![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21LX77%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8a35ae7c-d0ee-4779-abe7-c7925c143bcf_2960x3636.jpeg?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a>This week you can join me LIVE at an event featuring my book\u00a0Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0hosted by the Dallas Allied Bars Equality Committee and the Dallas Women Lawyers Association on Tuesday from noon-1PM central. Learn more and register\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Other speakers include\u00a0Judge Rebecca Rutherford<\/strong>, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and\u00a0Professor Cheryl Wattley<\/strong>\u00a0(UNT Dallas).<\/p>\n I\u2019m also happy to share a recent review of\u00a0Shortlisted<\/a><\/strong>. Even though the book was first published in 2020 with a paperback update in 2022, the themes seem to resonate now more than ever. Here\u2019s an excerpt from the review:<\/p>\n One of the book\u2019s standout features is its meticulous research that supports the authors\u2019 arguments. The writing style strikes a remarkable balance between academic rigor and accessibility. Even as someone not deeply entrenched in the intricacies of the American judicial system, I found the explanations clear enough to engage me deeply. The first half unveils a narrative steeped in history, examining how female presence was regarded as both revolutionary and contentious\u2014especially in a time when presidents would endorse women\u2019s suffrage yet remain hesitant to genuinely support women in positions of power.<\/p>\n Notably, the authors don\u2019t shy away from the complexities that arise after women are appointed. The challenges they present\u2014such as balancing familial expectations and professional responsibilities\u2014are all too relatable. I found myself reflecting on the broader implications not only in the court but in workplaces everywhere, as women juggle identities that society often complicates for them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Read the full review\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. And my co-author\u00a0Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson<\/strong>\u00a0(Southern Illinois) and I are always happy to speak about the book. We\u2019ve given talks to a\u00a0wide range of audiences<\/a><\/strong>. Please reach out to either (or both!) of us if you have an engagement in mind.<\/p>\n Now for your headlines. I can\u2019t blame the slow start to my Monday only on my late night concert over the weekend. I am definitely still recovering from the onslaught of legal ethics news from the past week. We of course have more than ten headlines\u2026so let\u2019s turn now to the top fifteen. You might want to grab a cup of coffee for this read. \u2615\ufe0f<\/p>\n #1\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cIf the Trump administration can do this, then no American is safe from political prosecution.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>A letter to Congress from\u00a0Norman Eisen<\/strong>,\u00a0Richard Painter<\/strong>, and\u00a0Virginia Canter<\/strong>: \u201cWe write as former ethics counsels for\u00a0Presidents George W. Bush<\/strong>,\u00a0Barack Obama<\/strong>, and\u00a0Bill Clinton<\/strong>. We urgently request an investigation into possible prosecutorial abuses and ethics violations by\u00a0Lindsey Halligan<\/strong>, the newly-appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in connection with her having improperly brought charges against former\u00a0Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey<\/strong>. \u2026 In the United States, a president should never order prosecutions of his enemies.\u201d Read the\u00a0full letter here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and an op-ed from the authors published on MSNBC\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #2 \u201c\u2018At Professional Risk\u2019: Charging Comey Could Land Lindsey Halligan in Hot Water.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Vanity Fair:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cAn ethics professor from Halligan\u2019s law school warns that if she pursues charges against the former FBI director without probable cause, she could be disciplined by the Florida bar.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #3<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cNewman Makes Full-Court Press in Appeals Challenge of Suspension.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Bloomberg Law:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cJudge Pauline Newman<\/strong>, the country\u2019s oldest active federal judge, asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider her constitutional challenge to the law her colleagues used to suspend her from hearing new cases. The full appellate court should heed a three-judge panel\u2019s implicit invitation\u2019 to take the case en banc and revisit a precedent preventing the court from considering Newman\u2019s arguments on the merits, she argued in a\u00a0petition<\/a>\u00a0filed Sept. 19 at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The panel in August upheld a D.C.