“With Just Enough Of Learning To Misquote”: Jonathan Turley misquoting the McCarthy hearings in his tirade about the Alaska senate race wouldn’t be a big deal by itself, except that it speaks to his overall lack of intellectual rigor.

The Class Of 2026 Bombed The Bar Exam, On The Old Test, No Less: You can’t blame the new test for this one.

The 4 Scariest Words For Lawyers: This is actually a pretty frightening phrase!

Awards Season!: The American Legal Technology Awards take us back to first principles.

The post ‘I Miss Brad’: Heading Into The Midterms Without The Legal Might Of Paul, Weiss — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

In 2006, a conservative, old-line San Francisco firm merged with a scrappy, tech-focused New York firm to create a bicoastal Am Law 100 player with a mouthful of a name (five surnames long). The cultures never meshed, the two sides’ compensation models clashed, and within two years all three name partners from the New York side had bolted. What is the name of the firm that hastily scrubbed their names from the masthead and went hunting for a rescue merger, but when that fell through, voted to dissolve in October 2008 — one of the first big casualties of the Great Recession, alongside Heller Ehrman. 

Hint: After the New York name partners departed, the firm shortened its name to honor only its San Francisco founder, who, as ATL noted at the time, “isn’t going anywhere.” Its failed rescue partner was Nixon Peabody.

See the answer on the next page.

The post This Merger Of Two Biglaw Firms Lasted Less Than Two Years appeared first on Above the Law.

Hello First Monday!

What is a “First Monday” edition? Every Monday here at the LER you receive a summary of the top ten legal ethics headlines. But, on the “First Monday” of the month, you get lots more — the headlines plus reading recommendations, legal ethics trivia, job postings, events, and other features.

Last week took me from Texas to Atlanta to Detroit to Washington DC. The highlight was attending the American Inns of Court’s annual Celebration of Excellence at the U.S. Supreme Court. You can read about this year’s honorees here. And headline #1 below belongs to my co-author Keith Swisher (Arizona), who won the Warren E. Burger Prize for his scholarship examining the ethical challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the legal profession. Other awardees included Judy Perry Martinez, a former president of the American Bar Association (ABA) who received the 2026 Lewis F. Powell Jr. Award for Professionalism and Ethics, which is one of the highest honors bestowed by the American Inns of Court.

It was a welcome reminder, amid a week of headlines about ethical failures and institutional challenges, that the legal profession also has extraordinary individuals working to uphold its highest ideals.

Highlights from Last Week – Top Ten Headlines 📰

#1 Keith Swisher Wins the Warren E. Burger Ethics Prize. From the American Inns of Court: “Keith Swisher is the 2026 winner of the prestigious Warren E. Burger Prize, a writing competition sponsored by the American Inns of Court to promote scholarship in the areas of professionalism, ethics, civility, and excellence. [P]resented in October at the 2026 Celebration of Excellence at the Supreme Court of the United States, the award recognizes Swisher’s paper ‘The Moral Gaps in Legal Machines.’ The winning paper warns of the moral and ethical challenges inherent in the use of artificial intelligence in the legal world. On the plus side, Swisher writes, so-called ‘legal machines’ that can autonomously or semi-autonomously do the work of lawyers and judges could prove much more efficient and productive than humans. These machines will not, however, be ethical or accountable. The technology industry and its partners must address five key issues—legal machines’ lack of moral responsibility, inability to empathize, difficulties with new or challenging cases, lack of legal ethics, and lack of accountability—before they can ethically and competently take over the field of law. Until these concerns are addressed, Swisher argues, legal machines need to be kept under close human supervision.” Read more here.

#2 “Here Are the U.S. Attorneys Who Are Carrying Out Trump’s Grievance Agenda.” From The New York Times: “Together, they have pursued cases against the president’s enemies and protesters and amplified false claims of widespread election fraud, often citing thin evidence.” Read more here (gift link).

