The Jabot

Kathryn Rubino at Above the Law
  • 4.6 (33)
  • Philosophy
  • Weekly

We are an offshoot of the Above the Law legal blog. But we are focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Let's be real -- it can suck out there. So we want to create a space where our community can come together share stories, find support and devise strategies. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It's a reminder that --even when we aren't winning, we're still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

  1. 20h ago

    Just How Bad Can It Get On Election Day?

    Days before the 2026 midterms, voting rights attorney and author David Walbert joins Kathryn Rubino to size up the real risk heading into Election Day. It is not the vote count he worries about, it is what happens after a close result: a congressional election contest, the same playbook Trump tried with electoral votes in 2020, now aimed at the House. Walbert also walks through live legal fights in Alaska and California, and traces today's fights over the Voting Rights Act back to the Supreme Court decisions that enabled Jim Crow a century ago. Key Takeaways A close election, not a landslide, is what opens the door to a congressional election contest over House seats. The Ninth Circuit's split ruling on California's non-citizen voter list shows how little room frivolous election cases now get from this Supreme Court. Alaska's ballot fight, where the GOP's own filing argues a loss would make the election invalid, is a preview of post-election litigation tactics. Gutting federal agencies now, as with DOGE's cuts to the CDC, has consequences that outlast the people who get rehired later. Walbert reads the Supreme Court's rollback of the Voting Rights Act as the modern echo of the Reconstruction-era rulings that helped entrench Jim Crow. Links and Resources David Walbert's book, Stealing Elections American Style: https://www.bloomsbury.com/ca/stealing-elections-american-style-9798216391999/ David Walbert's piece for The Guardian on the electoral vote playbook: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/17/trump-voting-rights-midterms Keywords David Walbert, voting rights attorney, election law, Stealing Elections American Style, Kathryn Rubino, The Jabot, Above the Law, election integrity, voter suppression, gerrymandering, congressional election contest, Alaska ballot case, Ninth Circuit, Bush v. Gore, Voting Rights Act, civil rights law, Jim Crow history, Supreme Court, Georgia elections, Jon Ossoff Episode Highlights [00:04:00 - 00:09:00] Walbert explains why the 2020 electoral vote playbook, not the count itself, worries him most about 2026. [00:05:00 - 00:06:00] He calls the DOJ under Trump the private law firm of the Republican National Committee. [00:09:00 - 00:11:00] Georgia's early voting is outpacing 2022, with Jon Ossoff as a major driver. [00:11:00 - 00:14:00] A divided Ninth Circuit panel rules on a last-minute attempt to segregate California ballots. [00:14:00 - 00:16:00] Walbert breaks down Alaska's ballot fight between two candidates named Dan Sullivan. [00:16:00 - 00:19:00] Why gutting agencies like the CDC under DOGE carries consequences that outlast a single administration. [00:20:00 - 00:26:00] Walbert traces today's Voting Rights Act fights back to Reconstruction-era Supreme Court rulings. [00:26:00 - 00:29:00] What could actually right the ship, and what still worries him about this Supreme Court.

