"The camera advances toward a finely dressed couple kissing in Central Park.... The man and woman start to look nervous...."

"The video was released Thursday. Within hours, internet sleuths figured out that the two are colleagues at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a white-shoe law firm in Manhattan. The man, Nathaniel D. Cullerton, is 45 and a partner. The woman, Kelsey Borenzweig, is 29, and an associate. Cullerton is married. Everyone from the Daily Mail to Above the Law covered the scandal, and the video has since amassed more than 5 million views. 'Cheating in public, wife is a lawyer, got caught on camera? Triple homicide 😭,' read one comment, which has 224,000 likes, on TikTok under a repost of the video. 'People are way too comfortable cheating, make cheating illegal,' read another that got 43,000 likes...."

I'm reading "Welcome to Secular Sharia/Drunks, cheaters, and Karens beware: TikTok is the new home for public floggings" (The Free Press).

That article is summarized in video, here:

"Of all knowledge work, law seems almost perfectly primed for AI because so much of the work involves reading, categorising, and pattern-matching across vast reams of documents."

"It is the type of work AI does well — and tirelessly. It was reported last week that Kirkland & Ellis, the world’s largest law firm, plans to spend $500 million building a bespoke AI system to power its practice. Meanwhile, New York firm Fried Frank has just launched an AI tool designed specifically for its private equity clients, and Slaughter and May has rolled out Harvey across all its practice areas...."

From "Why top lawyers fear that AI is destroying the 'expert’s edge'/When a US law school announced a ban on the tech, some in the industry said students would lack vital skills. The signs are that ‘Big Law’ is leaning in to AI" (London Times).

Meanwhile, at UC Berkeley School of Law there's a new policy banning using A.I. for "outlining, drafting, revising, translating or editing any work submitted for credit." And law firms are complaining because they want to hire new lawyers who are good at using A.I. to do law. How are the schools supposed to teach law now? What's the good of a ban that only restricts the students who are punctilious about rules and terrified of getting caught? Why do those poor souls bear all the burdens? And how effective are law professors going to be about detecting the violations and imposing consequences? Absolutely terrible I would guess.

"There's something that's kind of weird out there... Can I call it the painfully unsophisticated, highly educated political hobbyist?"

"And this is the audience for an awful lot of political media... and it is people who have a pretty good degree of education. They're highly attuned to politics and they're highly partisan. And that last bit of it — the highly partisan — actually means they become much less sophisticated about politics and law because... the volume consumers of political media are the most wrong about their political opponents. So... your median TED Talk listener is probably... a very partisan audience.... And if... you're left-leaning, and you're highly partisan, and you're highly attuned to political media, what is the one thing that you have in your mind about the Supreme Court? Totally biased against this [challenge to Trump's power]. You can't win. It's always gonna rule for Trump, blah, blah, blah.... They are just deluged with... it's rigged, it's rigged, it's illegitimate, it's rigged..... So then you have this attorney come in who's a fellow liberal who won in front of the six three Supreme Court. And he is going to, if that's your mindset, look like Zeus walking down from Mount Olympus.... You know, I walked in to the Lion's den of the 6-3 Republican court and got a 6-3 Republican court to strike down the signature policy of a Republican administration. Look at me. I am the God king!.... And it is a message that lands with a particular audience incredibly well because... it's premised on all of their false assumptions about the Supreme Court. If you actually walked in with a realistic view, he was the favorite. He was the favorite!"

Said David French in the new episode of the podcast "Advisory Opinions," "The TED Talk Heard ‘Round the World" (at 00:44:17)(transcript at that link).

And here's the Neal Katyal TED talk they're talking about.

"Skipping meetings and sending an A.I. note taker instead has been called 'the latest office power move.'"

"Wallet-size recorders that use A.I. to log live interactions have become a product category.... A.I.-generated transcripts... preserve all sorts of things — offhand comments, quickly corrected statements, jokes — that humans would rarely write in the meeting minutes.... In a lawsuit or an investigation, that can make every word uttered discoverable. Even worse, say corporate lawyers: Sharing the meeting with an A.I. bot may void attorney-client privilege.... [Another] concern is accuracy. An A.I. transcript could, for example, record 'does matter' as 'doesn’t matter.' If that sentence comes up in court years later, the mistake may be difficult to remember. Corporate lawyers also worry about A.I. note takers’ lack of context and discretion. For example, recording every word of a board meeting, no matter how tangential the remark, could be legally perilous...."

From "All Those A.I. Note Takers? They’re Making Lawyers Very Nervous. A trendy productivity hack, A.I. note takers are capturing every joke and offhand comment in many meetings. They could also potentially waive attorney-client privilege" (NYT).