#3 “NYSBA Releases In-Depth Guidelines To Advise Attorneys on Ethical Use of AI.” From the New York State Bar Association: “Guidelines on artificial intelligence approved by the New York State Bar Association will help avoid the unauthorized practice of law, ensure that legal decisions are in human hands, and reduce bias in legal proceedings. On Saturday, the New York State Bar Association’s governing body, the House of Delegates, adopted the report ‘Legal Ethics Guidelines for Lawyers’ Use of Artificial Intelligence.’” Read more here.

#4 “What Does the Weil Gotshal Implosion Mean for the Law-Firm Industry?” From The Wall Street Journal: “The turmoil at Weil, Gotshal & Manges has led its leaders to wind down the law firm. They took the steps as the firm hemorrhaged top lawyers and had no clear succession plan after its incoming chair declined to step into the role.” Read more here (gift link).

#5 “Judge Wants to Know if Trump Attorneys Violated Ethics in One of 2 Cases to Change D.C. Landscape.” From the Los Angeles Times: “A federal judge said Friday she would open a ‘formal inquiry’ to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.” Read more here.

#6 “Trump Wants to Kick ‘Rogue Activist Judges’ Off Cases. Can He?” From The New York Times: “A Supreme Court decision and ethics opinions give judges room to speak their minds.” Read more here (gift link).

#7 “Former House Speaker Asks AG to Probe UNH Law Judicial Ethics Conference.” From the Manchester Herald: “Rep. William O’Brien claims the event scheduled for Nov. 10 provides improper aid to Democratic candidates ahead of the governor’s race.” Read more here.

#8 “Dozens of Past U.S. Judges Defend Minnesota Bench Against Federal Ethics Complaint.” From The Minnesota Star Tribune: “The Department of Justice filed the complaint alleging misconduct by Minnesota federal judges. A group of their former colleagues from across the U.S. say it’s baseless.” Read more here.

#9 “Texas Judge’s Racial Comments to Lawyer Sparked Investigation.” From Bloomberg Law: “A lawyer’s misconduct complaint against US District Judge Ada Brown stemmed from a hearing during which she repeatedly directed racial insults at him, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg Law.” Read more here.

#10 “Trump Administration Unlawfully Fired Maurene Comey, Judge Rules.” From The New York Times: “A Manhattan judge on Monday ruled that Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and the daughter of one of Mr. Trump’s best-known critics, was unlawfully fired last year. In a 55-page ruling, Judge Jesse M. Furman of Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote that the Justice Department violated the separation of powers, federal administrative law and Ms. Comey’s due process rights when it fired her in July 2025.” Read more here (gift link).

Recommended Reading 📖

“The Ethics of Trademark Policing” by Jon Lee (Oklahoma). From the abstract:

Aggressive policing of trademark rights, often called “trademark bullying,” is widely seen as a significant problem that impacts both the targets of bullying and the public’s interest in fair competition. Accordingly, we might assume that lawyers who advise or assist their clients in such enforcement efforts must be acting unethically. Is that true? And, if so, why has nothing been done about it?

This Article comprehensively examines the ethics of engaging in trademark policing, given the competing obligations that lawyers owe to clients, third persons, and tribunals. The Article demonstrates that, in most instances, actions that might be considered “trademark bullying” do not run afoul of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, even if they may produce undesirable consequences. In fact, a lawyer at times must carry out these enforcement efforts to fulfill their ethical obligations to clients. This counterintuitive proposition stems from three sources: trademark doctrine, which encourages trademark holders to police their own marks; the uncertainties of trademark litigation, which make it nearly impossible to know when a claim of infringement or dilution is frivolous; and the Model Rules, which set such a low bar for avoiding disciplinary intervention.

Yet there are limits. In certain situations, aggressive trademark policing may cross ethical lines. The Article explains why courts and state disciplinary agencies are not equipped to regulate this type of misconduct when it occurs, and it suggests an alternative solution that leverages the authority and expertise of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Download from SSRN here.