  2. Oct 16

    Why Reproductive Justice Needs Queer Analysis

    Professor Carly Thomsen of Rice University, author of Reproductive Justice, Queerly, joins Kathryn Rubino to explain why reproductive justice scholarship and queer theory have historically talked past each other, what that gap misses, and why culture work, not just law and policy, is essential to building reproductive and queer justice in a post-Dobbs world. Key Takeaways Reproductive justice, a framework developed by Black feminists in the 1990s, is broader than abortion rights: access matters as much as legality, and reproductive justice also covers parenting, housing, and economic security. Thomsen argues that culture work, art, public humanities, media, everyday conversation, is essential alongside law and policy, since many people don't feel they have real access to lawmakers or courts. Queer theorists use "queer" to describe a relationship to normativity, not as a synonym for LGBTQ+ identity: someone can be LGBTQ+ without being queer, and someone heterosexual can live queerly. In her research on surrogacy campaigns, Thomsen found that centering gay men's family-building stories often sidelined both surrogates themselves and longstanding feminist critiques of the surrogacy industry. Thomsen sees sports culture as a real, if imperfect, site of cultural change, and pushes back on the recent politicization of trans athletes as a stand-in for "fairness" debates that ignore how unequal sports already are. Links and Resources Carly Thomsen: http://carlythomsen.com/ Q&A with Carly Thomsen (UC Press): https://www.ucpress.edu/blog-posts/q-a-with-carly-thomsen-author-of-reproductive-justice-queerly LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carly-thomsen-616632124/ Contact: thomsen.carly@gmail.com Keywords Carly Thomsen, Reproductive Justice Queerly, reproductive justice, queer theory, Rice University, gender studies, feminist scholarship, Dobbs decision, abortion access, surrogacy, LGBTQ, culture work, academia careers, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, reproductive rights, women gender sexuality studies, feminist legal scholarship, post-Dobbs, sports and gender Episode Highlights [00:09:00 - 00:11:00]  Carly Thomsen describes the moment a college gender studies class and a Monday Night Football watch party converged into a lasting realization about structural sexism. [00:20:00 - 00:21:00]  Thomsen explains why reproductive justice requires more than legal rights, and how access shapes whether a right means anything. [00:22:00 - 00:24:00]  Thomsen describes building a $100,000 reproductive justice mini golf installation to make the issue's reach visible. [00:31:00 - 00:34:00]  How surrogacy advocacy campaigns centered gay men's stories while leaving out surrogates and feminist critique.

  3. Oct 9

    From Biglaw To TV Judge

    Rachel Juarez, one of the judges on the syndicated court show Hot Bench, joins Kathryn Rubino to trace her path from Quinn Emanuel to a solo family law practice to national television, and to explain what it actually takes to run an unscripted courtroom show, including the AI-fueled lawsuits she's starting to see on set. Key Takeaways Rachel Juarez loved big law. She left Quinn Emanuel not because of the culture but for a lifestyle change after having her first child, and says she'd go back if she ever returned to that kind of practice. Family law was one of the few practice areas where Juarez could realistically source her own clients as a new solo attorney, since her big law litigation clients weren't hers to take with her. Running even a small firm meant learning an entirely new skill set overnight: billing software, malpractice insurance, IT, and bar compliance, none of which law school teaches. Juarez got her Hot Bench audition through a client's connection while she was four to five weeks postpartum, and had six days to accept the job once it was offered. The judge's role is more nuanced than an advocate's: Juarez describes learning to stop "winning" admissions and instead check whether a litigant understood what they'd just conceded. Litigants are increasingly showing up with AI-generated legal theories, including one who sued because ChatGPT told her, after a leading question, that she was being scammed. Links and Resources Hot Bench: https://www.hotbench.tv/ Contact: Hayley.Strichman@paramount.com Keywords Hot Bench, Rachel Juarez, TV judge, syndicated court show, big law, Quinn Emanuel, family law, solo practice, law firm administration, judicial temperament, courtroom television, legal career change, AI in litigation, ChatGPT legal advice, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, small claims court, legal edutainment, women lawyers, career trajectory Episode Highlights [00:10:00 - 00:12:00]  Rachel Juarez explains how a chance client referral led to her Hot Bench audition, and how fast the process moved from there. [00:15:00 - 00:16:00]  Juarez describes the moment she realized the judge's job is to check understanding, not win admissions. [00:20:00 - 00:21:00]  The wildest case on Hot Bench: a woman sues the man who let her live in his trailer after it crashed while she was moving it. [00:21:00 - 00:22:00]  A litigant's entire case rested on a leading question she'd asked ChatGPT.

