian courts, nothing ever gets stricken from the record. The judge may merely remind the jurors during his final charge that they should not take this evidence into account. I am sure no Canadian jury would even think of rendering their decision with this tainted evidence when asked to disregard it.

5. The king v. the people

In the United States, the prosecution side of a criminal case is apparently dealt with by the state’s inhabitants. In other words, the case will be designated something like People v. Brown or Texas v. Brown. (Once again, I casually draw this conclusion after recently bingeing on Law & Order).

In Canada, the people are replaced collectively and substituted by “the king.” The Latin designation is usually used, and so the court docket will read Rex v. Brown. Our prosecutors are even referred to as crown attorneys or simply as crowns.

South of the border, they’re district attorneys or DAs. I prefer the American system, as the Canadian one puts too much pressure on His Majesty the King. For example, if the culprit Mr. Brown decides to shoplift a tumbler of shampoo from a Walmart in Dallas, then it is the people of Texas who will prosecute him. When the knave Brown sees the docket reading The People of Texas v. Brown, he’ll no doubt get overwhelmed and think twice before committing another larceny.

All the people of Texas are certainly a massive force to face, more massive than even Walmart. But if he were to do the same thing in Edmonton, it would be Brown against the king. One-on-one. If he’s any sort of a hardened criminal, I doubt he’ll be put off by a septuagenarian gentleman across the ocean waiving his finger at him and saying, “Shame, shame.”

Furthermore, prosecuting thousands of charges a year must put a tremendous strain on the king. Imagine the busy schedule he has performing his monarchical duties, like traveling to New Guinea to watch tribal dances or attending state dinners from Ottawa to San Francisco. The last thing he needs is to get a call on his cellphone from some police officer in Edmonton asking, “Your Majesty, what do you want us to do with Mr. Brown?”

Even if Walmart might want the charges dropped, it is the king himself who is the aggrieved party, the victim so to speak. When that rogue snatched the shampoo from Walmart, little did he know His Majesty King Charles III might have to go next door to his wife, Queen Camilla, and say, “Excuse me, dear. Can I borrow your Head & Shoulders?” It would, therefore, only be fair for the loss to be spread among all the people as it is in the United States.

6. Garb

In the U.S., only the judges wear those black robes. Lawyers do not wear any specific outfit that would identify them as attorneys. In Canada, however, in the higher-court lawyers all don robes, white shirts with pointed ends and white tabs.

We also have our own entrance into the courtroom. Wearing the outfit allows us unconditionally to go through that door that says “Barristers entrance” on it. Thrilling actually. You Americans don’t know what you’re missing.

And our confrères in England also wear wigs, traditionally made of horses’ hair. The theory is that barristers still wear wigs because it represents the history of the common law, allowing for a visual separation of the law from those before it. Sounds convincing. Then again, I always thought the British were eccentric. I’d pass on that horses’ hair. I think we lawyers can still enjoy this visual separation by going through those aforementioned doors.

As I think about our respective court systems, they both have pluses and minuses. But what does bother me a bit is the burden on the shoulders of His Majesty. All I can say is, “God save the king.”

---

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

I recall as a kid growing up in Montreal, we had difficulties with a next-door neighbor. Among other things, Madame Poirier owned a large mut, Roger, which she allowed the run of the land. This included Roger doing his business on our land. It often led to confrontations with my mother, as Madame Poirier insisted that Roger was just doing what dogs do.

One autumn morning, both women were out raking leaves when Roger decided to pay our yard a visit, dumping a large calling card next to a prized tomato bush. This did not sit well with my mom.

An argument ensued, with my mom pointing to Roger in an accusatory manner with her rake. Madame Poirier then unapologetically retaliated by taking a swing at my mother with her rake. Fortunately, my mother ducked quickly, avoiding a potential decapitation.

Roger, who to this point was seated comfortably observing the melee, joined the confrontation, scooting toward my mom and barking. My mother responded by tossing her rake at Roger like an Olympic javelin gold medalist. The rake missed its mark, but Roger decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and he darted home, tail between his legs.

My dad rushed out and thought that it was best to avoid escalation and to get my mom into the house, thereby preventing a duel by rakes. He then called the police.

