Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Sherry Levin Wallach, the 125th President of the New York State Bar Association discusses her priorities as she begins her term. She is focusing on the issues of membership growth and the future of practice in New York. What will legal practice look like going forward in a post-pandemic New York? How can we combat isolation, reconnect and handle mental health challenges facing both clients and their attorneys. Wallach also touches on issues of equal justice for Americans living in US territories and sentencing reform when she joins David Miranda for Miranda Warnings. David Miranda is a past president of the New York State Bar Association and its current General Counsel.
Join NYSBA’s 118th President David Miranda each week as he interviews some of the biggest names in law and politics. Each week he discusses all things legal – and some that are not. You have the right to remain listening.
Dave Miranda:
Hi, I'm Dave Miranda, general counsel and past president of the New York State Bar Association. Welcome to Miranda Warnings. You have the right to remain listening. Today, on Miranda Warnings, we're very pleased to have Sherry Levin Wallach the 125th president of the New York State Bar Association. Welcome Madam President.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Thank you. Happy to be here.
Dave Miranda:
It's great to have you on Miranda Warnings. Is it true that you became president so you could appear on Miranda Warnings?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Absolutely. I've been dying to be on this show, ever since you started.
Dave Miranda:
You should have just asked you didn't have to go through all the effort of becoming president of the-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Why didn't you let me-
Dave Miranda:
... Bar Association. We'd love to have you. We've got so much to talk about. We're very excited about your term that started on June 1. We're on our way transitioning, hopefully out of the pandemic. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing our association today?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Our biggest challenge right now is membership and the future of practice, what it's going to look like in the future moving forward.
Dave Miranda:
So those are two very simple answers, but I think also there's a complicated answer to how do we address those? So first on the membership, what kind of initiatives are you going to have to help with our Association's membership, both in increasing it and improving the value to the members that we have?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Well, I think the first thing with membership is we have to remember that it's the personal touches that matter, even though we've been in a pandemic and we've been forced to go virtual, I think that's largely part of some of the losses and value that people see. On the other front, we've been able to provide great value in our CLE programming, but great loss in our networking and ability to interact with our fellow attorneys and judges.
Levin Wallach:
So I started, a few weeks before I came into my presidency, traveling around the state and meeting with different Bar Associations, going to their events, now that we're having them. Reconnecting with the local Bars, and I plan to also reconnect with the affinity Bars to hear the issues that are important to them, the issues that they're facing, and how we as a New York State Bar Association can help support them and their membership, which is our membership base as well, moving forward out of this pandemic.
Dave Miranda:
Now, as you're traveling around the state and talking to our members and to other attorneys around New York state, what are you hearing is the most important issue, most important concern that attorneys in New York have today?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So I think there's a big gap, if you will, in unemployment opportunities. I shouldn't say opportunities, there are plenty of employment opportunities. The gap is in those seeking those opportunities. The firms I hear are having trouble finding applicants for their positions. They have openings, and we just don't seem to have attorneys applying for those positions, particularly upstate New York. That's one of their biggest concerns right now. So for those of you who are listening and are an attorney and looking for employment, you're willing to move upstate New York, Binghamton, Syracuse, Rochester, those firms are hiring and there are jobs there. That's one of the biggest concerns that I'm hearing.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
I would say the other concern that I'm hearing is obviously larger increase of the clients who are facing mental health challenges, as well as attorneys facing mental health and substance abuse challenges, as a result of the pandemic and being locked down and the change of lifestyle. We're all, as a society, I think we know there's an indefinitely increased focus on wellbeing, because we are seeing that people are going through difficult times, and they're fighting, and they're going to come out and I'd like to help them.
Dave Miranda:
Well, first, with respect to the employment matter, I should say that the New York State Bar Association has a very full and comprehensive job listing service that is available both to people seeking attorneys, seeking work, as well as to employers and law firms, very well received. I know a lot of it's used by a lot of young lawyers, law students also. And that's on our website and very popular.