  4. Oct 2

    Everything You Don't Know About The First Woman Judge

    Professor Tracy Thomas, the CyberLink Chair of Constitutional Law at the University of Akron and author of The First Woman Judge: The Life and Legacy of Florence Allen, joins Kathryn Rubino to tell the story of Florence Allen, the first woman on a federal appellate court, a state supreme court, and a common pleas court in the country, and to explain why a judge considered for the U.S. Supreme Court a dozen times has largely disappeared from legal history. Key Takeaways Florence Allen was a trailblazer many times over: first woman common pleas judge in the country, first woman on a state supreme court, and the first woman federal appellate judge. Allen wasn't a straightforward rights crusader. She was a careful, moderate judge who used long, precedent-heavy opinions to disprove assumptions that women couldn't handle complex legal issues. She was on the shortlist for the U.S. Supreme Court 12 times across multiple presidents, but never appointed, largely because presidents wanted political loyalists, not judges with her level of judicial experience. Allen faced constant microaggressions and outright hostility, from being shunned in conference to being denied equal pay, and pushed back deliberately and strategically when it mattered. Her legacy faded partly because of a decades-long gap before the next woman reached similar positions, and because women's legal history has historically been under-preserved and under-studied. Links and Resources Author Site, Professor Tracy Thomas: https://www.proftracythomas.com/ The First Woman Judge (Amazon): https://www.amazon.com/First-Woman-Judge-Legacy-Florence/dp/0520399609 University of Akron Center for Constitutional Law: https://www.uakron.edu/law/ccl/ Prof Tracy Thomas, Linktree: https://linktr.ee/ProfTThomas Contact: thomast@uakron.edu Keywords Florence Allen, first woman judge, Tracy Thomas, University of Akron, legal history, women in law, women's legal history, Supreme Court shortlist, federal appellate judge, state supreme court, judicial history, constitutional law, women judges, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, judicial biography, suffrage movement, New Deal jurisprudence, legal academia, women's rights lawyer Episode Highlights [00:06:00 - 00:07:00]  Tracy Thomas describes discovering Florence Allen was the first woman federal appellate judge, state supreme court justice, and common pleas judge in the country. [00:12:00 - 00:16:00]  Thomas explains why Allen was shortlisted for the Supreme Court 12 times, and why sexism and political calculation kept her off it. [00:17:00 - 00:20:00]  Allen's day-to-day experience of being shunned, mocked, and underpaid as the first woman in every room she entered. [00:25:00 - 00:27:00]  Why Allen's legacy is more than a "first woman" footnote, and how it reshaped representation on the bench.

  5. Sep 25

    If You Can Imagine It, The Supreme Court Used To Be Even More Political

    Historian Rachel Shelden, author of The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History, joins Kathryn Rubino to unpack how deeply political the Supreme Court actually was for its first century, why the Court's modern claim to be apolitical is a relatively recent invention, and why understanding that history matters for today's debates over court reform and legitimacy. Key Takeaways The Supreme Court was designed to be a political institution: 19th-century justices rode circuit, participated in state and local politics, ran for office, and even wrote legislation and presidential addresses. Lifetime tenure didn't always mean staying on the Court. Many justices left for other roles they saw as equal or better, including David Davis, who left the Court to become a U.S. Senator from Illinois in 1877. The Court's image as an apolitical, isolated institution developed largely at the end of the 19th century and through the 20th, driven in part by the professionalization of lawyers and a reframing of the Constitution as a legal rather than political document. Marbury v. Madison's reputation as the moment the Court became apolitical is, according to Shelden, more myth than history, a narrative that took hold around the Court's 1890 centennial. Originalism claims historical grounding, but Shelden argues it often isn't doing rigorous history. It selectively cites the past rather than engaging with the full, contested range of 19th-century constitutional debate. Links and Resources The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History: https://uncpress.org/9781469697130/the-political-supreme-court/ Rachel Shelden: https://rachelshelden.com/ Contact: rshelden@psu.edu Keywords Supreme Court, legal history, constitutional history, originalism, judicial legitimacy, Marbury v. Madison, court reform, jurisdiction stripping, court packing, term limits, Rachel Shelden, Penn State, political history, legal historian, Above the Law, The Jabot Podcast, judicial politics, circuit riding, John Roberts, constitutional interpretation Episode Highlights [00:02:00 - 00:04:00]  Rachel Shelden details how 19th-century justices rode circuit, ran for office, and were deeply embedded in politics. [00:09:30 - 00:11:00]  Shelden unpacks the irony of John Roberts's "balls and strikes" framing given the Court's political origins. [00:13:00 - 00:15:00]  Why Marbury v. Madison's status as the birth of an apolitical Court is more myth than history. [00:17:00 - 00:19:00]  Shelden explains the rhetorical sleight of hand behind originalism's selective use of history.