-based district court\u2019s dismissal of Newman\u2019s lawsuit seeking reinstatement.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #4 \u201cAmy Coney Barrett Explains Why She Won\u2019t Explain Her Recusals.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Politico:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cJustice Amy Coney Barrett<\/strong>\u00a0indicated Thursday that one reason she chooses not to explain why she recuses herself from cases for ethics reasons is because her friends or family could face unwanted public attention, threats or worse. The comments from Barrett are a rare sign that a recent surge in threats against judges and their families are affecting how members of the Supreme Court carry out their official duties. During a stop in Washington to promote her new book, Barrett was asked why some justices explain their decisions to recuse from cases, while others don\u2019t.<\/strong>\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #5 \u201cI Sought to Protect an Immigrant Legal Client. Instead, I\u2019m Facing Trump\u2019s New Sanctions.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0The Guardian:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cFacing the specter of conditions in El Salvador\u2019s Cecot facility and the plight of other immigrants having been removed without notice, I had previously secured a\u00a0class action<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0against removals for my own district around Los Angeles, and I wanted to extend such protection to this client. I knew President Trump had issued a\u00a0proclamation<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0attempting to justify removals after the fact, but I used my best judgment and skills to ask the court to enforce the actual law as written. The government nevertheless proceeded to take my client out of the United States. So I was taken aback when the government asked the judge to punish me for my efforts via a motion for sanctions \u2013 which is a novel strategy by the administration to go after immigration attorneys personally by attempting to ruin their record or fine them.\u00a0<\/strong>I was now a target.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #6<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cPrivate Equity Circles Law Firms, But Will They Sell?\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From the\u00a0Wall Street Journal:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cU.S. law firms want cash, and private equity wants to buy U.S. law firms. But bringing the two industries together is harder than it looks, dealmakers say.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #7 \u201cFla. Bar Must Conduct Bondi Ethics Probe, State Justices Told.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Law360:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cAn attorney has doubled down on his attempt to force the Florida Bar into investigating\u00a0U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi<\/strong>\u00a0for alleged unethical conduct, arguing to the state Supreme Court that the bar has a clear legal duty to do so. In a lengthy Thursday filing,\u00a0John May<\/strong>\u00a0responded to the bar as well as the federal government and the state of Florida, both of which supported the decision not to investigate Bondi. May and other petitioners argued that the bar provided no valid argument as to why it is not required to conduct an investigation into a sworn complaint against an attorney.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #8 \u201cAI Drives Arizona\u2019s First-in-Nation Judicial Tech Competence Rule.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0JD Supra:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cThe Arizona Supreme Court has added the ethical obligation of technology competence to the state\u2019s judicial ethics code. The court\u2019s decision to explicitly insert a technology competence requirement into its rules for judges is a first in the nation. Effective Jan. 1, 2026, Rule 2.5 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct will have a\u00a0new Comment 1<\/a><\/strong>, which reads: \u201cCompetence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge\u2019s responsibilities of judicial office, including the use of, and knowledge of the benefits and risks associated with, technology relevant to service as a judicial officer.\u201d The Arizona high court\u2019s action appears to be the first state to explicitly write a duty of technology competence into its judicial ethics code. Judicial ethics opinions in Michigan (Ethics Op. JL-155, Oct. 27, 2023<\/a><\/strong>) and West Virginia (Ethics Op. 2023-22, Oct. 13, 2023<\/a><\/strong>) have previously found a duty of technology competence implied in a judicial officer\u2019s general duty of competency, however.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #9<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cTrial Separation: Courtroom Lawyers Are Breaking Up With Big Law.