Dave Miranda:
The second part, the mental health part I know is important issue to you. And I understand that you're looking to form a task force to look at the intersection between the mental health issues and the law. Tell us a little bit about that task force and what you'd like to see our association involved in doing.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Absolutely. So this has been something that's been a focus of mine. I think it's particular to my life experiences, as well as my practice as a criminal defense attorney. I see that the gaps that exist in our system to provide support for clients. We also have to take a look at the definitions that we use for disability. Just like a broken bone, or somebody who can't walk upstairs, an individual who is fighting mental health challenges, it's the same thing. Similarly, substance abuse, same thing, again, addiction as an illness.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And we need to take a look at these things in more depth and how we as attorneys can better serve our client base across the board, not only in the criminal realm, but in any avenue of practice, whether it's family law, elder law. Looking at how we can help and better serve our clients by better understanding what it is that they are facing. And also by looking at how we can direct them to support.
Dave Miranda:
Of course, when we talk about mental health, there's the need to address the issue for the individual, but when there's mental health issues in the legal system, it affects all of us. It affects everyone, lawyers and non-lawyers. So when we have mental health issues involved in criminal justice system, for example, or in family matters, it affects not only the person that has the issue that needs to be addressed, but an entire range of other individuals. What can our association do to assist in this regard? Are you talking about educational programs? We talking about some sort of pro bono efforts?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
I formed a task force on mental health and trauma impacted representation. That task force is going to be looking at all of these issues that you're discussing as far as how we as a profession can not only better serve our clients, but also the intersectionality between the attorneys who are representing clients with mental health diagnoses, or living with mental illness and how it impacts them as attorneys and their wellbeing as attorneys.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So there is an intersectionality there that is going to be addressed. Some of the things that they're going to be looking at is expansion of treatment courts. How we can help support the expansion of those courts throughout the state. Where there are gaps in services. Where there are gaps in programs. Reaching out to providers to understand from the providers, what their challenges are in providing the services to the clients. Looking at the laws as we have them now, and maybe how and if they should be changed to better encompass the issue of mental illness.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
What I mean by that is going back to what I said, for example, the definition of disability and what that encompasses. What does it mean to be disabled. We have also people who are struggling with employment and housing as a result of their fight with mental illness, and what is it that we can do to better provide opportunities for them. Do we need to change the laws so that those individuals who are struggling, or I should say, living with mental illness can live with mental illness and maintain their jobs. They can go to their offices for accommodations, just like they would if they had a physical disability. And they would be granted those accommodations and allowed to maintain their job as well as supported with what they are living with.
Dave Miranda:
Well, it sounds like a very important task force, a very important issue. I know that you have a number of issues that you want to address. One of which involves the US territories, that you're going to form a task force or you've formed a task force on addressing legal issues involving the US territories. Tell us a little bit about both the task force, and why you think it's important that the New York State Bar Association be involved in issues related to the US territories.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So the issues with the US territories, I started back when HR279 was introduced in Congress. I started back in 2021 educating with, and working with our diversity equity inclusion committee. HR279 was introduced into Congress to request that our government denounced the Insular Cases, which is a line of cases that largely create the secondary citizenship for residents of the territories that exists, second class citizenship. They are also based really in racist reasoning.
Dave Miranda:
Right.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And are still good law. So those cases decided in the early 1900s are still largely influencing the jurisprudence of today. And looking at that... So at that time, when that was introduced, I began programs with the New York State Bar Association in conjunction and partnership with the Virgin Islands Bar Association, educating the attorneys across really the country and the world, anybody had access to it, it was done virtually, on these cases, talking about the impact of these cases in society today, and why it's so important that we take a look at these cases and we denounce these cases. Why does it matter to New York? I think was your question.
Dave Miranda:
Right.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And let me speak to that. So, as I mentioned, these cases are based in racist reasoning and some of the language used in these cases in referring to the residents of the territories is some of the most horrific language that I think anybody would agree they've seen written in a Supreme Court decision.
Dave Miranda:
Right. And I want to talk a little bit about that language, because it is so striking. So we're talking about a group of cases called the Insular Cases that were from the early 1900s.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
That's correct.
