Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to “every free-born person in this land.” We keep that promise today.

—  Chief Justice John Roberts, concluding his majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara, where the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order which sought to end birthright citizenship. Roberts wrote that “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause,” and therefore, “[u]nder the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”

Staci Zaretsky is the managing editor of Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The post The Supreme Court Celebrates America’s Birthday By Defending The Constitution appeared first on Above the Law.

Regular Above the Law readers know Sarah Merriam — the Second Circuit judge first disciplined in late 2023 for creating an “overly harsh” work environment. Almost immediately, LAP learned Merriam continued to mistreat clerks, in flagrant violation of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston’s order. To violate that order, put in place pursuant to a federal law — the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JCDA) — would be to violate the law. Disturbingly, those tasked with enforcing the discipline — the chief judge, who met with Merriam to discuss her workplace behavior; the Director of Workplace Relations (DWR), the law clerk point of contact tasked with checking in with Merriam’s clerks; and the Second Circuit Executive — were aware or, in Livingston’s case, should have been aware, that Merriam continued to mistreat clerks. Given this misconduct, the chief judge was empowered to identify another complaint against Merriam. Yet she did not.

So, in December 2025, The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) took a significant step toward real accountability, filing our first judicial misconduct complaint as an organization against Merriam, alleging her chambers was “characterized by fear, oppressive control, intimidation, humiliation, and bullying.” LAP did not make this decision lightly. But anyone — lawyers, litigants, law clerks, members of the public, and organizations like LAP — is empowered to file a JCDA complaint alleging a judge has committed misconduct prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of justice. Other good-government organizations file complaints against judges too. LAP’s was in the public interest; the interests of more than 30,000 judicial branch employees who remain dangerously exempt from all anti-discrimination, civil rights, and labor laws; and the interest of those in the judiciary who believe in ethics, accountability, and fair and respectful workplaces. 

In 2023, the year Merriam was first disciplined, just three clerks filed JCDA complaints against judges. Yet the federal judiciary’s own climate survey revealed as many as 106 judges — or 1 in 17 — harassed their clerks. That discrepancy is because clerks aren’t legally protected against retaliation for reporting. The complaint process relies on young, vulnerable clerks, dependent on judges for references and career advancement, to blow the whistle. The judiciary doesn’t make it easy, gaslighting clerks and dismissing their concerns. 

The federal judiciary insists they can “self-police,” so no reform, outside oversight by Congress, or legal protections for employees against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII is necessary. Yet clearly toothless “discipline” hadn’t deterred Merriam, and may even have emboldened her after mostly getting away with it the first time. 

LAP’s complaint provided the circuit with enough information to alert them of the problem and urge them to investigate. It was based on firsthand conversations with clerks, and reviewed by the first clerk complainant. We did not identify clerks by name to shield their identities from Merriam, who received a copy of the complaint and was legally empowered to retaliate against them. Frankly, LAP was preferable to a clerk filing, because clerks could be confidential witnesses instead of the named complainant. LAP hoped clerks would speak candidly with the chief judge. I expected, as the complainant, to be interviewed, to shed further light on the situation. 

Clerks regularly contact me seeking advice and assistance: I tell them I’m not their lawyer. I don’t want to be clerks’ therapist or carry their secrets. I tell them their experiences should, at a minimum, be submitted as post-clerkship surveys for LAP’s Clerkships Database to warn applicants. To be clear: I don’t think anyone should need therapy after their clerkship, and I’ve dedicated my life and career to fixing broken systems that break clerks. But LAP is a watchdog; we don’t provide legal services. We look out for the best interests of thousands of federal clerks (state court clerks, too) who benefit from our work, whether they interact with us or not; over 30,000 vulnerable federal judiciary employees; hundreds of thousands of individuals impacted by our work or who interact with the courts; and society generally. When the circumstances demand it, we may file complaints to alert the court of misconduct that endangers clerks, staff, litigants and the public; and to underscore for the judiciary, Congress, and society generally, the urgent need for reform. We balance clerks’ interests against the greater public interest. 