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From the\u00a0Wall Street Journal:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cLaw firms are increasingly divided into two factions: lawyers who go to court and those who don\u2019t. Rainmaking corporate lawyers who paper up boardroom deals have amassed significant power at global law firms. Meanwhile, litigators, whose contribution to the firms\u2019 bottom line is modest by comparison, have been sidelined and frustrated in their efforts to take on controversial clients, especially in the Trump era. Big-name trial lawyers are voting with their feet by leaving major law firms and going to boutique outfits dedicated to litigation.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(gift link).<\/p>\n #10<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cLaw Firms With Trump Deals Probed by Democrats on Commerce Work.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Bloomberg Law:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cDemocrats in Congress want more information on three major law firms\u2019 possible work for the Commerce Department after making deals with the White House to evade executive orders.\u00a0Rep. Jamie Raskin<\/strong>\u00a0(D-Md.) and\u00a0Sens. Adam Schiff<\/strong>\u00a0(D-Calif.) and\u00a0Richard Blumenthal<\/strong>\u00a0(D-Conn.) on Wednesday sent letters to\u00a0Paul Weiss<\/strong>,\u00a0Kirkland & Ellis<\/strong>, and\u00a0Skadden<\/strong>, requesting information about their lawyers\u2019 work for the department. The firms are among a group of nine that pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services on causes shared with\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0administration in a series of agreements beginning in March.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #11 \u201cLawyers Accused of AI Misuse in FIFA Case Fined $24,400.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Reuters:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cA federal judge in Puerto Rico has sanctioned two plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers over error-filled court filings in a lawsuit involving professional soccer, awarding more than $24,400 in legal fees to\u00a0Paul Weiss<\/strong>,\u00a0Sidley Austin<\/strong>\u00a0and other law firms that accused the lawyers of misusing artificial intelligence in the case.\u00a0Chief U.S. District Judge Ra\u00fal Arias-Marxuach<\/strong>\u00a0said in a Tuesday\u00a0order<\/a><\/strong>,<\/a>\u00a0that the fees were justified based on court filings that included at least 55 defective citations to cases.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #12 \u201cSupreme Court of Texas Likely to Remove ABA as \u2018Final Say\u2019 on Accreditation.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Josh Blackman<\/strong>\u00a0(South Texas) in\u00a0The Volokh Conspiracy<\/strong>: \u201cOn September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a\u00a0momentous order<\/a><\/strong>. The Justices likely signaled that the ABA will no longer have the \u2018final say\u2019 on accreditation.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #13 \u201cOn LawNext: Justice Workers \u2014 Reimagining Access to Justice as Democracy Work, with Rebecca Sandefur and Matthew Burnett.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0LawSites<\/strong>\u00a0: \u201cWith as many as 120 million legal problems going unresolved in America each year, traditional lawyer-centered approaches to access to justice have consistently failed to meet the scale of need. But what if the solution is not just about providing more legal services \u2014 what if it lies in fundamentally rethinking who can provide legal help? In today\u2019s episode, host\u00a0Bob Ambrogi<\/strong>\u00a0is joined by two of the nation\u2019s leading researchers on access to justice:\u00a0Rebecca Sandefur<\/a><\/strong>, professor and director of the Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University and a faculty fellow at the American Bar Foundation, and\u00a0Matthew Burnett<\/a><\/strong>, director of research and programs for the Access to Justice Research Initiative at the American Bar Foundation and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. They argue that the access to justice crisis is actually a crisis of democracy. As cofounders of\u00a0Frontline Justice<\/a><\/strong>, they have been pioneering research on \u2018justice workers\u2019 \u2014 community members trained to help their neighbors navigate legal issues.\u201d Read more and listen\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #14 \u201cHow Should a DOJ Political Appointee Think About a Trump-Weaponized DOJ?\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Jack Goldsmith<\/strong>\u00a0(Harvard) in\u00a0Executive Functions<\/strong>: \u201cThe Justice Department is filled with dozens of Trump political appointees\u2014Senate-confirmed senior officials, non-confirmed deputies and special assistants, and others. I am trying to imagine how these officials are processing recent events at the Department\u2014and how they justify to themselves continued service there.