Still Sticky: FAA Lawyer Chris Jennison Returns to Talk About the Government Shutdown

John Reed: [00:00:09] This podcast has been a gift. A gift to myself. I have the privilege of talking to remarkable lawyers who do remarkable things. But I thought about it, and it's not like they stop being remarkable once they've been on the show. They continue to excel in and outside the practice. They keep on standing out, positively changing their clients' lives, changing the law, impacting their communities. They are still sticky.

There are a lot of directions I can take here. Classic “where are they now?” What's another accomplishment they've achieved? What new niche area or interest or passion are they pursuing?

But in what I hope will be the first in a series of follow-up visits, I'm doing something differently. I reached out to Chris Jennison to give an inside look of what it's like to be a federal employee today. Right now. 

When Chris appeared on Sticky Lawyers before, he talked about his career as an employment lawyer at the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as his other jobs as a volunteer EMT with his local fire department and an active—very—active member of the American Bar Association.

Fast-forward to today. We're recording on October 23, 2025, three weeks into the federal government shutdown. As Chris will tell us, it's frustrating, and he worries about himself, his FAA colleagues, and the federal workforce in general. What you won't hear from him is a partisan rant. It's one of the many things I respect about Chris.

It won't be the feel-good episode of the year, but you'll hear his view from within, a perspective you may not get otherwise.

Chris, welcome back to the podcast.

Chris Jennison: [00:01:52] I am glad to be here.

John Reed: [00:01:53] My intent with this Still Sticky series that I'm doing, and, of course, you being the first, was to have you tell me how your career has progressed and the successes that you've enjoyed since we last spoke. Not to take advantage of a bad situation, but this is a unique opportunity for you to give us an insider's view on what's happening in federal agencies with the federal workforce and with your group in particular.

I know we're going to talk about the furlough, but let's go back to just the change in the administration. There has been an active campaign to reduce the federal workforce. When did you start to feel that after the change in the administration in January?

Chris Jennison: [00:02:32] First off, I'm really glad to be back with you, John, and I don't know that I have ever wanted to have the mantle of being “still sticky,” but I'll take it because I really enjoyed our conversation. I really enjoy the podcast.

John Reed: [00:02:43] It's with love, Chris. 

Chris Jennison: [00:02:44] Thank you. 

I think there's two things there. One is when I first started to fear any changes in the administration. And the second is when I started to feel it. So, I've been a federal employee since 2016. I started after law school in September of 2016 with the Department of Transportation. And so, I lived through the election of 2016, the change of administration going into 2017, again in 2020 going into 2021, and then this time around 2024 going into 2025. We're having a little bit of like what goes around comes around again with the fact that we're having the same administration from those first four years to being back in.

When I was first a fed, I was on a temporary appointment, meaning I was only guaranteed employment for one to two years when I was an honors attorney. And I distinctly remember when, after then-candidate Trump was elected in 2016, the fear that we were having a hiring freeze and, oh, dang. I might not have a job after all this.

Our concerns were assuaged by those who had been around through different transitions, and the fact that there were previously hiring freezes, and said basically, I'm not guaranteeing anything, but don't worry either. And that was that first Trump administration was really as I got my feet under me, I didn't have to worry about the transition.

I was hired permanently into the federal government, but it was as I got my feet under me and started out as a federal employment lawyer. And so I, I knew better and I didn't know better. Meaning there were things that were done differently by the administration then that handcuffed us or changed how we operated in federal employment law. But it was just a different way of doing things. It wasn't a fear or a wholesale change to how we operated as federal agencies, as federal employment lawyers, as managers in the federal government. So, it was a little different.

And then we go through the next administration, and nothing is drastic under the Biden administration from a federal employee standpoint, from a federal employment lawyer standpoint. Obviously, we had the pandemic, we had going full-time remote, we had the slow return to office, all those things. But nothing wholesale different about the operations that the rest of the world wasn't also experiencing, too.