“The Duty to Disobey Unethical Orders: Lawyers and the Rule of Law” by Ray Brescia (Albany). From the abstract:

Members of the legal profession have an affirmative duty to refuse unethical directives and report professional misconduct, a responsibility analogous to the military’s obligation to disobey illegal orders. This duty is premised on the fact that lawyers function as fiduciaries, not just for their clients, but for the legal system itself. This Article outlines the legal profession’s obligation to adhere to two “imperatives,” what it calls the “rule-of-law imperative” and the “independence imperative,” embedded within the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and associated professional obligations that require that lawyers reject instrumental manipulations of the law that subvert democratic institutions. The Article examines three case studies to illustrate the fragility of these professional obligations in the face of political pressure: the whistleblowing and subsequent termination of DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, who refused to sign a frivolous brief or support the Trump Administration’s willful defiance of court orders regarding mass deportations; recent instances of private law firm capitulation, describing how such firms, under threat of executive retribution against them and their clients, entered into settlement agreements that restricted their future practice and compromised their independence; and the advocacy on the part of several lawyers who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This Article views these case studies in light of the rule-of-law and independence imperatives and proposes a reform agenda designed to promote both.

Download from SSRN here.

Get Hired 💼

Did you miss the 600+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all here.

Associate Director of Assessment Development, National Conference of Bar Examiners — Madison, WI. From the posting: “The Associate Director of Assessment Development oversees the creation of content and the construction of assessment forms for one or more of NCBE’s assessment programs, with a main focus on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.” Salary range from $127,000 – $158,000. Learn more and apply here.

Conflicts Attorney, Ashurst Perkins Coie — Multiple Locations. From the posting: “The Conflicts Attorney will independently review, research, and resolve conflicts issues related to firm new business and staff personnel and ensure compliance with ethical standards in all jurisdictions as well as firm policies.” Salary range from $158,120 to $322,710 depending on location. Learn more and apply here.

Office of General Counsel – Conflicts and Ethics, Latham & Watkins — Chicago and Other Locations. From the posting: “This role will be responsible for resolving professional ethics conflicts and related compliance issues by applying legal ethics rules, professional responsibility principles, Latham & Watkins policies, and practical judgment to lateral clearances, new business matters, outside counsel guidelines, engagement terms, waivers, ethics walls, and related risk-management issues, while coordinating with partners, Ethics Committee Members, and other stakeholders to resolve conflicts issues, communicating status updates and following through until the matter is resolved or appropriately escalated.” Salary range from $170,000 – $200,000. Learn more and apply here.

Professional Responsibility Counsel, Foley & Lardner — Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, New York, Washington DC. From the posting: “The Professional Responsibility Counsel (“PRC”) is a staff lawyer who facilitates the firm’s compliance with ethics and regulatory requirements. The PRC is a member of the administrative management team and is a practicing lawyer whose sole client is the firm. A successful candidate will have demonstrated understanding of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct; understanding of conflicts of interest rules, including the ability to identify conflicts and determine appropriate resolution; and strong legal research and writing skills with an ability to translate legal requirements into operational process.” Salary range from $130,900 to $235,700, depending on location. Learn more and apply here.

Keep in Touch 📝

• News tips? Announcements? Events? A job to post? Reading recommendations? Email legalethics@substack.com – but be sure to subscribe first, otherwise the email won’t be delivered.

Renee Knake Jefferson holds the endowed Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics and is a Professor of Law at the University of Houston. Check out more of her writing at the Legal Ethics Roundup. Find her on X (formerly Twitter) at @reneeknake or Bluesky at legalethics.bsky.social. 

The post Legal Ethics Roundup: Can AI Be Ethical?, DOJ Lawyers Under Scrutiny, Weil Gotshal Implodes, ‘Rogue Activist Judges,’ Reading Recommendations, Jobs & More appeared first on Above the Law.

I immediately thought about enterprise technology meetings.

Someone wants a faster way to review contracts. Someone else builds an impressive prototype. Within weeks, the company is discussing hiring engineers, connecting databases, and maintaining its own application.