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #15 \u201c\u2018I\u2019m a Tough Cookie.\u2019 Alina Habba, Trump\u2019s Favorite Lawyer, Explains Herself.\u2019\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0From\u00a0Vanity Fair<\/strong>: \u201cAnd there is no better advocate for Habba than Habba herself. She is funny, profane, nimble, and fierce. She responds to attacks about her being unqualified for the job by detailing her years of running successful law firms and of representing Trump as ample preparation for the role of US attorney.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. (You might recall from\u00a0LER No. 40<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0that Habba was among the lawyers indicted for their work involving Trump in 2024.)<\/p>\n Did you miss the 350+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Did you miss an announcement from previous weeks? Find them all\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0Legal Ethics Roundup<\/a>. Find her on X (formerly Twitter) at\u00a0@reneeknake<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky at\u00a0legalethics.bsky.social<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Legal Ethics Roundup: AZ Adds Tech Duty For Judges, TX Drops ABA, Sanctions for Protecting Immigration Client, $24,400 Fine For AI Misuse, Ethics Of A Weaponized DOJ, Barrett On Recusals & More<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n I stayed up way too late this weekend\u00a0making history<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0with 112,000+ other people at the largest ticketed concert ever held in the U.S. \u2013\u00a0Zach Bryan<\/strong>\u00a0at the Big House. I was visiting my son who is a junior at the University of Michigan, and I have to say it was pretty special to be belting out lyrics with my husband and children at the top of our lungs amidst thousands of fans under the pink skies of a Michigan sunset, which I\u2019ve hopefully\u00a0taught \u2018em to enjoy<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n This week you can join me LIVE at an event featuring my book\u00a0Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0hosted by the Dallas Allied Bars Equality Committee and the Dallas Women Lawyers Association on Tuesday from noon-1PM central. Learn more and register\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. Other speakers include\u00a0Judge Rebecca Rutherford<\/strong>, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and\u00a0Professor Cheryl Wattley<\/strong>\u00a0(UNT Dallas).<\/p>\n I\u2019m also happy to share a recent review of\u00a0Shortlisted<\/a><\/strong>. Even though the book was first published in 2020 with a paperback update in 2022, the themes seem to resonate now more than ever. Here\u2019s an excerpt from the review:<\/p>\n One of the book\u2019s standout features is its meticulous research that supports the authors\u2019 arguments. The writing style strikes a remarkable balance between academic rigor and accessibility. Even as someone not deeply entrenched in the intricacies of the American judicial system, I found the explanations clear enough to engage me deeply. The first half unveils a narrative steeped in history, examining how female presence was regarded as both revolutionary and contentious\u2014especially in a time when presidents would endorse women\u2019s suffrage yet remain hesitant to genuinely support women in positions of power.<\/p>\n Notably, the authors don\u2019t shy away from the complexities that arise after women are appointed. The challenges they present\u2014such as balancing familial expectations and professional responsibilities\u2014are all too relatable. I found myself reflecting on the broader implications not only in the court but in workplaces everywhere, as women juggle identities that society often complicates for them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Read the full review\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>. And my co-author\u00a0Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson<\/strong>\u00a0(Southern Illinois) and I are always happy to speak about the book. We\u2019ve given talks to a\u00a0wide range of audiences<\/a><\/strong>. Please reach out to either (or both!) of us if you have an engagement in mind.<\/p>\n Now for your headlines. I can\u2019t blame the slow start to my Monday only on my late night concert over the weekend. I am definitely still recovering from the onslaught of legal ethics news from the past week. We of course have more than ten headlines\u2026so let\u2019s turn now to the top fifteen. You might want to grab a cup of coffee for this read. \u2615\ufe0f<\/p>\n #1\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cIf the Trump administration can do this, then no American is safe from political prosecution.