Going into this administration, this time around, I am a political junkie, and so I had read a lot about Project 2025 and thought about what could that actually mean. And you hear the candidate dispelling Project 2025 as a blueprint. So, I still was aware that this is likely; these actions are likely to come in some form. Really, January is when I started to fear it more.

The actions hit immediately after the transition on January 20th or 21st. There was an immediate hiring freeze. There were immediate executive actions that were issued. There were immediately emails that were sent out across the federal workforce that had a rhetoric and a tone of not just dismissiveness, but active disdain for federal employees. And that's continued to this day.

I actually went kayaking this morning with a couple of my employees, a couple of my colleagues. We haven't seen each other during the furlough, and we got together for a couple hours. And the conversation, of course, turned to the furlough. Two of them are newer employees. They've been around for about a year. And I said, it is crazy that we work for an employer that has active disdain for us as employees, despite the fact that the employer also says that on some level, these jobs are necessary, too. It is a crazy proposition to want to work for an employer that has such disdain for us.

John Reed: [00:06:11] The term "career federal employee" has been, for many years, a neutral term, maybe even a term of respect. As you say, it's now almost a condemnation. Is there a partisanship in your agency, in your group, across the federal government? These are people who have at least withstood, and survived, and transitioned through different administrations. I'm just curious as to how that was and how that's changed.

Chris Jennison: [00:06:42] I pay attention to the news a lot, and I read a lot of commentary. And there's a lot of talk, especially during the shutdown, and as to who will be paid if employees get back pay, and that it might be more liberal or conservative agencies or more Republican or Democratic agencies. Agencies are not liberal or conservative or Republican or Democratic. I'm saying that as a general comment.

I'm sure that if you did a deep-dive analysis on political donations by employees of a particular agency, yes, you would get ideological bents of them, but I don't talk politics in the workplace. My employees, and colleagues, and I don't talk politics in the workplace. I don't know the political leanings of my colleagues. I could guess, but it's not something that I know, like I know my neighbor's political leanings or my family's political leanings. We're there to do the job. We talk about our weekend or our family; we don't talk politics.

I don't think it's changed. I think it's more of an awareness of whether people are afraid of or for the actions that are going on by this administration towards federal employees. So, you could assume from that where their political leanings are. But again, we don't talk politics. I don't think there's many people that are federal employees that are for the way that federal employees are being treated. You don't hear a lot of federal employees saying, "Yeah, issue that reduction in force so that I lose my job." That's just not the calling card of federal employees.

I wouldn't say it's partisan and I wouldn't say it's even something where I would understand the partisan makeup of the office or the agencies. And I think it would also vary within each agency. At my agency, we have 45,000 employees. They do vastly different functions. They're everywhere in the world. Their life circumstances are entirely different, so I would expect that we would have a full ideological range.

John Reed: [00:08:28] Between January and the current shutdown, how did those changes impact you within your group, within the way you do business, in your job?

Chris Jennison: [00:08:40] So since January, we have thankfully not had any employees fired or RIF'd— RIF'd meaning reduction in force, a downsizing —in our group and I think in all of our counsel's office. Pretty much everyone in the federal government got what we technically call the deferred retirement program, the DRP, or deferred resignation program, depending on where you are in your career, also known as "the fork in the road." We got this fork in the road email sent by DOGE, saying it's time to cross a fork in the road and stay and commit or go.

And what that did is essentially say, in I think it was maybe early March that it first came out, "You can be paid for the next six months until the end of September, but you don't have to come into work anymore. You don't have to do your job. You're functionally resigned or retired. You're going to get six months of pay." Then there was a second round at my agency, too. And most agencies, from what I understand, had at least a second round. Some, I think, have even had a third round. They haven't extended past September unless you are in a near-to-be-retirement-eligible position, in which there are some small areas where you can go past it.