I compared the initial 2022 Merriam complaint to Livingston’s 2023 order concluding it: it’s striking how Livingston whitewashed, cherrypicked, and frankly, misrepresented that clerk’s allegations. Strangely, the clerk’s substantiated abusive conduct allegations (Merriam acknowledged creating an “overly harsh” work environment) aren’t discussed in Livingston’s order: the only ones she discusses are three nonworkplace-conduct allegations she dismissed. The clerk was transferred out of Merriam’s chambers, under the Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan, before they filed the JCDA complaint. Importantly, that’s not unusual: the JCDA’s intent is discipline for judges, whereas EDR offers (limited) relief for clerks. And when Livingston interviewed that clerk for her investigation, Merriam was in the next room, within earshot: this did not encourage candid reporting. Livingston doesn’t appear particularly interested in a fair and impartial investigation. So, we shouldn’t be surprised Livingston’s “limited inquiry” of LAP’s complaint was too limited to properly investigate. 

Livingston’s 2026 order regarding LAP’s complaint, issued close in time to the Judicial Conference’s order regarding Judge Eleanor Ross, is another example of the broken judicial complaint process. To be clear: I am not comparing the severity of Merriam’s misconduct to that of Ross. I am, however, comparing the lack of severity of discipline in both, as well as the judiciary’s repeated failure to self-police despite insisting it can. LAP’s workplace misconduct allegations were substantiated: Merriam was again reprimanded, this time for creating a “tense and challenging” work environment, after the 2023 disciplinary order. Further toothless remedies were imposed, similarly laughable to those imposed upon Ross: Merriam agreed to meet with judge advisors on workplace conduct; participate in management training; and attend annual workplace training. Merriam was undeterred the first time and will be undeterred the second. Punishment is a deterrent: without enforceable discipline, judges have no disincentive to commit misconduct. This situation, as well as Eleanor Ross’s, underscores that internal workplace complaints adjudicated by misbehaving judges’ friends and colleagues should not be the sole method of accountability for life-tenured federal judges who interpret our laws.

Because Livingston’s order mentions the EDR Plan, it’s important to distinguish EDR from the JCDA. The JCDA offers discipline and accountability for judicial misconduct. It resulted in this public disciplinary order. Pursuant to the JCDA, the federal judiciary must release annual complaint statistics. In contrast, no similar transparency or data disclosure obligations apply to EDR. EDR offers remedies for clerks, not discipline. The two are different. That’s why the judiciary tries to funnel clerks away from JCDA complaints and to EDR — so they do not have to release public disciplinary orders, nor data on employees’ use of the EDR Plan. They don’t have to discipline their colleagues. Peddling EDR, which clerks regularly tell me is a “sham,” is yet another way the judiciary tries to shield abusive judges from accountability. It’s the height of dishonesty. 

And, while Livingston suggests the Merriam matter was resolved before LAP filed, that’s also irrelevant to a JCDA inquiry. Clerks file JCDA complaints after they’ve concluded their clerkships — as did the first Merriam complainant, and the Lydia Kay Griggsby complainant — because they’re safer from retaliation to file after leaving abusive work environments. It’s disturbing that Livingston either doesn’t understand her circuit’s complaint processes, or publicly misrepresents them, since she’s tasked with enforcing them.   

LAP’s complaint would have benefitted from a policy change to the JCDA: all complaints should be inter-circuit transferred so judges outside the misbehaving judge’s circuit, rather than friends and colleagues, investigate them. Even the judiciary’s Workplace Conduct Working Group Co-Chair conceded it’s difficult to impartially adjudicate colleagues’ misconduct. Since Livingston adjudicated the first Merriam complaint, and LAP’s complaint alleges Livingston and her colleagues failed to properly discipline Merriam the first time, Livingston should not have investigated this second complaint. Transferring the complaint would remove even the appearance of a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. 

Some wonder if LAP was right to file. When the judiciary misleadingly claims their complaint process works well, yet a judge who’s been publicly disciplined flagrantly violates a disciplinary order and continues committing misconduct, risking harm to staff, litigants, and the public, LAP should alert the court. These circumstances justified disclosure.  