Dinner now comes with payroll.

The “SaaS apocalypse” conversation gives this temptation fresh energy. If AI can help us create software, why keep paying somebody else for it? As a builder, I understand the appeal. A working prototype feels like possibility. A renewal invoice rarely produces the same emotional response.

Legal leaders should help the business think through what happens after that first burst of enthusiasm. Each technology decision creates an ongoing obligation to maintain something, depend on someone, or coordinate several moving parts.

Here is how I would approach the conversation.

Build: Who Will Own Tuesday Morning?

Building can make excellent sense when a company has distinctive expertise, data, or a workflow that creates meaningful business advantage.

The harder question concerns an ordinary Tuesday six months after launch. The system produces a questionable answer. An integration breaks. The person who wrote the prompts has moved to another team.

Who owns that Tuesday?

Before approving a build, I want to know which capability deserves the investment, who will maintain it, and how the organization will preserve the judgment embedded in it. I also want a budget that includes testing, security, documentation, support, and the inevitable changes.

The prototype proves something can work. The operating plan explains how the company intends to live with it.

Buy: What Are We Paying to Make Better?

A commercial product brings somebody else’s accumulated investment into the business. That can include specialized data, evaluation methods, integrations, support, and experience with problems the buyer has yet to encounter.

Those are worth examining closely when evaluating the price.

The discussion around value pricing raises a useful question for legal teams: What improvement will this purchase actually produce?

Consider a vendor promising to save lawyers 10 hours a week. Those hours might allow faster responses, more work handled internally, or greater attention to difficult matters. Turning them into a cash savings claim requires additional evidence.

An outcome-based fee introduces another layer. If payment depends on faster contract completion, the parties need to agree when the clock starts, how delays are treated, and whether quality remained acceptable. A system that closes matters quickly by routing every difficult issue elsewhere could look excellent on the wrong dashboard.

Legal can make the commercial promise measurable before it becomes a billing dispute.

Integrate: Follow One Decision Through The Systems

Often, the business already has much of what it needs. The opportunity lies in connecting existing tools with specialized intelligence and the company’s own knowledge.

Take a supplier review. One system holds the agreement. Another supplies benchmarks. An AI tool recommends an escalation. A procurement platform records the decision.

Walk through that sequence with the people responsible for it. Which source controls when the systems disagree? Who may act on the recommendation? Where is the correction recorded? What happens if one provider becomes unavailable?

Integration can preserve flexibility. It also creates dependencies that deserve an owner.

Legal leaders are well placed to trace those dependencies because we spend our careers asking what happens when an apparently straightforward arrangement gets complicated.

Wait: Put A Date On The Decision

Waiting deserves a place in the framework.

Perhaps the company has poorly organized data, an unresolved workflow, or too little evidence that anyone will use the proposed tool. Buying software under those conditions can add an expensive new layer to an existing problem.

A useful decision to wait includes a trigger for reconsideration. Complete the data cleanup. Test a defined workflow. Revisit the options after a limited trial.

Give someone responsibility for gathering the missing evidence and set a review date.

Bring Legal Into The Ownership Conversation

By the time a vendor agreement reaches legal, the company may already have made its most consequential choices about data, authority, cost, and dependence.

We should help shape those choices earlier. Ask what the business needs to own, what it can entrust to a provider, and what it can realistically maintain.

Before the company buys the restaurant, somebody should know who is opening it tomorrow.

Olga V. Mack is the CEO of TermScout, where she builds legal systems that make contracts faster to understand, easier to operate, and more trustworthy in real business conditions. Her work focuses on how legal rules allocate power, manage risk, and shape decisions under uncertainty. A serial CEO and former General Counsel, Olga previously led a legal technology company through acquisition by LexisNexis. She teaches at Berkeley Law and is a Fellow at CodeX, the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics. She has authored several books on legal innovation and technology, delivered six TEDx talks, and her insights regularly appear in Forbes, Bloomberg Law, VentureBeat, TechCrunch, and Above the Law. Her work treats law as essential infrastructure, designed for how organizations actually operate.