But with that, we've lost a lot of people. A lot of people have left. A lot of people have said, "I don't want to work for a government that has disdain for me." And so, we're at about half the attorneys that we had on January 19th, or at least half of the attorneys that we were slated to have, that were in various stages of the onboarding process and in the hiring process, too. So, we're at about half, half strength,

John Reed: [00:10:08] It sounds like you get to the end of September and it's not Katie-bar-the-door, that everybody's walking out. There had been departures in the many months since then. But nevertheless, I think it was the largest reduction. Or, what's the word? 

Chris Jennison: [00:10:21] Probably the broadest term, the most accurate term, is the largest exodus from the federal government. Some of them are retirements, some are resignations, but the largest change in payroll, in work role, from September 30th to October 1st, and notwithstanding the shutdown. Because anybody who took that DRP, that fork in the road, was no longer on the payroll after September 30th.

 So, it was massive attrition between January 19th and September 30th or October 1st, as far as people leaving for any of these ways. Agencies where there are rifts ongoing. And people also left without taking the DRP, saying, "I'm not engaging this. I'm outta here. I've got another opportunity."

John Reed: [00:10:57] Sure. 

Chris Jennison: [00:11:00] I go back to that question, that conversation I had amongst the kayaking with my team this morning of why would somebody want to work for a government that has disdain for you as an employee when all we want to do is do our job and do our job well and be supported, and defend the government in employment actions.

John Reed: [00:11:15] Let's talk about that. How has doing your job changed? Obviously, until the furlough, because there is no job to be done at this point, unfortunately. But just what does that look like? What has that looked like?

Chris Jennison: [00:11:28] There is a phrase that I have heard a lot of since January, which is "we're gonna do more with less." And doing more with less can work in some context. And we are doing more with less because we have fewer people on the team. It means everybody's doing more work. Everybody's doing more litigation. We're doing a lot more things. We're triaging a lot more. We don't have the bandwidth to maybe really do up a case, meaning analyze every aspect of a case or of a file that we would want to, or that we could if we had more people. I'm carrying more cases myself rather than managing the attorneys carrying cases.

So, it's a combination of all those things. We're doing more with less. And at the same time, my senior attorneys and myself, I tell them all, "We're going to have some serious workload for the foreseeable future. I don't know that we're going to get relief for the foreseeable future. Don't burn yourselves out. Take your leave, have boundaries, get out of here, because at the end of the day, you still have to look out for yourself. And if you're burned out, you're no good to yourself, to your family, or to the government as your employer."

So, with that, I've got attorneys that are working overtime. They're getting compensatory time. They essentially get additional leave, and they're going to use that leave. Because we have fewer people to do more work, they're doing that extra work. They're accruing additional vacation time. They're taking that vacation time. So, then I have fewer people. It's a cycle.

John Reed: [00:12:50] You are representing your agency, the FAA, in administrative matters yourself. Should something go to traditional litigation, then you're working with DOJ attorneys.

Chris Jennison: [00:13:02] Correct. 

John Reed: [00:13:03] So with the shutdown—and let's just talk about the executive branch for a minute—if your administrative procedures require going to administrative tribunals, and those tribunals are also closed during the shutdown. Beyond what you just said, the backlog is even further because nothing's being pursued. Is that fair?

Chris Jennison: [00:13:24] Correct. Yeah. All of our cases that we already had in the pipeline. There's multiple stages of the pipeline, right? There's the cases that we have actively gotten docketed already, and that we are aware of, and that a judge at the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the MSPB, the Merit Systems Protection Board, that we are all aware of, is one stage, right? We're in active administrative litigation. But there's even cases before that are in the pipeline too, that somebody has already made initial contact, say, with an EEO investigator or an EEO counselor. It's in the investigation process. So, there's some that are early-stage litigation that haven't ripened yet for active litigation.

All of those are going to be backlogged or going to be shut down and queued up for when we reopen. And it's going to pile up. When we reopen, I'm going to have to have a triage meeting with my team to walk through every case and see how we re-pick things up. A lot of it's going to be at the discretion of the judges, too, who are going to be likewise having to pick up and look at all their cases again and figure out how to reset everything.