Frankly, some lawyers are simply uncomfortable with the pace of change LAP creates — or, with any change at all. The status quo — keeping your head down and staying silent, self-preservation at all costs — benefits them. Perhaps they believe they’re protecting their own reputations — though most lawyers I know view clerk whistleblowing as laudable, not shameful. Or, they want to protect the allegedly pristine reputations of judges they’re associated with as they climb the legal ladder. Maybe they don’t like that we call out liberal lions as much as conservative crusaders. Those are excuses, and hollow ones at that. 

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt: one’s views are shaped by their personal experience. So, here’s mine: many readers know I was harassed, unjustly fired, and retaliated against by the judge I clerked for. But some clerks who worked for the judge before me were also mistreated and chose not to report. My life and career were destroyed in large part because prior clerks stayed silent. Had they reported, the judge might have been disciplined, or even removed, as he ultimately was. My life would be totally different. I might be a federal prosecutor — or, given the political climate, a former federal prosecutor. And when the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office revoked my job offer and denied me a security clearance after the judge provided a negative and false reference, my first thought was, I want him to be punished. My experience, and my fundamental belief in accountability, by which I mean punishment — ground my conviction that mistreated clerks have an ethical duty to report. 

Some compare my role to that of a “mandatory reporter” in workplace sexual harassment cases. And, when LAP first launched our Clerkships Database, some asked whether I felt obligated to report misconduct I learned about, to the courts. But the only way LAP’s Database works — empowering clerks to share candidly — is if information is never shared with the judiciary or general public, only with clerkship applicants. I maintain that commitment, even while worrying not every applicant consults LAP’s Database and heeds its warnings. Frankly, LAP should do even more to hold judges accountable for abusing their power and violating public trust.   

The Merriam matter may be concluded, for now. But we cannot allow the courts and Congress to sit on their hands and just wait for the next Merriam to make news. 

The JCDA can and should be amended. But the complaint process is also governed by the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings, which are amended at bi-annual Judicial Conference meetings. Shockingly little is delineated in writing about judicial discipline: that’s by design. It’s ironic, considering judges are sticklers for rules in their own courtrooms, but to govern their conduct, rules do not apply. There should be clearly delineated standards for discipline so the punishment fits the crime, and judges know they’ll be disciplined if they fail to comply. 

The judiciary should also temporarily suspend judges, when circumstances warrant it, as with 98-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, who’s been suspended for two years for refusing to meaningfully participate in a conduct and fitness investigation. When a judge is investigated for mistreating staff, staff should be immediately reassigned. It defies logic to subject vulnerable clerks to continued mistreatment during investigations. And, since judges consume taxpayer dollars while committing misconduct, and the judiciary expends substantial resources investigating them, judges should pay the investigation expenses if they’re found to have committed misconduct.

These are congressional problems requiring congressional solutions — legislative, oversight, and appropriations. Congress should finally pass the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) and extend federal anti-discrimination protections to judicial employees, so judges are no longer immune from suit, and employees can report without fear of retaliation. While congressional Democrats have abdicated their oversight responsibility over the courts, they can send oversight letters right now but have mostly refused. And the Appropriations Committee should tie the judiciary’s budget to meaningful benchmarks for reform or cut their budget until they improve. Congress should not write the courts a blank check to flout congressional authority and shield abusive judges from accountability. 

LAP pushes the envelope. We’re the most aggressive organization in an area of the legal industry where most in legal academia, private practice, and the public sector sat on their hands and disclaimed responsibility. We’ve also created incredible change in just a few years, not just with our Clerkships Database, which has already served over 4,000 students and recent graduates in just two years; legislative and policy advocacy; and thought leadership; but cultural change, too. We’ve created the conditions for more clerks to file complaints and forced the judiciary, Congress, and the press to take complaints seriously. In fact, I later learned LAP’s work inspired the first Merriam complainant to file in 2022. I’ll take those wins every day. Whether or not you agree with LAP’s tactics, as long as neither the courts nor Congress will hold judges accountable, LAP will. 

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.

The post Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam Disciplined Again, This Time for Creating A ‘Tense And Challenging’ Work Environment appeared first on Above the Law.