The post Build, Buy, Integrate, Or Wait: The AI Decision Legal Leaders Need To Own appeared first on Above the Law.

Last week, for the first time ever in my life, I made an investment based solely on the ground that the American government is corrupt.

That decision speaks volumes to me; perhaps it will to you, too.  Here’s my kakistocracy thesis.

Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager who’s the CEO of Pershing Square, is in Trump’s camp.  Ackman endorsed Trump in 2024; he calls Trump “the most pro-business president we’ve ever had;” and Ackman apparently has Trump’s phone number in his contacts list.  Ackman has also donated over a half million bucks to Trump’s campaign or associated PACs.  Because Ackman’s a billionaire, he can afford to donate more when the time comes.

Ackman has made a large investment in Fannie Mae.  (That’s “FNMA,” for anyone foolish enough to read this column for investment advice.)  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the two government-sponsored enterprises that buy mortgages to stabilize the housing finance system.  Both entities were under distress during the subprime mortgage crisis.  In 2008, the federal government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under federal control.   

The U.S. Treasury continues to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in senior preferred stock and massive liquidation preferences from the 2008 bailout.  The Treasury also holds zero-cost warrants representing up to 79.9% of the common equity ownership in both enterprises.

Ackman believes that the Trump administration will release Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from government control and allow the mortgage giants to exit conservatorship.  Ackman points out that Fannie Mae has fundamentally repaired its financial standing over the last 15 years; he says that the enterprise holds significantly more capital than it did historically before or during the 2008 financial crisis.  Ackman asserts that accounting adjustments, strong underlying profitability, and potential relisting opportunities on public exchanges could unlock hidden value in Fannie Mae.  Ackman deems Fannie Mae to be a great “asymmetric investment” — meaning the potential for massive upside (with the stock appreciating from the current $4 or $5 to perhaps $40 or $50) significantly outweighs the remaining downside risk.

Frankly, I just barely understand that analysis.  But consider my much easier kakistocracy analysis:  Ackman has invested a ton of money in Fannie Mae.  Ackman needs Trump to do something to make that investment pay off.  Ackman can afford to pay more money in ways that might indirectly induce Trump to act.  If that happened, Ackman would recover multiples of the cash that he spent currying Trump’s favor.  In our current kakistocracy, I’m wagering that something like that might happen.

Ackman might buy some crypto, or kick in a few tens of millions to build a ballroom, or throw some dough to a PAC, or whatever.  Trump might then decide that he wants to release Fannie Mae from conservatorship on terms that will make Ackman’s investment multiply ten-fold.  (It’s no skin off Trump’s teeth to do this — particularly after the midterms, when there’s no political price to pay — and Trump would love to do a favor for another billionaire, who just gave Trump a few tens of millions of dollars.  Not only that: Trump’s decision might even be economically correct.  What do I know?)

This is of course all speculation based on complete ignorance of the situation — a position unbiased by knowledge.  I’m surely not suggesting any illegality here.  I’ve never met Ackman; he’s probably as honest as the day is long.  Buying crypto or donating to a ballroom is certainly lawful.  And Trump is free to make whatever decisions he cares to about political issues — so long as those decisions are not a quid pro quo for the money, which they naturally wouldn’t be (because that would be a crime).

But that’s my investment thesis, pure and simple: Ackman needs Trump to do something.  Ackman will spend some money.  Trump will make a decision.  Ackman will get richer, and I’ll go along for the ride.

Please don’t bet the mortgage (so to speak) on this based on my thinking.  Put almost all your dough into low-cost index funds.  After you’ve done that, if you have some spare change left in your desk drawer, consider gambling it on Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (or similar situations), because America’s institutions can no longer be trusted.  You might as well profit from America’s descent into the abyss.

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

The post Investing In A Kakistocracy appeared first on Above the Law.

