{"id":113918,"date":"2025-04-07T17:02:53","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T01:02:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/07\/legal-ethics-roundup-biden-disbarment-tx-may-end-aba-oversight-ethics-of-zealous-advocacy-100m-judicial-election-3-new-eo-threats-fed-misconduct-survey-jobs-more\/"},"modified":"2025-04-07T17:02:53","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T01:02:53","slug":"legal-ethics-roundup-biden-disbarment-tx-may-end-aba-oversight-ethics-of-zealous-advocacy-100m-judicial-election-3-new-eo-threats-fed-misconduct-survey-jobs-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/04\/07\/legal-ethics-roundup-biden-disbarment-tx-may-end-aba-oversight-ethics-of-zealous-advocacy-100m-judicial-election-3-new-eo-threats-fed-misconduct-survey-jobs-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Ethics Roundup: Biden Disbarment, TX May End ABA Oversight, Ethics Of Zealous Advocacy, $100M Judicial Election, 3 New EO Threats, Fed Misconduct Survey, Jobs, & More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: Please welcome Renee Knake Jefferson back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, Legal Ethics Roundup,\u00a0<\/strong>here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Happy First Monday!<\/h3>\n

On the first Monday of each month, you get a longer version of the Roundup with recent headlines plus reading recommendations, job postings, events, and other features.<\/p>\n

It was another week filled with legal ethics news, so let\u2019s dive right into the headlines but be sure to keep scrolling down for the special First Monday content.<\/p>\n

And don\u2019t forget to keep checking the\u00a0Legal Ethics & Democracy Tracker<\/a><\/strong>. It\u2019s a great place to find the latest news if you don\u2019t want to wait until the LER arrives in your email inbox on Monday mornings. Last week brought more statements from law faculty (including\u00a0Georgetown<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0UCLA<\/strong>), lawyers (including more than 1,300 former\u00a0Department of Justice<\/strong>\u00a0officials and more than 80\u00a0Skadden<\/strong>\u00a0alumni) as well as op-eds by\u00a0Ray Brescia<\/strong>\u00a0(Albany),\u00a0David Cole<\/strong>\u00a0(Georgetown),\u00a0Evan Falchuck<\/strong>\u00a0(Lawyers Defending American Democracy),\u00a0Amrit Singh<\/strong>\u00a0(Stanford),\u00a0Eric Schnapper<\/strong>\u00a0(University of Washington), and others.<\/p>\n