But then think about it on a whole other level, too, which is, there are employees that are continuing to go in to do their job. They may and will still accrue employment litigation to actions. There may be an allegation of a hostile work environment or an allegation of a sexual harassment or an allegation of a racial incident. In order for an investigation or any litigation to happen out of it, those people need to make contact, too. So, all of those are queuing up, meaning we have workers who are doing essential work—and maybe across the federal government—suffering from some kind of employment wrong, or believing they're suffering from some kind of employment wrong, but they can't litigate that. And I mean that, not in the technical litigation sense, but they can't prosecute, they can't pursue their claim of trying to seek a remedy or being rectified for the situation, because everything is shut down. And so, they're having to live with that too.

So, the shutdown is piling up work for the tribunals. It's piling up work for the lawyers. It's piling up work for the investigators. And it's also delaying the justice, or at least investigation for the employees themselves.

John Reed: [00:15:27] The risk of not meeting deadlines, and let's talk about that. You've got statute of limitations, but then you've also got court deadlines. Presumably, the administrative judge can say, "Hey, given what's happened here, we're going to, we're going to delay this filing date. We're going to delay this particular procedural date." Is there some other mechanism? Fortunately, we're not months into the shutdown yet, but is there a mechanism there to extend or stay the statute of limitations for these actions? 

Chris Jennison: [00:15:54] I looked around for some wood to knock on, as you said, “months” there. I was reading this morning that there's talk from the Senate leader that it could go through Thanksgiving, which is crazy.

Yes, so the EEOC and MSPB, which are the two administrative tribunals that we litigate in the most. The day after the shutdown, most of the government shut down Tuesday night into Wednesday. So, the FAA was funded through— we shut down on Friday instead. So, we were all like doing our shutdowns and organizing ourselves on Wednesday and Thursday, and the EEOC and the MSPB already had up on Wednesday notices saying, "We are staying every date, every process in our litigation. Shutting down our portals, too, so nobody can file anything. Nobody can file a motion, can file a briefing, anything like that. But we're staying everything for the number of days of the shutdown. Meaning if we're shut down for 30 days, the dates will be extended by 30 days."

I also think that the longer this goes on, the less likely that is to hold, meaning if we're shut down for 30 days, we may have to get extensions on those because we can't just pick it up fresh right away on some of these things, too. 

John Reed: [00:16:58] Not to be pessimistic, but if there is an on-high edict from the administration to the EEOC and the other tribunals, the other agencies saying, "You're not going to grant any more stays."

Chris Jennison: [00:17:10] Yeah, I mean we're in a little bit of a wild west, right? The only precedent that we have to look at here is the 2018-2019 shutdown, which was 35 days. And we did get orders resetting the calendars and stuff then. That's the only shutdown that we've had of this length of time. At that time, we did, as we were going into the shutdown, file motions in all of our cases asking for stays, saying that we, as agency litigators, would be furloughed because of a lack of appropriations. We didn't have to do that this time around because the tribunals had so quickly put up their own.

John Reed: [00:17:42] Let's talk about the furlough. You were doing more with less there for a few months, and then the furlough happened. You get the notice. Talk about that and talk about what life is like now during the furlough.

Chris Jennison: [00:17:54] Shutdowns are not unusual. Yes, shutdowns of this length are unusual. As I said, the only precedent is the 2018-2019 one, but we have had one-day, two-day shutdowns. They usually fall over the weekend. So, there have been no real impact on us on a day-to-day basis, but the threat of a shutdown is always hanging out there.

Early September, we started to realize that this might be a actual shutdown for at least a period of time. Nobody then, at least amongst my colleagues and I, thought that we were going to be shut down 22 days, 23 days into it as we're talking now, and with no end in sight.