Dave Miranda:
And what those cases end up doing is denying citizens of the territories rights that people in the rest of the country have. Right? And so there was a recent case before the US Supreme Court, the Vaello-Madero, where Social Security Benefits were denied to someone that was at one point in New York and then moved to Puerto Rico. When he went to Puerto Rico, he couldn't get his Social Security Benefits anymore. And the Supreme Court said, well, because of this, this is okay, Congress is allowed to do this, and they didn't overturn the-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Well, yeah. Let me-
Dave Miranda:
... Insular Cases. But so I just want to give that. Let's talk a little bit about the Insular Cases and why they're important, but they do have, even though they're from the 1900s, they do have a current interest in how people are impacted today.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So yes I was going to get to that. I think in order to get there, we have to understand that what you were mentioning the second class citizenship, it's not only with regards to Social Security Benefits.
Dave Miranda:
Right.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So residents of the US territories are not entitled to federal benefits when they live in the US territories, even if they had lived in the mainland US and moved back to US territories at some point, and later in their life worked their whole life on the mainland. Once they move back to the territories, they're not entitled to those benefits. They're also not entitled to vote. They do not have any voting representation in our government structure. While we have representatives like Representative Plaskett, from the US Virgin Islands, she is not a voting member.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And that was something that was decided early on when the territories were determined to be unincorporated territories. Unincorporated, meaning that they were not on a path to statehood. And not being on a path to statehood, and largely the reasoning in these cases we're discussing, gave in explanations as to why, which we'll talk about in just a moment, they were denied the same rights that you would have as a resident of mainland. In addition to voting and federal benefits, there's also a distinction between the way that residents of the territories are looked at as far as criminal justice.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
For example, in Puerto Rico, there is federal law, as well as state law. Many of the crimes that people are charged with do fall under the federal law. There's a federal prosecutor who's appointed by the government that they don't have a vote in. So it's very far reaching when you talk about what the limitations are that are placed on the residents of the US territories. It's a very deep issue, because at the same time, I think largely the residents of the territories early on and as a result of these Insular Cases, some of the concern was that the traditions that were held by people in the territories were not Anglo-Saxon enough to bring them into full citizenship within the United States.
Dave Miranda:
And then when we're talking about the territories, we're talking about Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
American Samoa and Northern Marianas. Yes. Those are the ones we're talking about. And each one has their own unique struggle. But overall, all of these are issues are coming to be. So for example, to get to your point, Vaello-Madero, which was the case that was just decided by the Supreme Court 8 to 1 decision, unfortunately not in favor of Mr. Vaello-Madero, who was a Puerto Rican man who lived his entire life in New York and hence a connection to New York, which I'll get to a little bit more in a moment.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
But he was a New York resident his entire life ended up on SSI, ended up deciding to move back to Puerto Rico to be near his family since he was a disabled man, and it was easier, to live with where you have access to family and people who can help you. Continued to receive his benefits until he was then sued by the US government. I believe it was somewhere in the range of $28,000, $29,000 that he needed to return to the US government in benefits that he was not entitled to receive since he had returned to live in Puerto Rico.
Dave Miranda:
But he would've otherwise been entitled to-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Correct.
Dave Miranda:
... if he had stayed in New York or any other-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
That's correct.
Dave Miranda:
... state of the union.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
That's correct.
Dave Miranda:
Yeah.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And so there are a number of cases also kind of following in the heels of Vaello-Madero, where I think we hope, and we do have hope, that we will have an opportunity to address these issues. The Pimanu Case, which Judge Gorsuch references in his concurring opinion to Vaello-Madero is coming, I believe, it's in the amicus, sorry, the cert stage right now. And that case focuses directly on the question of citizenship involving a gentleman from Utah. And so that case should be the next case, I believe, that they will hear. And based on Judge Gorsuch's concurrence and the language that he put forth in that concurrence, we have hope that he, in addition to Judge Sotomayor-
Dave Miranda:
Right.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
... who was the sole dissenter in Vaello- Madero, sees now the harm that the language in these Insular Cases has and the harm that it has on the residents of the territories, as far as the decision that was made and the power that was given to Congress to create-
Dave Miranda:
Right.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
... this secondary citizenship.