Human memory is also not perfect. Who remembers old conversations and can testify about them with verbatim accuracy? And yet we've relied on frail humans all these years. 

"Coyote vs. Acme — a film Warner Bros. famously tried to scrap in 2023 — has released its first footage ahead of coming to theaters this summer."

Hollywood Reporter observes.

Warner Bros. had planned to scrap the completed movie as part of a $115 million write-down. Social media uproar helped to save the project, which Ketchup Entertainment acquired for distribution. The shelving attempt was one of the first headline-making decisions under CEO David Zaslav (along with another high-profile and completed project, Batgirl).... Zaslav previously told The New York Times about the decision, “The question is, should we take certain of these movies and open them in the theater and spend another $30 or $40 million to promote them? And [the] Warner Bros. team and HBO made a number of decisions. They were hard. But when I look at the health of our company today, we needed to make those decisions. And it took real courage."

I've seen the trailer, and I think they made the right decision to scrap this thing after making the wrong decision to manufacture it in the first place — to insert the Warner Brother cartoons into the real world, especially a real world full of lawyers... it's awful... but then that's the opinion of someone who has an aversion to movies based on pre-existing intellectual property and to movies about lawyering. So check for yourself:

ADDED: Let's remember that Chuck Jones had rules for the use of Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, and this movie egregiously breaks rule #6: "All action must be confined to the natural environment of the two characters—the southwest American desert." 

"As some of you might recall, earlier this year I had an AI oopsie of my own..."

Writes David Lat, in "An AI Screw-Up By... Sullivan & Cromwell? There are multiple ironies involved in this unfortunate incident."

I’ll simply repeat my two signature quips, urging you to extend grace when it comes to AI fails:

   • “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes… for an AI screw-up.”

   • “The next time you hear about an epic AI fail, instead of (or at least after) laughing your ass off, perhaps have the humility to say this to yourself: ‘There but for the grace of God go (A)I.’”

Or, if you prefer, here are some bon mots from Claude, which it generated after I fed it my two sayings and asked for more along the same lines:

"I'm not I'm not upset and I'm not arguing. You are not letting me make an argument. I'm not red in the face, ma'am. I'm not...."

Things escalate quickly about 10 minutes into this viral video:

At 14:40, the lawyer suddenly, puzzlingly announces "I'm a transgender attorney," and later, mid-arrest, the lawyer, apparently a transman, demands, "Get a female officer now. Get a female officer now. Get a female officer now."

But the trans aspect is the least of what is going on here. It's almost too awful to post, but I'm posting it because it's getting a lot of attention elsewhere — with only part of it clipped out — on TikTok and X and with many comments focusing on the trans angle. The problem with this attorney has more to do with interrupting and abusing the judge and, fatefully, throwing the phone and pen on the floor — or, if this is what you see — attempting to put the phone and pen down and missing.

"You know, if you're if you're a 70-year-old billionaire, you can't walk into a bar... and meet an 18-year-old.... I'm presuming these things are facilitated at private parties..."

"... and it needs to, you know, for a lot of these guys, it has to be discreet. You know, they've got wives, they've got reputations, and you know, there's an aspect of this that plays out at every institution. I worked at a New York law firm and... there's ways that you can make partner — at least this was kind of the vibe that I felt. Some people make partner because they're really good technically.... There are some people who move up because of nepotism.... There are some people... who brought in one client... a really big rainmaker. And there are some people who move up because they open doors to partners while they're associates. They introduce them to someone. They host events. They've got tickets to exclusive things. And the partners just like being around that person because they get access to that person in a currency that they can't get on their own. And that includes hosting cool exotic parties, having attractive women."

"'Believe her,' Agnifilo beseeched the jurors in his closing arguments for Combs’s defense. 'When she says to you that domestic violence is the issue, I’m asking you to believe her.'"

"This has been a pillar of the defense’s strategy: that Combs has taken responsibility for domestic violence but is not guilty of the charges he faces."

From "Diddy and Cassie a ‘modern love story,’ defense says in closing arguments/Sean 'Diddy' Combs’s defense team called the sex-trafficking case against him 'badly, badly exaggerated' as the trial nears its conclusion" (WaPo).

How does it happen that the lawyer addresses the judge as "honey"?

NEW: Lawyer is speechless after he accidentally calls a Colorado judge "honey" while arguing whether or not a violent s*xual assault counts as one act or can be broken into multiple acts.

So awkward.

Judge Terry Fox was seen holding back laughter during the incident.

Lawyer:… pic.twitter.com/6FJQyIiPds

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 21, 2025

I can see at the link that one theory is that something about the judge or the kind of argument they were having felt so much like talking to his wife that the endearment he uses on his wife popped in on its own.

Another guess would be that he's one of those men who use "honey" on women when he's putting them in their place. It's a diminishment, not an endearment. 