I actually had a trip scheduled with my wife that I had taken leave for last week, the second full week of the shutdown. And I thought, man, if the shutdown runs through that, I actually get that leave credited back to me. My wife was speaking at a conference in Abu Dhabi, and I said, "I'm absolutely coming to that." And on one hand, it worked out great because now I'm going to get leave credited back to me while we got to have a trip out of it. On the other hand, I have no idea when we will reopen. I have no idea when a paycheck will come.

I'm very fortunate that my wife works in private practice. She's a lawyer as well. And she left the federal government after the 2018-2019 shutdown. Not because of that, but because she wanted to do something different in her practice. But I'm very fortunate that we have another income stream. I worry about those who are dual federal employee income streams or a single parent with only one federal employment income stream.

I spoke to NPR and to Radio France about what it's like to be a federal employee in a shutdown. I'd put up a LinkedIn post about what it means to be furloughed, and both of 'em reached out. And somebody commented on that, on the Radio France post, and said, "I want to thank you for speaking up because I live in a house where we have two federal employee income streams, and we have no idea how we're going to make ends meet. And so, I can't speak up for a variety of reasons, but I appreciate you speaking up."

For me, on a philosophical level and on a me speaking up level, I have my political thoughts, but separate from my political thoughts, it's asinine that we are in a shutdown, that the government functions in this manner. There's nothing that requires shutdowns in this way. The Anti-Deficiency Act is the law that says you can't spend when you don't have appropriated funds. That interpretation of an 1800s law only came about in the 1980s, I think it was. Early 1980s. With Ben Civiletti, who was the Attorney General at the time. And it's a fiction. It's a creation. It's not a law of nature that says we have to shut down. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you will shut down. It's a choice by our government to shut down.

In that initial LinkedIn post that caused NPR and Radio France to reach out, I said "I have, again, my political thoughts, but separate from my political thoughts, as a litigator, as an employment litigator, I tell my clients sometimes to sit down in the room and hear the other side, and talk through whether there's any way to reach a resolution here." 

I have a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old. My kids are older since the last time we interviewed. They're best friends and also the worst of enemies when they go at it. And so sometimes I say to them, "Sit down, take a deep breath, let's hear each other out. Talk to the other side."

So, this conference that I went to to the United Arab Emirates with my wife. She's a very active lawyer in an association called AIJA, which is the International Young Lawyers Association. It's in French. I got to chat with friends who had met previously through my wife's work with AIJA, but also new friends. I had dinner one night with a Swede, and an Italian, and my wife. The Italian was asking lots of questions about the federal government and what I do, and the FAA, and was asking about just like American life, and said, "If I ever come to the United States, will you make me a hot dog?" I think that boils down to having conversations with people who are in different walks of life, who are in different, who come from different backgrounds, is so important to us, not just in the practice of law, but as humans.

And certainly, in this reality right now, when I'm talking about the fact that our group of elected representatives won't talk to each other and won't come to understand the other side. Or maybe they understand and they're obstinate about it.  You don't see any movement to have conversation. And what does that do to society, to our country, to not have conversation? Every day is costing millions of dollars to the American public. It's incredibly frustrating that they don't talk. So, I've gone off on a philosophical rant there, but that's where I am mentally during this furlough. I'm thinking a lot about that.

John Reed: [00:22:20] Thank you for saying all that. I share your frustration, and I think many of us, hopefully most of us, do as well. How's it going on the home front?

Chris Jennison: [00:22:31] Personally. I'm good for now. I need another paycheck eventually. We're lucky. We've got some savings. I'm a little bit more established in my career, as is my wife, than in the 2018-2019 shutdown.

In the meantime, I have refinished two showers. I had showers that were peeling, and so I YouTubed and Home Depot’d how to refinish the showers. I have cleaned out my garage. I'm going to embark on some painting shortly. And I've done the travel to the United Arab Emirates. And so, it's been a personally good shutdown, which sounds like a crazy thing to say, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that my situation is not most people's situation either.