Highlights from Last Week \u2013 Top Fifteen Headlines<\/h3>\n

#1 The Ethics of \u201cZealous Advocacy.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines for #1.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0Washington Post<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0Justice Department<\/strong>\u00a0suspended a veteran lawyer after he said in court that officials mistakenly deported a man to prison in his home country of El Salvador and conceded that he did not know the legal basis for the expulsion.\u00a0Erez Reuveni<\/strong>\u00a0had worked at the Justice Department for nearly 15 years, most recently as the acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation. A Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter, said he was put on indefinite leave. In response to questions about Reuveni,\u00a0Attorney General Pam Bondi<\/strong>\u00a0said: \u2018At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.\u2019 \u2026 Typically, career staffers at the Justice Department are tasked with handling cases that they may disagree with, but they are expected to follow legal ethics and the professional standards set out by the American Bar Association.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link). Here\u2019s what the\u00a0ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0say about zealous advocacy: \u201c[M]any difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules.These principles include the lawyer\u2019s obligation zealously to protect and pursue a client\u2019s legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system.\u201d\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Bloomberg Law<\/strong>, a reminder about this headline from February: \u201cBondi\u2019s Attorney Advocacy Memo Raises Independence Concerns.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#2 The Ethics of Money in Judicial Elections \u2013 Wisconsin Supreme Court Topped $100M.<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines for #2.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Axios<\/strong>: \u201cWisconsin\u2019s Supreme Court election is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0National Public Radio<\/strong>: \u201cCounty judge\u00a0Susan Crawford<\/strong>\u00a0has won election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, according to a race call by the Associated Press. Crawford defeated\u00a0Brad Schimel<\/strong>, who received financial support from\u00a0Elon Musk<\/strong>\u00a0and an endorsement from\u00a0President Donald Trump<\/strong>. Her victory means that the nonpartisan court\u2019s 4-3 liberal majority will remain in place.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#3 \u201cMilbank Reaches Deal With Trump as Divide Among Law Firms Deepens.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cA fourth major law U.S. law firm,\u00a0Milbank<\/strong>, struck a deal on Wednesday with\u00a0Donald Trump<\/strong>\u00a0amid the U.S. president\u2019s campaign against perceived enemies within the legal industry, while another law firm fought back in court against an executive order targeting its business. New York-headquartered Milbank committed $100 million in free legal services to mutually agreed-upon initiatives with the White House and said it would not engage in diversity-based hiring, mirroring the deals Trump has reached with other law firms that he threatened to punish for being ideologically biased and unfair to him.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#4 Executive Order Threatening Willkie Farr & Gallagher Avoided With Settlement.<\/strong>\u00a0Two headlines for #4.\u00a0First,<\/strong>\u00a0from the\u00a0New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cPresident Trump<\/strong>\u00a0announced Tuesday another deal with a law firm he had targeted for punishment, this time the one that employs\u00a0Doug Emhoff<\/strong>, former\u00a0Vice President Kamala Harris\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0husband. Mr. Trump said the firm had committed to $100 million in pro bono legal work to causes he had championed. \u2018Willkie\u2019s pro bono Committee will ensure that new pro bono matters are consistent with these objectives, and that pro bono activities represent the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals,\u2019 Mr. Trump said on social media.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).\u00a0Second,<\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0CNN<\/strong>: \u201cDoug Emhoff publicly criticizes his law firm for coming to agreement with Trump administration.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#5<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cLaw Firm Kirkland & Ellis in Talks With White House to Avoid Executive Order.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/strong>: \u201cKirkland & Ellis<\/strong>, the largest U.S. law firm by revenue, is in talks with the White House to avoid an executive order similar to those levied against several of its rivals, according to people familiar with the matter. The firm, which has some 4,000 lawyers and brought in about $9 billion last year, is one of the White House\u2019s next targets for sanctions, some of the people said.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#6 \u201cInside Elite Law Firms, Protests and Quitting After Trump Deals\u201d \u2014 Will this \u201cHamstring\u201d Recruitment?\u00a0<\/strong>From the\u00a0New York Times:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cObjections to the deals could have other implications for the firms as they try to retain talented associates and recruit new ones from top law schools. On Monday, a student-run group at Georgetown University\u2019s law school sent a letter to\u00a0Skadden<\/strong>\u00a0saying it would not participate in a recruiting event the next day at the firm\u2019s Washington office. The letter, from several of the more than 150 members of the\u00a0Georgetown Energy Law Group<\/strong>, said the organization had decided not to participate in response to Skadden\u2019s \u2018pre-emptive acquiescence to pressure from the Trump administration.\u2019\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#7 \u201cTexas Justices Eye Nixing ABA Approval In Bar Admissions.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cThe\u00a0Texas Supreme Court<\/strong>\u00a0indicated Friday that the justices are considering whether to alter or end a rule requiring graduation from a law school approved by the American Bar Association for admittance to the Lone Star State bar. The order, which seeks comments on that rule and \u2018alternatives the court should consider,\u2019 follows criticism of the ABA leveled by\u00a0Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock<\/strong>\u00a0at his February\u00a0state of the judiciary address<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0to Texas lawmakers.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Download the Order\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