Even though the blame rightly falls on the attorneys failing to check their cites, there’s still room for other actors to help save these lawyers from themselves.

During last week’s Legaltech Week roundtable, a February blog post by law librarian Shay Elbaum was brought to my attention that deserves some more attention. The post discusses a point raised in Flycatcher Corp. v. Affable Avenue. It’s an otherwise bog standard AI hallucination sanction case, except the lawyer involved made the argument that when a generative AI tool invents a citation in a proprietary format, it makes it difficult to verify it without access to the proprietary source.

In other words, when the AI spits out “2022 WL 4637582,” or “2024 LEXIS 2847243,” there are lawyers out there who can’t easily check that. As Elbaum notes, “not only is it difficult for you to read the case, but it’s also difficult for you to even be sure it’s a real case.” The attorney in this case, as it happens, did have access to Westlaw, so this argument did not go over well. But it’s nonetheless an interesting wrinkle.

Lawyers shouldn’t include cases they can’t verify, but consider that we now have judges sanctioning lawyers for simply not catching the other side’s mistakes. A cite in an opposing brief that the lawyer can’t verify leaves those who did nothing wrong vulnerable just because they aren’t subscribed to the big databases.

On a quick review of the latest fabricated citations in Damien Charlotin’s database, most of the recent filings with fabricated citations included at least one fake citation with the format “2022 WL 4637582,” supposedly pointing to an unpublished case available on Westlaw. (I’ll call these “WL citations” in the rest of this post.) I didn’t find any hallucinated citations with the equivalent Lexis format for unpublished cases, but my review was far from thorough and I assume they exist.

This isn’t a knock on Westlaw or Lexis, but their proprietary formats make them more vulnerable to ending up in embarrassing hallucination stories. When a brief from opposing counsel cites a phantom F.3d case, anyone with a free database can catch it in 30 seconds. When the same brief cites a phantom WL case, the lawyer on the other side — the solo, the legal aid attorney, the self-represented litigant who couldn’t swing a Thomson Reuters subscription if their docket depended on it — has no move.

Presumably both major legal publishers would say, “they could buy a subscription,” so let’s agree to roll our eyes and then move on to some entirely obvious solutions that have nonetheless not been implemented:

If Westlaw doesn’t want the WL citations to become red flags for potential hallucinations, it needs to provide a method for everyone to verify these citations. Lexis, too; I’m just picking on Westlaw more because their database-specific format is hallucinated more frequently. And courts can act, too, without even needing to directly regulate AI use. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1(b) already requires attorneys citing unpublished cases to provide copies of the cases with their filings. Adding a similar requirement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their state equivalents, or to local rules and standing orders, would even the playing field and reduce hallucinations in filings.

I’d go further than just a checker and say they should allow anyone to read a raw unpublished decision if the user enters the precise citation they’re looking up. It doesn’t give away the data moat to let people see the case based on entering a precise citation. The real value of these databases is in researching concepts, not calling up specific documents. Strip the result of key cites if necessary… but just give them access to the opinion.

There may have been a day where Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis made money off gatekeeping unpublished opinions, but that’s not the cash cow in a world where they’re selling state-of-the-art AI research tools. It’s not worth becoming the common link in a bunch of hallucination cases just to jealously guard some Eastern District of Missouri ruling on a random motion in limine. A free public lookup would fix that and what the publishers lose is basically a rounding error.

As for rules requiring lawyers to attach copies of unpublished opinions, there are a few districts doing that, but it should be universal. The elegance is that a rule forcing lawyers to attach copies of the case would force them to confirm the case is real in the first place. Maybe if everyone did that with all their cases, we wouldn’t be in this mess. And, maybe more to the point, the rule must be universally enforced. Because Elbaum notes that the Middle District of Pennsylvania has such a rule now and:

I took a peek at recent filings in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and found plenty of citations to unpublished opinions, but no attached copies. 

Swing and a miss. But that’s why we need a belt and suspenders approach here.