Part of playing this character is sounding like a well read intellectual. Alas, “sounding like” is not the same as being one, which is how the professor managed to misquote one of the most iconic statements of mid-century American history.

Turley’s latest post on the Alaska Senate race seeks to scold Democrats for not being enraged about the fact that two people are named Dan Sullivan. One Dan Sullivan seeks reelection as Alaska’s senator. Also on the ballot is another, considerably less viable Dan Sullivan. This describes the state of affairs throughout the race, but as it comes to its end, the GOP has finally realized that it may well lose that seat to Democrat Mary Peltola. So, over the last few days, Republicans have rallied around the second Sullivan as a “dirty trick” designed to steal the election from the other Sullivan. In the process, the DOJ went so far as to demand that the state refuse to accept the results… but only if the Republicans lose. That take has proven to be a loser in courts.

For his part, Turley opens his broadside against the Democrats citing George Orwell and closing on the Army-McCarthy hearings. It’s a properly erudite framing for Turley’s self-caricature as an academic.

Except for the way he doesn’t bother to get the quote right.

We are left again in that moment with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954: “Have you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?” The answer today is clear: No, but I have the votes.

Yeah… that’s not what he said. In reality, Welch very famously said, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Look, the sentiment is roughly the same. If the guy at the end of the bar quoted it wrong, only a true pedant would correct him. Which is to say I would correct him, but I’d feel a little bad about it. But Turley is not the guy at the end of the bar. He’s a law professor framing a hot take around a historical quote to sound smart even though he cannot be bothered to make sure he’s even got the quote right.

But this speaks to a bigger issue with Turley’s whole schtick. At a fundamental level, he’s just intellectually lazy. The confidence that drives him to (mis)quote history from memory is the same assurance he brings to his slapdash legal analysis. From rewriting Martin Luther King Jr’s life to firing off his misunderstanding of civil procedure to concocting conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden based on warping space-time, Turley just sort of says stuff. Accuracy isn’t really a priority.

According to New York Times reporting summarized by Alaska Public Media, operatives aligned with Democrat Mary Peltola and the DSCC allegedly recruited Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. onto the ballot to siphon support from incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. Despite this accusation, the other Sullivan says he had “no conversations whatsoever with the Peltola campaign.”

If it did happened as alleged, then it was incredibly stupid — not because it’s sleazy, but because it wouldn’t work.

Turley’s piece quotes Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia:

But, in Alaska, they have ranked-choice voting, and third-party candidates are very relevant. And so, if you recruited a third-party candidate who can take votes away from your opponent, that’s part of the process, and that’s just how it works in Alaska.

That is not how it works in Alaska. In fact, that is the OPPOSITE of how it works in Alaska.

Turley had an opportunity to dunk on Subramanyam here, but that wouldn’t fit the GOP narrative, so instead he credulously accepts Subramanyam’s incorrect framing and grumbles that the congressman “insisted that it showed how all states should embrace the widely criticized ranked-choice voting system.”

Except, ranked choice voting is exactly why this tactic would never work. Turley adds with an air of hopefulness, “Alaskans may finally reject the [ranked choice] system this year,” even though recruiting a decoy candidate actually could undermine an election in a normal, first-past-the-post election system.

Alaska runs a top-four primary followed by a ranked choice general. If nobody tops 50 percent of first-choice votes in the general election, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots that placed the last-place candidate first will have votes awarded to their second-place candidate in the next round. It keeps running like this until someone has a majority.

If a confused Republican voter could not figure out which Sullivan was which, they would just need to rank both of them — first and second — in whatever order.

One of two things happens in this scenario: Either Peltola has more votes than both Sullivans combined, meaning there’s no “vote splitting” because the real Sullivan was going to lose anyway. Or Peltola beats each Sullivan individually, but the Sullivans together outpoll her. After the first round (or second round… there’s a fourth candidate who will disappear first), the weaker Sullivan gets eliminated, and every ballot that ranked him first now counts for its second choice, and the “right” Sullivan wins.