Dave Miranda:
And just to put a point to that Judge Gorsuch, who was with the majority to deny those benefits cited the Insular Cases and said that that was a precedent that should be overturned, just not in this particular case.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Correct.
Dave Miranda:
And so there's some, I think a clear indication, that the next case that comes before the court that seeks to overturn these Insular Cases from the early part of the 20th century, that he certainly would be supportive. It would appear as though Justice Sotomayor would be supportive of overturning. What about the rest of the court? We need five.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Yeah, I know. And that's where we're struggling. And we don't really know. Although certainly, listening to the argument in Vaello-Madero, the questions that were asked by the Court do largely address whether or not these cases should be considered in their decision. Ultimately, the question in Vaello-Madero was standard of review that was used, and without getting into the weeds as to the specifics, we're-
Dave Miranda:
Right. We're already pretty down in the weeds.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Yeah, we are, but, we don't want to get further down. But I do think that there is some hope listening to the questions that were asked by the Judges, the Justices of the Supreme Court to the litigants, as far as they did understand and see that these cases, the Insular Cases, did have some relevance, just maybe not based on this case. Equal protection is an argument that's often used. And that was used in also in Vaello-Madero. I feel, and I think those who are involved in the Pimanu case feel that the equal protection argument certainly was a strong one. And hopefully, is one that the Supreme Court will look at under different facts.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
There's also another case coming out of Pennsylvania involving a woman who has denied benefit when she returned to Guam. So there's a number of cases. It is obviously a hot issue. There are law schools looking at this. The ABA passed a resolution in last August, I believe it was, to encourage Constitutional Law classes to teach about the Insular Cases. Many don't even know what they are, and have not heard of them. And so, certainly that was very promising to hear that we are now hopefully going to be learning about these cases and the impact these cases have on our society as a whole. And just getting to the New York question, I think what we have to recognize is A, I like to think, and certainly as President of New York State Bar Association, I want to think and believe, that we have a loud voice, New York has a loud voice. We are impactful. We have the largest voluntary bar.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So we are in a good position hopefully to be heard, or to add to the voices that asking for these cases to be overturned or to be denounced. We also, in New York, have a huge population of individuals from the US territories who were either born there, or have family there, or live in both places, because of familial connections. So we have a large percentage of attorneys who are attorneys who either do practice in the US territories as well as in New York, but also who would seek admission. And finally, I would say this, that in the US territories the only law school is in Puerto Rico. And it teaches, to my understanding still, only in Spanish. So that limits the opportunity for other residents of the territories or residents of Puerto Rico, who are not fluent in Spanish to go to law school there.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
The US Virgin Islands, for example, all of their attorneys have to leave the islands in order to be educated and then come back. So many of them do come to New York. Our New York law schools do support, obviously, educating attorneys that then return to practice in the territories or have dual practices. So we are really very interconnected with the residents of the territories and the issues of the territories. And so I believe that this is very important. And one other point I need to make regarding it is the racist aspect of it, racism. These cases are they're really deep in racism. The racist language that they use, as you mentioned, that we would talk about. And for example, in-
Dave Miranda:
And these are the, what we've referred to as the Insular Cases that were decided by the Supreme Court in like 1901. Right?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Right.
Dave Miranda:
But are still precedent. I know you said before that it was good law, and I know that you don't think it's a good law. We do have some non-lawyers that listen to Miranda Warnings-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Right.