#8 \u201cHundreds of Law Firms, Former Judges Sign Onto Briefs in Support of Perkins Coie.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The Hill<\/strong>: \u201cHundreds of law firms and former judges have signed onto friend-of-the-court briefs in support of\u00a0Perkins Coie<\/strong>\u00a0as the law firm challenges\u00a0President Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0executive order targeting it. More than 500 law firms and 300 retired judges asked for leave to file two amicus briefs condemning Trump\u2019s order stripping security clearances from and severing government ties with the major law firm, which previously did work for Democrats.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. A group of\u00a0363 law professors<\/strong>\u00a0also filed a brief \u2013 see\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#9 \u201cHunter Biden Agrees To Disbarment In District of Columbia.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Law360<\/strong>: \u201cHunter Biden<\/strong>\u00a0has agreed to give up his license to practice law in Washington, D.C., according to an attorney disciplinary board\u2019s report issued Tuesday. The former president\u2019s son consented to disbarment in a March 24 affidavit that was filed under seal, the\u00a0Board on Professional Responsibility<\/strong>\u00a0said in a report. In its brief report, the board recommended that the\u00a0D.C. Court of Appeals<\/strong>\u00a0accept Biden\u2019s consent to disbarment. The appeals court has final say on attorney discipline in Washington. Counsel for Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The\u00a0D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel<\/strong>\u00a0declined to comment on the case. Biden\u2019s law license has been suspended in the nation\u2019s capital for the past nine months. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended him in June after his conviction on three federal gun charges in Delaware.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#10 \u201cGuidance on Solicitation Limits After L.A. Fires.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Office of the<\/strong>\u00a0California Attorney General<\/strong>: \u201c\u2018As the Attorney General serving Californians, I know the great honor and privilege that working in the legal field can bring. With that great privilege, also comes great responsibility,\u2019 said\u00a0Attorney General Rob Bonta.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2018I encourage attorneys practicing in California to familiarize themselves with laws governing client solicitation after a natural disaster or catastrophe. Given the great collective damage of the Los Angeles fires, attorneys should ensure they are practicing ethically and in compliance with the law.\u2019 The State Bar of California has also\u00a0warned the public<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0to watch out for and report potential fraud by lawyers.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#11 \u201cGranddaughters of a Paul Weiss Patriarch Deplore the Firm\u2019s Trump Deal.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0The New York Times<\/strong>: \u201cTwo weeks ago,\u00a0Brad Karp<\/strong>, chairman of\u00a0Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison<\/strong>, announced that\u00a0President Trump<\/strong>\u00a0would dismiss an executive order aimed at the law firm in return for commitments that included $40 million in pro bono legal services for causes Mr. Trump championed. \u2026 But last week,\u00a0Judge Rifkind\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0granddaughters\u00a0Amy<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Nina Rifkind<\/strong>, both lawyers themselves, wrote to Mr. Karp, saying they were stunned by the deal he had personally hammered out at the White House, and by how he had invoked their grandfather\u2019s principles to justify it.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n

#12 Grassroots Group of Law Students Track 300+ Law Firm Responses to Attacks on the Legal Profession.<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0LinkedIn<\/strong>: \u201cWe are a grassroots group of law students who were extremely disappointed to see members of the legal profession\u2014law firms,\u00a0Department of Justice\u00a0<\/strong>lawyers, members of the Trump Administration\u2014completely disregard the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, legal ethics, and equal treatment and protection under the law. \u2026 We created this spreadsheet based on publicly available information to help law students make decisions that align with their values.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and view the tracker\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. (H\/T\u00a0Mari Latibashvili<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