  6. Sep 18

    DEI Efforts On The Non-Lawyer Side Of The Legal Industry

    Legal marketing veterans John Byrne (Gould & Ratner) and Toni Wells (Bespoke Marketing Partners) join Kathryn Rubino to trace how legal marketing evolved from an afterthought into a real career path, why "outcomes" is replacing "value" as AI reshapes the billable hour, and why DEI progress for business professionals inside law firms still lags behind the progress made for attorneys. Key Takeaways Legal marketing has shifted from something people fell into to a career path people choose intentionally, driven in large part by the growth of the Legal Marketing Association (LMA). Services marketing, and legal marketing especially, is about selling an experience and a relationship, not a product you can hand someone. AI and the shakiness of the billable hour are pushing firms toward marketing outcomes instead of vague "value," a shift John Byrne calls overdue and still far from complete. Strong client service, not just new business, is the real driver of law firm revenue: at Byrne's firm, 80% of income is recurring business from existing clients. Business professionals in law firms, especially those from underrepresented groups, often have less access to mentorship and informal "on-the-job" knowledge than attorneys do, leaving a real gap in advancement opportunities. Links and Resources Toni Wells, Bespoke Marketing Partners: https://www.bespokemarketingpartners.com/about John Byrne, Gould & Ratner: https://www.gouldratner.com/bio/john-m-byrne Keywords legal marketing, Legal Marketing Association, LMA, DEI, legal industry, law firm business development, chief business development officer, Above the Law, billable hour, value versus outcomes, AI in law firms, client service, services marketing, professional development, law firm mentorship, legal industry diversity, business professionals in law firms, law firm leadership, Gould & Ratner, Bespoke Marketing Partners Episode Highlights [00:08:00 - 00:09:00]  John Byrne argues the industry is finally shifting from selling "value" to selling outcomes, thanks to AI and pressure on the billable hour. [00:12:00 - 00:13:00]  John Byrne explains why client service, not new business, is the real engine of law firm revenue. [00:14:00 - 00:16:00]  John Byrne breaks down how risk-averse lawyers can talk about outcomes without overpromising results. [00:22:00 - 00:24:00]  Toni Wells on why mentorship gaps hit business professionals from underrepresented groups especially hard.

  7. Sep 11

    Giving Voice to the Voiceless

    Kathryn Rubino sits down with Amos Guiora, law professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law and director of the Bystander Initiative, to talk about his forthcoming book, Enablers: Normalizing the Unimaginable. The conversation traces his path from an IDF JAG Corps officer to a legal scholar building a case for criminalizing the people who knew about harm, had the power to stop it, and chose not to. KEY TAKEAWAYS An enabler is legally distinct from a perpetrator. Guiora defines the enabler as someone who knows of harm because of their position or authority, is able to prevent it, and instead protects the institution or the leader over the vulnerable person. Bystander law has a gap. Legal systems have criminalized the bystander who witnesses harm and does nothing, but not the enabler who actively protects the person or institution causing it. Guiora's work is aimed at closing that gap. Institutions rarely pay a real price. When a university settles for hundreds of millions of dollars, insurance covers it, not individuals. Guiora argues that until specific people face criminal accountability, mandatory-reporter training and bystander videos stay performative. The pattern repeats across very different settings. From Larry Nassar at Michigan State to the Catholic Church to Jeffrey Epstein's circle to Israel's handling of the October 7th hostages, Guiora sees the same structure: a perpetrator who could only act because an ecosystem of enablers let him. His new book names names. Drawing on off-the-record access to former senior Israeli officials, Guiora documents specific people in Netanyahu's inner circle and the political calculations behind their decisions not to push for a hostage deal. LINKS AND RESOURCES   Bystander Initiative - S.J. Quinney College of Law Enablers: Normalizing the Unimaginable (forthcoming) - Amos Guiora The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander and the Holocaust - Amos Guiora Armies of Enablers - Amos Guiora Above the Law tips line: tips@abovethelaw.com, subject line "The Jabot" KEYWORDS Amos Guiora, Bystander Initiative, enablers, bystander law, campus sexual abuse, Larry Nassar, Catholic Church abuse, Jeffrey Epstein enablers, Epstein files, October 7th, Israeli hostages, Netanyahu, hostage endangerment law, mandatory reporter training, institutional accountability, Above the Law, The Jabot podcast, Kathryn Rubino, legal academia, IDF JAG Corps, Holocaust bystander EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS [00:00:37 - 00:01:59] Guiora on the blue pamphlet his mother brought home and the fate of his career being sealed at age 11 [00:04:00 - 00:04:59] The origin of the Bystander Initiative: a marathon-training question about the Holocaust [00:09:11 - 00:10:00] Guiora explains why the initiative targets criminalizing enablers, not just bystanders [00:13:05 - 00:14:00] Guiora's working definition of an enabler [00:15:00 - 00:16:00] Why bystander training videos are "check the box" and performative [00:20:52 - 00:21:30] Why Guiora decided to name enablers by name in the new book [00:23:56 - 00:24:40] The political calculation behind enablers protecting Netanyahu [00:29:00 - 00:29:40] The Holocaust survivor's letter: "You give voice to the voiceless"