Dave Miranda:
... and it's a precedent that in your opinion should be overturned. And I you're going to tell me why.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Yeah, absolutely. And you're absolutely right. There was a big discussion also in, I think after the Vaello-Madero decision as to stare decisis, and the importance of stare decisis and what it means. Stare decisis is the way a court looks at a case in the past and uses the language from that case to reason either to stay with it or to not stay with it. But stare decisis would be the cases that they support, or use to support an argument. So there was a lot of discussion after that, about the Insular Cases being used in that manner, relying on the Insular Cases.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Downs V. Bidwill, which was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1901 is one of the Insular Cases that we're referring to. And in that case, the Judge Justice Brown used the language that the American territories, and now I'm going to quote, "Inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, and modes of thought." And then he went on to say that, because of that, it makes it impossible to govern, "According to Anglo-Saxon principles." So that alone, I mean, I think that is an example of why these cases are a basis to a large degree of supportive racism in our country today.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Further, Justice White used language such as "unknown islands peopled with an uncivilized race, absolutely unfit," I quote, "for citizenship." So, when we have that type of language looked back upon, and we are looking at these cases and using these cases to justify future decisions by the Court and other Courts, that is hugely problematic. And if we want to, as a country and in the legal profession, really get beyond racism, we can't have this as a base for what it is that we're using in our law, and in our courts. We have to denounce this type of language, and this view of, I believe it's 2.6 million or 3.6 million. My brain today is not telling me which it is. I would argue it might be the larger number of residents of the US territories that are our citizens. They're our citizens.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And so that's hugely problematic. And I might point out that the majority of these residents of the territories are black and brown people. And as a result of that, very much impacted by the language in these cases.
Dave Miranda:
So you've got the task force, that's going to look at this. What are we going to do? Are we're going to educate? Are we going to get involved in amicus on some of these Supreme Court decisions? Is that the plan?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
That is my hope. Educate. Get involved in the decisions. Hopefully come up with policy that would support denouncing these cases, and other bills and resolutions such as HR279 that was introduced and hasn't gone very far, unfortunately, but should. Hopefully the Department of Justice will hear us.
Dave Miranda:
Right
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And they will no longer argue that the Insular Cases are either not relevant to a particular argument when we're dealing with cases such as Vaello-Madero, which is part of their argument, that the Insular Cases don't apply when they clearly do, and do impact the decision making. So hopefully they'll hear that. And then the DOJ attorneys will move alongside with us to not use these cases as a basis for arguments.
Dave Miranda:
Now, I know that you started out your law practice working as an assistant district attorney in the Bronx DA's office. Currently Deputy Executive Director at the Westchester Legal Aid, your past chair, not only of the Young Lawyer Section, but of the Criminal Justice Section. And I know criminal justice issues are very important to you. Is there anything you're going to be looking at as far as the criminal justice system in the year ahead?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Absolutely. And yes, it's been the majority of my practice throughout my years. And criminal defense since, well, for the last, let's see, almost 20, now 21 or so years, after leaving the district attorney's office. I went for a small time into civil practice, but then when I opened my own practice, it was largely criminal defense focused. And so, yes, I am. I've created a task force on the modernization of criminal practice, which is right now the time to look at that, obviously, we are dealing with a number of things within the criminal justice realm.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And I couldn't possibly name them all. And I certainly don't want to get into the weeds on the recent reforms that I think are very I important. But I really want to focus on what the task force is going to be looking at, which is sentencing reform, which is a big issue, to really sentencing minimums are hugely problematic. They prevent and restrict judges from allowing individuals the opportunity to enter into the treatment courts and diversion courts that we are working so hard to create and expand across the state. And that's just one of the many issues with sentencing.
Dave Miranda:
Right. And what you're talking about would be if someone commits a crime and a judge is force to provide a mandatory minimum sentence-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Correct.
Dave Miranda:
... rather than send them to some sort of treatment program that perhaps could help them.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
That's correct. That's correct.