#13 \u201cUS Education Department Closure Imperils Law School Finances, Deans Say.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Reuters<\/strong>: \u201cThe Trump administration\u2019s recent moves to shutter the U.S. Department of Education and shift management of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan program to the Small Business Administration threaten to disrupt the flow of money vital to law school operations, deans and other legal education experts said.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#14 \u201cJudiciary Employee Survey Shows General Job Happiness, But a Reluctance to Report Workplace Misconduct.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0CNN<\/strong>: \u201cFewer than half of employees of the federal judiciary believe court workers are willing to report instances of workplace misconduct, according to\u00a0results of a long-awaited survey<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0conducted by the judicial branch. The judges who spearheaded the review said, in a press call shortly after the\u00a0report<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0was released, the judiciary branch compared \u2018favorably\u2019 to the other two branches of the US government when it comes to employees\u2019 workplace happiness, with 84% reporting that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs. Still, judiciary leaders concede that more has to be done to encourage workers to report any professional misconduct that they\u2019re subjected to. The survey, released Monday and conducted by\u00a0Federal Judicial Center<\/strong>\u00a0researchers, was part of a larger effort launched by\u00a0Chief Justice John Roberts<\/strong>\u00a0in 2018, at the height of the #MeToo movement, to address harassment, abuse and other misconduct judicial employees suffered in their jobs \u2013 including harassment they received from judges.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

#15 \u201cWhy American Lawyers Must Fight Democratic Backsliding.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Harvard\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0The Practice Magazine<\/strong>: \u201cDavid B. Wilkins<\/strong>, faculty director of the Center on the Legal Profession, sat down with\u00a0Scott L. Cummings<\/strong>, the Robert Henigson Professor of Legal Ethics at the UCLA School of Law, to talk about democratic backsliding in the United States and what the legal profession can do.\u201d Cummings explained: \u201cdisabling law firms from representing interests that are opposed to the administration effectively disables the adversarial system and the rule of law\u2014which is how democracies die.\u201d Read their full interview\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Ethics Reform Watch<\/h3>\n

A new\u00a0ABA Formal Opinion<\/strong>\u00a0issued on April 2, 2025, addresses the termination of client representation under Model Rule 1.16. It includes a dissent, which is unusual for ABA ethics opinions. Here\u2019s the Opinion summary:<\/p>\n

\n

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(1) permits a lawyer to voluntarily end, or seek to end, an ongoing representation if \u201cwithdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.\u201d A lawyer\u2019s withdrawal would have a \u201cmaterial adverse effect on the interests of the client\u201d if it would result in significant harm to the forward progress of the client\u2019s matter, significant increase in the cost of the matter, or significant harm to the client\u2019s ability to achieve the legal objectives that the lawyer previously agreed to pursue in the representation. A lawyer may be able to remediate these adverse effects and withdraw in a manner that avoids or mitigates the harm that the Rule seeks to prevent. The lawyer\u2019s motivation for withdrawal is not relevant under Model Rule 1.16(b)(1). Therefore, under the Model Rules, if the lawyer\u2019s withdrawal does not cause \u201cmaterial adverse effect\u201d to the client\u2019s interests in the matter in which the lawyer represents the client, a lawyer may withdraw to be able to accept the representation of a different client, including to avoid the conflict of interest that might otherwise result.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And from the dissent:<\/p>\n

\n

\u2026 First, we are concerned that this opinion will only make it more difficult to convince lawyers to close files and transform current clients into former clients when they have completed their work on a matter. \u2026 Second, the \u201chot potato\u201d portion of the opinion is incomplete. \u2026 Finally \u2026 the opinion also fails to offer guidance for transactional lawyers. It only addresses \u201chot potato\u201d situations in litigation as if they are deliberate decisions made before accepting a new representation. It does not meaningfully address common situations in transactional matters such as where a lawyer or firm terminates the representation of a business client in order to take on the representation of a different client in an adverse transaction or other non-litigation matter. Accordingly, we dissent, in part, from this opinion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Read Formal Opinion 516 in full\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Legal Ethics History<\/h3>\n

To better understand and appreciate our current moment, it might be helpful to revisit the response of lawyers in the early 1950s to another era of government pressure. From\u00a0Clay Risen\u00a0<\/strong>in\u00a0Politico<\/strong>: \u201cToday we once more see a legal community divided over how to respond to a mounting legal crisis in a climate of confusion and fear. After the firm of\u00a0Paul, Weiss<\/strong>\u00a0agreed to a series of concessions to avoid presidential punishment, many observers worried that the rest of the nation\u2019s top firms \u2014 stocked with some of America\u2019s best legal minds \u2014 would follow suit. It is important to recognize the differences between then and now \u2014\u00a0Arnold, Fortas & Porter<\/strong>\u00a0did not face an administration bent on punishing its perceived enemies. Still, the firm\u2019s story offers a refreshing example of a firm that went the other direction and stood on principle when its peers did not.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0from Risen, author of the book\u00a0RED SCARE: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Recommended Reading<\/h3>\n