But what a screwup! He not only let the word slip out, he expended a lot of his time — his client's time — apologizing and attempting to recover.  

The NYT is trying to heart-warm us with a story about saving Canada geese!

With dismay, I'm reading "A ‘Quixotic’ Fight to Protect a Bird That Can Be Hard to Love/Two New York men who bonded over bird-watching at the Central Park Reservoir are united in their efforts to save the nests of its resident Canada geese."

Edward Dorson, a wildlife photographer and regular visitor to the reservoir, learned in 2021 that federal workers were destroying the eggs of Canada geese there as part of a government safety program to decrease bird collisions with airplanes. He tried to stop it. He reached out to animal rights organizations and wrote letters to various government agencies. He got nowhere. Then in December, he met Larry Schnapf, a tough-talking environmental lawyer, who spotted Mr. Dorson admiring the birds and introduced himself....

When's the last time a tough-talking lawyer walked up to you and introduced himself? 

Mr. Schnapf, 72, is a fast-talking, fast-acting networker who is not afraid to make noise. “I told Ed,” he said, “you’ve got to rattle the bureaucracy. All we’re trying to do is get them to talk to us, so we can come up with a plan.... I don’t see too many people like me who are worried about the geese."

Because people don't want the lakeside festooned with excrement... or the planes crashing. The heroes of this story are the egg-destroying feds.

"When you say things on a podcast like 'six women, all white, my understanding is you've got a six-pack of white women.'"

"Like that's not — that's something that you shouldn't — that no one should be saying as an officer of the Court and a member of the bar, right?"

Said US District Judge Arun Subramanian to lawyer Mark Geragos, quoted in "Diddy trial judge snaps at lawyer for calling prosecutors a 'six-pack of white women'" (Business Insider).

"The chairman of Paul Weiss sought to reassure employees at the giant law firm that the deal it had reached with President Trump was consistent with principles that the 150-year-old firm has long stood by."

From "Paul Weiss Chair Says Deal With Trump Adheres to Firm’s Principles/In an email message, the law firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, reassured employees that its deal with President Trump was in keeping with its principles" (NYT)(free-access link).

Here's Trump's post on the subject:

"Democrats seem to have no ability to stop him... So that leaves the courts, but for the courts to hold Trump accountable, to stop Trump...

"... they need for people to bring lawsuits and matters before them. And the people best equipped to do that are the big law firms in Washington. But if those firms are afraid that if they enter that fight, they could lose all of their business, Trump is then essentially taking one of his biggest adversaries off the playing field.... There are other lawyers who can bring these matters and that are skilled, but the ones with the most horsepower are potentially being sidelined. I've been reporting on this for the past week and a half, and I've learned that the leaders of these law firms have gone back and forth with each other about what to do.... Privately, they will all tell me how horrific they think this is. But publicly, they're saying very little."

Said Mike Schmidt, on "How Trump Is Scaring Big Law Firms Into Submission," today's episode of the NYT podcast, "The Daily" (link goes to Podscribe, with full transcript and audio).

And here's Schmidt's article from a few days ago: "Trump’s Revenge on Law Firms Seen as Undermining Justice System/The president’s use of government power to punish firms is seen by some legal experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong legal defense" ("With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials. That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.)

"I was the target of corrupt politicians for 4 years and then 4 years after that. So don't talk to me about targeting."

"Harris, characteristically, has made a lawyerly assessment of pros and cons. She and her advisers have queried whether, given the limited number of ATACMS available..."

"... they might be more useful striking Russian targets in occupied Crimea — especially given intelligence reports that Russia has pulled its aircraft that target Ukraine back to bases beyond the missiles’ 300-kilometer range. Another concern for the Harris team is whether the Russians might retaliate by giving long-range missiles to adversaries, such as the Houthis in Yemen, further threatening Red Sea shipping and perhaps Israel.... Lawyers have played a decisive role in national security policy — from Dean Acheson to Jake Sullivan. Harris would sustain that long line of lawyerly balancers and trimmers who weigh risks and benefits before they take action. She might turn a page in our domestic life, but not so much in foreign policy."

Writes David Ignatius, in "These people have seen Harris in the Situation Room. Here’s what they have to say. Harris is 'more hard-line than most people think,' says a retired four-star general who has briefed her many times" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Ignatius assumes we understand what "trimmers" are — "lawyerly balancers and trimmers." There are a lot of meanings to the word "trim," including distracting slang usages (see Urban Dictionary). But, relying on the OED, I've got to choose the nautical meaning: "To distribute the load of (a ship or boat) so that it floats on an even keel." There's also: "To adjust (the sails or yards) with reference to the direction of the wind and the course of the ship, so as to obtain the greatest advantage." But the load distribution metaphor is the one that has been used in politics. The OED has a separate entry for "trimmer," and meaning #5 is expressly political: 

"Roberta A. Kaplan, the celebrated lawyer who took on former President Donald J. Trump... is stepping down from the law firm she founded..."