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>A letter to Congress from\u00a0Norman Eisen<\/strong>,\u00a0Richard Painter<\/strong>, and\u00a0Virginia Canter<\/strong>: \u201cWe write as former ethics counsels for\u00a0Presidents George W. Bush<\/strong>,\u00a0Barack Obama<\/strong>, and\u00a0Bill Clinton<\/strong>. We urgently request an investigation into possible prosecutorial abuses and ethics violations by\u00a0Lindsey Halligan<\/strong>, the newly-appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in connection with her having improperly brought charges against former\u00a0Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey<\/strong>. \u2026 In the United States, a president should never order prosecutions of his enemies.\u201d Read the\u00a0full letter here<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and an op-ed from the authors published on MSNBC\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #2 \u201c\u2018At Professional Risk\u2019: Charging Comey Could Land Lindsey Halligan in Hot Water.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Vanity Fair:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cAn ethics professor from Halligan\u2019s law school warns that if she pursues charges against the former FBI director without probable cause, she could be disciplined by the Florida bar.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #3<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cNewman Makes Full-Court Press in Appeals Challenge of Suspension.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Bloomberg Law:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cJudge Pauline Newman<\/strong>, the country\u2019s oldest active federal judge, asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider her constitutional challenge to the law her colleagues used to suspend her from hearing new cases. The full appellate court should heed a three-judge panel\u2019s implicit invitation\u2019 to take the case en banc and revisit a precedent preventing the court from considering Newman\u2019s arguments on the merits, she argued in a\u00a0petition<\/a>\u00a0filed Sept. 19 at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The panel in August upheld a D.C.-based district court\u2019s dismissal of Newman\u2019s lawsuit seeking reinstatement.\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #4 \u201cAmy Coney Barrett Explains Why She Won\u2019t Explain Her Recusals.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0Politico:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cJustice Amy Coney Barrett<\/strong>\u00a0indicated Thursday that one reason she chooses not to explain why she recuses herself from cases for ethics reasons is because her friends or family could face unwanted public attention, threats or worse. The comments from Barrett are a rare sign that a recent surge in threats against judges and their families are affecting how members of the Supreme Court carry out their official duties. During a stop in Washington to promote her new book, Barrett was asked why some justices explain their decisions to recuse from cases, while others don\u2019t.<\/strong>\u201d Read more\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n #5 \u201cI Sought to Protect an Immigrant Legal Client. Instead, I\u2019m Facing Trump\u2019s New Sanctions.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>From\u00a0The Guardian:\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cFacing the specter of conditions in El Salvador\u2019s Cecot facility and the plight of other immigrants having been removed without notice, I had previously secured a\u00a0class action<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0against removals for my own district around Los Angeles, and I wanted to extend such protection to this client. I knew President Trump had issued a\u00a0proclamation<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0attempting to justify removals after the fact, but I used my best judgment and skills to ask the court to enforce the actual law as written. The government nevertheless proceeded to take my client out of the United States. So I was taken aback when the government asked the judge to punish me for my efforts via a motion for sanctions \u2013 which is a novel strategy by the administration to go after immigration attorneys personally by attempting to ruin their record or fine them.\u00a0<\/strong>I was now a target.\u201d Read more\u00a0![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21Ixgg%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd4f5e37b-abf3-472b-9620-c93f0401eaf3_1056x1372.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n
\nHighlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top\u00a0
Ten<\/s>\u00a0Fifteen Headlines<\/h3>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21a5Cp%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4542360d-2978-49ad-87a4-e5d6b9a9fd9a_1670x1428.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21B3MZ%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0e68f508-83fc-46a9-bef7-3c1fc0c52078_1310x550.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\nGet Hired<\/h3>\n
\nUpcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements<\/h3>\n
\nKeep in Touch<\/h3>\n
\n
\nHappy Monday!<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/figure>\n\n
\nHighlights from Last Week\u00a0\u2013 Top\u00a0
Ten<\/s>\u00a0Fifteen Headlines<\/h3>\n<\/a><\/figure>\n