John Reed: [00:23:11] Let's talk about the long-term impact of these reductions in force, shutdowns, furloughs. In the short run, there doesn't seem to be a guarantee of back pay, should people return to work, when people return to work. There is a chilling effect, people saying, "Why am I even doing this anymore?" What is, again, the long-term impact to the organization, to the morale, to the administrative justice that you're required to participate in?

Chris Jennison: [00:23:45] It is absolutely decimating to the federal workforce. Again, why would somebody want to work for the federal government? I've always wanted to do public service. I think that's true for many of my colleagues. I love my job, even in these times. I have great clients. I have challenging work. I have mentally stimulating work. I'm compensated fairly when the government is open for my job. 

We talk a lot, or this administration talks a lot, about our function is statutorily required. The laws that are underlaying the litigation that we deal with are statutes. The Americans with Disabilities Act. The Civil Rights Act. These laws create the opportunity for individuals to seek remedy for their wrongs based off protected classes, for example, or the Civil Service Act that stands up the foundations of the Merit Systems Protection Board and merit systems operations of the federal government. These are laws that are required, and so our work is required by that, too.

I don't know how you have these laws without lawyers doing the work with it. I guess that may be part of the intent is, if you take away the lawyers to adjudicate this, and you shut down systems, or you appoint people to different positions that don't speedily prosecute claims, it undermines those laws without having to repeal those laws or water down those laws in an official manner.

To the workforce and the future workforce, you're going to continue to have a graying of the workforce. And I don't mean that in any ageist manner, like it is a factually correct statement. And I don't know the stats offhand, but if you look at basically any agency and at the federal workforce as a whole, it is a known fact that the majority of employees are retirement-eligible. And that is backwards for any organization. Think about any other organization in the private sector. We're told to operate more like the private sector. What private sector would not, as a matter of forcing people out who are older, retirement eligible, but succession planning and bringing in a longer-term workforce to train up along with it? 

You've already had, for decades, a struggle to have pipelining of a workforce, and so you're going to have a heck of a lot more struggle with pipelining with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget saying, "I want to traumatize the federal workforce." Threats of reductions in force. Threats of furloughs. Budget cuts. Lack of ability to train people, lack of resources.

The federal government is an excellent employer. It has been an excellent place to be a young and new lawyer for these last nine years. I have gotten far better experience than I think a lot of my peers have in a variety of private sector, or in-house, or other governmental jobs. I've gotten to take depositions quickly, I've gotten to see cases through hearing, I've gotten to manage, and all these have been incredible experiences. I don't know that this is how the federal government is going to be in the long term, both as a model employer and as a place where people might aspire to work.

My kids both want to be lawyers, or say they want to be lawyers, at four and six. But they're curious, they want to know. And as you know from our other interview, I am an EMT, and my kids come around the fire station a lot, and they're curious about service. And I think that all of this changes what the future country looks like, in what they aspire to do. Why would you aspire to work for an employer that has disdain for you? 

John Reed: [00:27:12] I'm glad you brought that up, the three parts of your life we talked about last time around. There is your professional law practice, there is your work as an EMT, and then there is your service to the American Bar Association, and now some other bar associations. Have those two others, have they become more important to you? Have they become your welcome places of joy, I guess, for what's happening in this other world? 

Chris Jennison: [00:27:38] Yeah, I think so. They are both really positive, productive outlets and places where I get to be around folks who, some of them empathize and sympathize because they're federal employees themselves, or they are in the community of federal employees. But also, they're in both organizations for mission, purpose, that drives us all to come together.

So, at the fire station, we want to deliver high-quality emergency medical and rescue response to the greater community. We're all there to train and do that. So, I remain as president of the board of that organization, and we've gone through a lot of strategic planning questions, a lot of inward looking at how do we continue to and do better at giving high-quality care. It's been a productive outlet for me to have of looking at wholesale rebuilding of our station. So, I've gotten educated on capital development and fundraising and things like that. We've looked at whether it might make sense to merge with other nonprofit fire departments in the area to deliver high-quality care. So, it's been a really positive outlet in that regard.