"... after clashing with her partners over her treatment of colleagues... Her departure was announced after The Times informed her personal lawyers that it was preparing to publish an article about Ms. Kaplan that would shine a light on complaints about what some employees said was an unprofessional office culture that she presided over.... Ms. Kaplan and her wife are deeply connected to the Democratic Party and she has been a heroic figure to many liberal activists.... Several people whom she worked with told The Times that she had insulted employees, inappropriately commented on their looks and threatened to derail people’s careers...."

Writes David Enrich, in "Prominent Lawyer Roberta Kaplan Departs Firm After Clash With Colleagues/The well-connected attorney, who founded a powerhouse firm at the dawn of the #MeToo era, has faced complaints that she mistreated and insulted other lawyers" (NYT).

Kaplan represented E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump and won a $83 million verdict. The law firm she founded was supposedly "driven by a progressive mission and free of the macho culture" found in other law firms (as the NYT put it).

We're told that these complaints about Kaplan coincided with her response to Andrew Cuomo's request for her advice on how to fight allegations that he had committed sexual harassment. Interesting. I think Andrew Cuomo is due for a comeback. He should — as rumored — run for mayor of NYC. Perhaps Kaplan can help. Rehabilitate yourself and him in one grand endeavor.

"The legal arguments of Mr. Trump and his allies were advanced by a lineup of veteran defense lawyers who seemed quite at ease..."

"... while [Adam Abbate, a prosecutor in District Attorney Fani Willis’s office] had a more halting, and at times fumbling, presentation, relying more on his recitation of precedent and case law. Regardless, Judge McAfee will be more interested in the substance of the legal questions, rather than the delivery style. He said after the arguments that he would rule within two weeks...."

From "Trump Lawyer Argues ‘Appearance of Impropriety’ Is Enough to Disqualify Prosecutor/Lawyers argued about whether the prosecutor Fani Willis has an untenable conflict of interest in the Georgia election case; her side called the disqualification effort 'desperate'" (NYT).

The Trump side argued both that appearance of impropriety is enough, but it also argued that it had proven actual grounds for disqualification — 6 of them.

C-Span video of the arguments: Part 1, Part 2.

"This is why we cheer for Rocky. Rocky is not supposed to win, but he wins. And that’s to me America. And Hunter is not supposed to win."

"He should be dead. And he faced a crossroad in his life, which we all do when we’re all struggling with things in our lives. And he could have chosen the easy path, which is to keep going and die, or do the hard thing, which is to change."

Said Georges Bergès, the owner of the gallery that sold Hunter Biden's artwork, testifying before House Judiciary and Oversight committee, quoted in newly released transcripts and reported in "Hunter Biden’s paintings have sold for a total of $1.5 million/Gallery owner, a Trump donor, has sold the work to 10 buyers; some bought multiple paintings" (WaPo).

The biggest buyer of the art — who bought 11 paintings for $875,000 — was Kevin Morris. Morris, we're told, "has become one of Biden’s closest friends while also acting as an attorney and financial benefactor."

"On some nights when Mr. Giuliani was overserved, an associate discreetly signaled the rest of the club, tipping back his empty hand in a drinking motion..."

"... out of the former mayor’s line of sight, in case others preferred to keep their distance. Some allies, watching Mr. Giuliani down Scotch before leaving for Fox News interviews, would slip away to find a television, clenching through his rickety defenses of Mr. Trump.... In interviews with friends, associates and former aides, the consensus was that, more than wholly transforming Mr. Giuliani, his drinking had accelerated a change in his existing alchemy, amplifying qualities that had long burbled within him: conspiracism, gullibility, a weakness for grandeur...."

Write Matt Flegenheimer and Maggie Haberman, in "Giuliani’s Drinking, Long a Fraught Subject, Has Trump Prosecutors’ Attention/The former mayor’s drinking has become an investigative subplot in Donald Trump’s federal case over 2020 election interference. But long before that, friends had grown deeply concerned" (NYT).

You see where this is going: 

Now, prosecutors in the federal election case against Mr. Trump have shown an interest in the drinking habits of Mr. Giuliani — and whether the former president ignored what his aides described as the plain inebriation of the former mayor referred to in court documents as 'Co-Conspirator 1.'... 

What Flegenheimer and Haberman are strongly suggesting: Trump should not be able to argue that he relied on the advice of his attorney, when that attorney was Giuliani, a notorious, conspicuous drunk.