Recruiting a decoy in a ranked choice system doesn’t split votes, it delays the inevitable by a couple minutes.

Preventing vote splitting is the point of the system! It’s an instant runoff that asks every voter up front, “if your first choice doesn’t make the runoff, who would you vote for next?” It saves the cost of a second election, and it defangs spoilers. Harvard Law’s Nicholas Stephanopoulos told FactCheck.org the scheme is “much less impactful in Alaska than just about anywhere else.” That’s being overly fair to the prospect of a Republican voter who sees two Dan Sullivans, votes for the wrong one, and then turns in the rest of the ballot blank. And, with all due respect for the challenges facing America’s stupid, that’s not an impact worth strategizing around.

This isn’t actually hard!

Yet, as Turley noted, Alaska’s Ballot Measure 2 would repeal ranked choice and return the state to partisan primaries and first-past-the-post. Trump insists Sullivan “would win easily” without RCV, even though the system only protects him from the alternative Sullivan. As Reason points out, without ranked choice the incumbent would simply lose all of the roughly 2.5 percent the non-senator Sullivan pulled in the primary. The Senator will instead be adding most if not all of that to his total.

A legal analyst would perform basic research on the math and history of ranked choice voting to counsel voters not to imagine threats to electoral sanctity that don’t exist. A conservative legal analyst could even use it as an opportunity to mock any Democrat who thought vote splitting was even possible in a ranked choice election. But Turley is neither. He’s a cartoon character that right-wing media hauls out to lend a veneer of credibility to their preferred talking points.

And in this case, the preferred narrative is to accuse Democrats of stealing elections, even if (or especially if) the facts don’t back that up.

We are left again in that moment — not with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 — but with Jonathan Turley. “Have you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?”

“That’s Part of the Process”: Democratic Leaders Embrace Voter Confusion Tactics as Harmless or Humorous [jonathanturley.com]

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

The post Jonathan Turley Botching Famous Quote Just Tip Of Latest Intellectual Laziness appeared first on Above the Law.

The State Bar of California announced Friday that just 48.3% of the 7,942 people who sat for the July General Bar Exam passed. That’s down from 54.8% last year, the lowest July pass rate in five years, and, per Law.com, the first time since 2018 that a majority of summer takers failed.

And no, you can’t pin this on the repeaters. First-time takers passed at 64.7%, five points below last July’s 69.7%. Repeaters had a rougher go at 14.1%, and those on their fourth attempt or more cleared at just 7.7%. Brutal.

Now, California has a notoriously difficult bar exam, but it’s not like that was the only jurisdiction to see a tumble.

New York, the largest exam in the country, passed 67% of its 9,936 takers, down from 70% last year. Texas and Florida slid too. Nationally, the mean MBE score dropped from 142.4 last July to 140.7. By one tally of NCBE’s data, 35 of the 42 jurisdictions that reported results for both summers saw their pass rates fall.

You might be tempted to blame this on the shiny new exam. This was, after all, the summer the NextGen UBE debuted. But it rolled out in only a handful of jurisdictions, and none of the big four were among them. New York and Texas stuck with the legacy UBE, Florida gave its own exam, and California was back on the MBE after the February 2025 debacle that had the State Bar handing out free retakes like a clearance rack. These were the old, familiar tests, and that has folks scrambling for answers. As per Reuters:

Some law professors have speculated that over-reliance on AI for studying and an increase in student accommodations in law school could be contributing factors to this year’s ​decline in bar pass rates.

Bar exam tutor Sean Silverman said bar exam results fluctuate year-to-year ​and it’s difficult to draw conclusions from one year of data.

“With that said, there was such a lopsided ‌result ⁠this year with over 75% of the states that have reported results publicly reporting lower scores in 2026 than in 2025,” Silverman said.

Congratulations to everyone who passed — and to everyone who didn’t, a gentle reminder that California’s February exam passed 30.8% of takers this year, so maybe crack those outlines a little early.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1