We have 19 volunteer departments in our county, and there's an association that represents and serves them all and advocates on behalf of them all. So, I've gotten elected to that board, too. So, I've taken on even more of a role with the volunteers across the county while also still staying involved in my department as well.

In the American Bar Association. I can't say that it is a reprieve or a break from the reality of the federal government because the ABA has 

John Reed: [00:29:09] Is in crosshairs.

Chris Jennison: [00:29:10] It's in the crosshairs. It is named in Project 2025. I remain on the board of the ABA. I'm currently in my third year of my board service, my third and final year in my term on the board through August of 2026. Through that, I also am an officer of the Young Lawyers Division still, but it's in the crosshairs.

The ABA had some significant financial blows from cuts to funding to work that ABA did internationally. The ABA was a grantee providing international rule of law work across the world. Delivering justice systems, helping stand up court systems, doing clinics, doing hotlines, all sorts of work. And through the decimation of USAID, the cuts to the State Department, cuts through grants from the Department of Justice, we've had financial difficulties that have been very challenging for the ABA to the point of a number of layoffs at the ABA.

Even more so, though, the ABA has been at the forefront, pushing back to protect the rule of law. So, you and your listeners are likely aware of the executive orders that have come out against law firms, law firms who particularly had employed attorneys that, at one point or another, had represented, for lack of better phrasing, opponents of the president in a variety of contexts. And the President had basically singled out these law firms and said, "You won't be able to get federal work. You won't be able to be in federal buildings. You won't come into federal courts." It's wholesale attacks on these firms.

And the ABA said. "Not us. You're not going to hurt us anymore. You're not going to hurt the legal profession. We're going to stand up for the legal profession. It is inherent in American jurisprudence that lawyers have a right to represent their clients and that clients have a right to choose their lawyers." So, the American Bar Association filed a lawsuit in June, I think it was, against the executive office of the president. And that's still on active litigation in D.C. I'm incredibly proud of that litigation and the fact that the ABA has taken that step.

It's not without at least some concern for myself. I don't have a whole lot of squeamishness about speaking up myself, but I am currently the only board member of the ABA who is in the federal government. I'm the only federal employee. We had another attorney who worked for the Department of Justice, and there were memos that came out that said basically, "No DOJ leadership and no Federal Trade Commission FTC leadership can be involved in or participate in the American Bar Association, which is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment and the right to free speech, but also the right to free assembly. And so, I've thought about when will somebody come knocking and say, "Hey, what are you doing on the board of the ABA? You're a federal employee." Which again, is my right to do.

I abstain from the vote on the litigation because I took to mind my own ethics, but I'm very proud of the litigation, nonetheless. And I've wondered when that may come home to roost, too. Not that I'm not fully in support of the litigation, and we'll see where that goes. So, the ABA has not been a reprieve of the reality of my work in government but a positive, productive outlet for me, too.

John Reed: [00:32:05] You are good at your job. You love what you do. You enjoy the people you work with. I can only imagine how hard this is for you personally, you as part of a unit. I'm rooting for you. I'm actually rooting for all of us. I'm just so grateful that you would take the time to share your perspective, your insights, and your experience of what's going on.

Chris Jennison: [00:32:25] Of course. It is always a pleasure to talk to you, and I look forward to the Sticky Sticky follow-up down the line. 

John Reed: [00:32:32] Yeah, maybe there will be a Stickiest Lawyer someday.

Chris Jennison: [00:32:37] I love it. I love it. Thank you, John.

John Reed: [00:32:39] Hey listeners, thanks for tuning in today. If you enjoyed this conversation, please subscribe to Sticky Lawyers wherever you get your podcasts. It helps make sure that you don't miss future episodes, both the regular ones and the bonus ones.

Also, please take a minute to leave a review or a rating. Your comments help other people discover the show. Even just a few words about what you found interesting, insightful, or useful makes a difference.

Until next time, I'm John Reed, and you've been listening to Still Sticky from Sticky Lawyers.