Two officers arrived, one being significantly older than the other. The younger officer took a statement from my mother, who was quite histrionic. She described Madame Poirier’s rake like a samurai sword and Roger like a Tasmanian devil. I don’t recall the whole conversation, but I would say her categorization of Madame Poirier was a ringer for Lady Macbeth.

The younger officer made frantic scribbles into his notebook, nodding his head and uttering a few well-timed “hmm”s. My mom no doubt expected the police to charge Madame Poirier with attempted murder.

The older officer, who was listening with a sheepish grin, had not said too much so far. He told my mom that he would speak to our neighbor and return. After about 15 minutes, he came back.

He told my mother that Madame Poirier had a different version of the event, claiming self-defense. He said she could possibly lay an assault charge against Madame Poirier but cautioned that doing so could lead to more neighborly acrimony. The officer, Laforme, said he cautioned Madame Poirier to avoid provocative actions.

He recommended to my mom that she see a lawyer for advice and then let him know whether she wanted him to “go by the book.” I did not quite understand the meaning of this expression.

My dad was ambivalent about pushing this matter further, but my mother urged him to see a lawyer. We set up a consultation to which my parents took me along, as they deemed me to be an important witness.

The lawyer, a gray-haired gentleman by the name of Horowitz, who wore a three-piece suit, listened to my mother relating the tribulations of the event. She now focused on whether we could have Roger impounded and removed.

I visualized the scene in the The Wizard of Oz, where Almira Gulch pays a visit to Dorothy Gale’s house with a sheriff’s order allowing her to remove Dorothy’s little dog, Toto. This relief that my mom sought regarding Roger was in addition to taking legal action against our neighbor over the rake, which she now described like a weapon of mass destruction.

Horowitz concluded that some action might be possible from a criminal and/or civil angle, if my mother wanted to pursue her rights in accordance with “the big book.”

I thought about what that officer Laforme had said about “the book” and wondered whether that book was different from “the big book.” Was the book that Horowitz was referring to larger?

The lawyer cautioned my parents that legal proceedings—especially between neighbors—can turn ugly. He said involvement in a criminal proceeding would be stressful, and launching a civil action would be costly in addition to taking a while to resolve. My parents said they would think about it.

Within a few days, my parents received a bill from Horowitz for $50. This was about in the range of my father’s weekly salary as a tailor. I recall my dad lighting up a cigarette and puffing it profusely as he scanned the bill.

My parents soon opted not to “go by the book.” Neither one—big or regular. Maybe the bill had something to do with it. My dad actually often encouraged me to become a lawyer, saying “lawyers make a lot of money,” though I cannot say that Roger was a catalyst for me pursuing this noble profession.

I do recall the subject of “the book” coming up while in practice. After getting called to the bar, I was fortunate to work under the wings of a seasoned litigator and mentor named Hank. One evening, we both attended a dinner for retiring police officers. Near the end of the evening, one of them named McKenzie asked whether anyone could give him a ride to the subway station. Hank readily volunteered. In fact, he passed the subway station and drove McKenzie all the way home, even though it was out of the way for us.

I asked Hank why he didn’t just drop the gentleman off at the subway station as he had requested. Hank replied, “While in practice, you will run into situations where you have some discretion and choices. Whenever possible, give people more than they expect. There will be many situations where it will be best not to be a stickler, even when you are in the right. I could have just taken him to the subway station, and that would have been fine, according to Hoyle, ‘by the book.’”

Not long afterward, I had to visit a client who was a prisoner at a local Toronto jail. Visiting lawyers had to sign in and were ushered in according to arrival. For some reason, there were delays for lawyers getting into the interview area. I was near the end of the queue. To my surprise, I heard someone calling me. It was McKenzie. He said, “You’re the guy who works with Hank?”

Looks like McKenzie had some sway in the jail, and he got me in almost immediately. I thought of Mark Twain, who said, “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”

I am not sure what I did right, but McKenzie certainly did the right thing. I was happy that he did not “go by the book.” Any sized book.

Oh, yes, as for my parents, to our surprise, the situation calmed down. For some reason or other, the neighbor decided to curb her dog.

Is it best, even for lawyers, to sometimes not “go by the book”? Nay or yea?

---

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue to pursue his humor writing and speaking passions. His just-launched book is Boomers, Zoomers and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging. For more information, visit MarcelsHumour.com and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.