  8. Sep 4

    What It's Really Like To Be General Counsel

    Summary Chaka Patterson, founder and CEO of Chaka Strategy and author of The Hot Seat: Mastering the Public Company General Counsel Role, joins Kathryn Rubino to unpack what actually separates a successful general counsel from one who's gone within five years. His answer has almost nothing to do with legal skill and everything to do with becoming the quarterback the C-suite calls first. Key Takeaways Legal expertise is table stakes, not a differentiator. Every lawyer in the building is technically proficient. What sets a GC apart is emotional intelligence, executive presence, and the ability to translate legal ideas for a non-lawyer audience. A crisis is never just a legal problem. When the stock drops or an activist investor sends a letter, the GC has to think PR, markets, employee communications, and legal all at once, not wait for someone else to own the rest. The GC is the quarterback, not a specialist with "their piece." New in-house lawyers often assume the CFO owns markets and comms owns PR. In reality, the general counsel is expected to coordinate all of it, holistically. The biggest mistake new GCs make is treating themselves as the final word on legal issues, and treating business colleagues the way they treated outside clients, or worse, the way they treated targets in government work. Turnover in the GC seat is steep, over 40% within five years, because "last call" lawyers who just dispense legal advice get replaced. "First call" lawyers, the ones the CEO trusts as an advisor on everything, tend to stay. Links and Resources Chaka Patterson on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/chaka-patterson Chaka Strategy: chakastrategy.com The Hot Seat: Mastering the Public Company General Counsel Role by Chaka Patterson Above the Law: abovethelaw.com Follow Kathryn Rubino: @Kathrynone Send tips or guest suggestions: tips@abovethelaw.com (subject line: The Jabot) Keywords general counsel, in-house counsel, GC turnover, public company GC, legal leadership, C-suite, business acumen, emotional intelligence, executive presence, trusted advisor, law firm to in-house transition, crisis management, corporate legal department, chief legal officer, legal operations, The Hot Seat, Chaka Strategy, Above the Law, The Jabot Episode Highlights Episode Highlights Timestamps Highlight [00:03:53 - 00:05:00] Chaka on the biggest surprise of going in-house: legal expertise is just table stakes. [00:07:50 - 00:08:53] Why the GC has to be the one coordinating PR, markets, and legal, not hoping someone else has it covered. [00:08:53 - 00:10:57] Chaka's "controversial take": why he'd be reluctant to hand a first-time GC role to a law firm partner with no in-house experience. [00:12:09 - 00:14:39] What Chaka would look for as a CEO hiring a general counsel: a business person first. [00:14:39 - 00:16:00] The two mistakes new GCs make most often, and why they frustrate the business. [00:16:53 - 00:17:56] What Chaka learned about his own legal department once he became a consumer of legal services as Exelon's treasurer. [00:21:35 - 00:23:23] Why over 40% of general counsel are gone within five years. [00:23:23 - 00:23:53] The line between the "first call" lawyer and the "last call" lawyer. [00:23:53 - 00:26:53] Chaka's three-part advice for lawyers building toward the GC seat: high EQ, learn the business, and find non-lawyer audiences to practice on.

See All (236)

4.6
out of 5
33 Ratings

About

We are an offshoot of the Above the Law legal blog. But we are focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Let's be real -- it can suck out there. So we want to create a space where our community can come together share stories, find support and devise strategies. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wears when delivering dissents from the bench. It's a reminder that --even when we aren't winning, we're still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Information

  • Creator
    Kathryn Rubino at Above the Law
  • Years Active
    2018 - 2026
  • Episodes
    236
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © 2023 Breaking Media, Inc
  • Show Website
    The Jabot

You Might Also Like