Recommendation #1: \u201cOn the Effects of Occupational Licensing on the Legal Profession.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Jonathan Adler<\/strong>\u00a0(Case Western) at\u00a0The<\/strong>\u00a0Volokh Conspiracy<\/strong>: \u201cAre state bar licensing requirements just a barrier to entry that reduces the quantity and increases the cost of legal services? Do they also improve the quality of legal services and protect consumers? Count me among those who is generally skeptical of state occupational licensing requirements. So I read with interest a new study by\u00a0Adam Chilton<\/strong>,\u00a0Jacob Goldin<\/strong>,\u00a0Kyle Rozema<\/strong>, and\u00a0Sarath Sanga<\/strong>,\u00a0Occupational Licensing and Labor Market Mobility: Evidence from the Legal Profession.<\/a><\/strong>\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Recommendation #2: \u201cCan Prosecutors\u2019 Offices Preserve Public Confidence in their Nonpartisanship \u2013 and, if so, How?\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>by\u00a0Bruce Green<\/strong>\u00a0(Fordham) and\u00a0Rebecca Roiphe<\/strong>\u00a0(NYLS). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

Politicians, the media, and others erode public confidence in prosecutors by accusing them of \u201cweaponizing\u201d their power in cases with political implications. This essay argues that prosecutors\u2019 offices have a responsibility not only to do their work in accordance with professional norms, training and policy that call for nonpartisan decision-making, but also to make affirmative efforts to restore and preserve public faith that prosecutors are in fact acting neutrally, objectively and impartially. Despite limits to what prosecutors\u2019 offices can do in the current climate, this essay suggests some possible measures to counteract the perception of political bias.<\/p>\n

Download from SSRN<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Recommendation #3: \u201cLarge Scale Miscarriages of Justice and the Role of Legal Professionals. A Virtue Ethical Perspective\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0by\u00a0Iris van Domselaar<\/strong>\u00a0(University of Amsterdam). From the abstract:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cNo compensation can undo the pain and shame inflicted on me and so many other parents.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMy life has been ruined, my family\u2019s life was almost destroyed, my wife has suffered devastating and life-changing illness, and my daughter almost died.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI do remember driving home at night just beside myself with worry about this money and thinking I could just drive my car into a tree and make it stop.\u201d<\/p>\n

These quotes illustrate the devastating consequences of large-scale miscarriages of justice in contemporary Western legal systems. They come from victims of the Dutch childcare benefits scandal, the British Post Office scandal, and the Australian Robodebt scandal, which led to widespread debt and bankruptcy, severe poverty, psychological harm, emotional distress, family separations, and, in some instances, even loss of life. In these \u2018legal carnages\u2019, legal professionals played a key enabling role, either through indirect or direct active involvement or by turning a blind eye and remaining indifferent to the wrongdoing. Hence, a central question raised by these scandals is: Where were the legal professionals? Should they not have acted differently and done more to protect citizens from these injustices, particularly given their responsibility to uphold the rule of law, justice, liberty, and equality? This paper uses the lens of virtue ethics to understand the failures of legal professionals in these mass injustices and explores how similar scandals can be prevented in the future.<\/p>\n

Download from SSRN<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Legal Ethics Trivia<\/h3>\n

From the Texas Center for Legal Ethics, here\u2019s the question of the month: \u201cCan a lawyer ethically enter into a business transaction with a client?\u201d\u00a0Test yourself at this website<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0where you can read a short hypothetical, select an answer, and see your results. So far, only 47% have gotten it right. Will you?<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Get Hired<\/h3>\n

Did you miss the 100+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n