Dave Miranda:
Right.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
And so they'll be looking at that. They'll also be looking at the ability of the courts to move forward into the modern world, if you will. E-filing is a big issue for criminal courts. We don't have it in the state courts in New York, yet. There are some pilots on the horizon, I would say. But our court system in New York state, our criminal court system particularly, is very, very expansive, I guess, is a fair word to use. There's not necessarily consistency, certainly upstate, downstate, city, versus not city, versus rural, I should say.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
We have the justice courts that still exist and resource issues within those courts. So it's going to look at e-filing, it's going to look at virtual court. When is it appropriate to have a criminal case heard virtually and in what circumstances? Sometimes it's beneficial. And sometimes it's not. Clearly, there's a push now that you cannot have a criminal arraignment virtually. I know that the court system supports that, because it is absolutely paramount that somebody who is charged with a crime and looking at potentially loss of freedom, have the opportunity to interact with their attorney, which is almost not possible in a virtual arraignment setting.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
There's no privacy for an individual who is in custody to speak to their attorney over a Zoom and really develop a relationship they need to, in order to share a lot of what is going on with them that is relevant, I'm sure, to their situation, I know to their situation. And that goes to whether it's, again, a mental health struggle or a trauma related struggle that led them down the path and ended them in a circumstance where they're accused of a crime. But also looking at when it is potentially beneficial.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
We've seen that with our young people and in The Raise the Age Courts, in order to have parents present in the court. If it's done virtually, oftentimes parents that are working or caring for younger children, are able to be present. So it's a really interesting line, so to speak. Certainly the opportunity for the attorneys to work out situations without people having to keep coming back to court and missing work, which only further destabilizes people, and then leads to housing loss and other collateral consequences.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So these are some of the things that they'll be looking at. And they may also look at jury selection, which I know our criminal justice section is looking at very closely right now. But there may be room for the task force and the criminal justice section to work together on best practices for jury selection, which has become also a big discussion in the criminal justice realm.
Dave Miranda:
Now, I know it was a great honor for you and for our association, quite honestly, to have you be sworn in on June 1st by the Chief Judge of the State of New York, the Honorable Janet DiFiore. Our association has a longstanding close relationship with the court system in New York, OCA, and the Court of Appeals, and the Chief Judge. What are your thoughts on our Association's relationship with the courts in the year ahead?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Well, I mean, I think we all have to work together. I mean, we are all the larger legal system in our state. And so we, as an association, have a history of always trying to work together with the courts, with the Chief Judge, and the Administrative Boards, to find meeting of the minds on issues. Certainly, I think it's really very important for us to discuss many of the issues that are facing both our profession and the courts, and to consider all sides of any issue. And I think that's what we've done in the past and what we're going to try to do.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
I think that we, as an association, of course, have a responsibility to our membership. We have to support our membership and the concerns that our membership brings to us. Oftentimes, in practice and regarding whether it's court rules, or rules of practice, or any other things, we have to consider what our membership is concerned about. But we do our best to work together with the Chief and the Administrative Board, and the Office of Court Administration to resolve those issues and where we have differences, hopefully, we can have differences of opinion that allow us to continue to work together, understanding that we both, oftentimes, have different bases that we are responsible for representing the voice in.
Dave Miranda:
Well, President Wallach, it's been great having you on Miranda Warnings. I want to thank you for your time with us. I want to thank you for your service, not only to the New York State Bar Association as President, but to our legal profession. Thank you very much. We have a new feature on Miranda Warnings. Many of the issues that we're talking about today are very serious. I'd like to kind of end on a lighthearted note that will tell us a little bit about you. So our new feature is what's your karaoke song, President Wallach?
Sherry Levin Wallach:
President Wallach doesn't do karaoke.
Dave Miranda:
No karaoke.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
No-
Dave Miranda:
No.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
... karaoke.
Dave Miranda:
... karaoke song.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
So, no karaoke song.
Dave Miranda:
Well, if you're-
Sherry Levin Wallach:
I guess if I did karaoke-
Dave Miranda:
Yes.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
... my karaoke song would probably be Bobby McGee but-
Dave Miranda:
Bobby McGee. We'll take it.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
But I don't do karaoke.
Dave Miranda:
Well, President Sherry Levin, Wallach, 125th President of New York State Bar Association. Good luck to you. And thank you again for being with us on Miranda Warnings.
Sherry Levin Wallach:
Thank you so much for having me. I look forward to doing it again in the future.
Dave Miranda:
This has been Miranda Warnings, a New York State Bar Association podcast. You have the right to subscribe, rate, and review.