For two years we’ve treated hallucinations as the personal failings the lawyers. Because they are. But one of these days, those mistakes are going to work their way into the system in the form of rubberstamped rulings that get repeated as precedent. So there’s an obligation for all of us to save these folks from themselves before they make everything worse for everybody.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

The post Those ‘WL’ Citations Are An Open Invitation To AI Hallucinations appeared first on Above the Law.

The only problem is that Sam Alito has not — as of this writing — retired.

Oops.

NPR has already put up a retraction.

Adding to the unintentional comedy, the story hit the website while Totenberg was still inside the court. Mark Walsh of SCOTUSBlog posted in their liveblog as the news spread: “The PIO just checking with Nina in the broadcast booth and Nina says this is a mistake and they are taking it down.”

It’s a testament to Totenberg’s career that Supreme Court officials saw this and their first impulse was, WE need to see if she’s right. Meanwhile, this is a distressing turn of events for someone down at NPR headquarters. To that person, a reliable source once told me that flying a flag upside down is the international symbol of distress.

The photo caption gave it away before the copy did. “Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in April 2021, retired Friday.” That’s placeholder text. I mean… it quotes a former Alito clerk and spells his name three different ways! This is not a fully fleshed out draft.

But like any responsible journalist, Totenberg wrote this piece beforehand so it can be quickly cleaned up and posted if Alito were to retire. A journalist doesn’t want to be caught unprepared when Gerald Ford is eaten by wolves.

And there’s been a lot of speculation over Alito’s future. Above the Law’s former editors even have a bet on it. Elie Mystal saw Alito’s upcoming book launch as a sign that he planned to be out of a job by next October. David Lat, on the other hand, never bought it. When there’s that much smoke, you put together a draft — just as major publications pre-write obituaries all the time.

The trick is, not publishing those drafts until the event actually transpires. Some folks online think this article is proof that Alito is really retiring and NPR’s only error was publishing too soon. It’s possible, but there’s no need to make this more complicated. Bloomberg once pushed a 17-page Steve Jobs obituary onto the wire while Jobs was alive and running Apple. CNN has leaked draft obits for the living more than once. The graveyard shift hits the wrong button. It happens.

Totenberg’s draft is no longer up, but it opened by placing Alito among the justices whose names attach to a single decision:

Chief Justice John Marshall for his groundbreaking decision in 1803… Chief Justice Roger Taney for his infamous decision in the Dred Scott case… Chief Justice Earl Warren for his 1954 decision declaring racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. And in our own times, Alito’s name is indelibly linked with the court’s opinion overturning a half century’s worth of decisions declaring that women have a right to abortion.

The Taney comparison is solid. My pre-write goes with James McReynolds, but everyone makes their own journalistic choices. Mine also includes the sentence opener: “Alito, who put the ‘Sir‘ in ‘insurrectionist.'” Just to give you all a little peek.

While Alito did not actually retire this morning, he could decide to make an honest outlet of NPR later. And if he does, this incident will go down as another premature leak. The most Alito way to go out.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

The post NPR Reports Sam Alito Retires From Supreme Court (Spoiler Alert: He Did Not) appeared first on Above the Law.

This past Friday, Delaware-based corporate litigation boutique Abrams & Bayliss announced that it will match the new Milbank scale. In a memo announcing the raises, the firm’s partners thanked associates for their “continued dedication” and “extraordinary work.” Summer associates will also be sharing in the wealth.

Here’s a look at the firm’s updated salary scale:

Congratulations to everyone at Abrams & Bayliss!

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of compensation updates, so when your firm announces or matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Bonus/Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!

Staci Zaretsky is the managing editor of Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Bluesky, X/Twitter, and Threads, or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The post Elite Boutiques Continue To Leave Biglaw In The Dust: Another Milbank Match Is Here appeared first on Above the Law.

Start With Reviewing Your Performance Evaluations 

The first step in any midyear audit is review, reflection, and assessment. One of my top recommendations for this process is to review your performance evaluations from the past several years. Performance evaluations often provide good fodder for your resume as they will typically reveal how your reporting leader sees your work, how peers have responded to your leadership, key projects and initiatives you’ve worked on or led, and other examples of your overall performance and impact during various time frames. If you haven’t explored your career or updated your resume in a long time, a great starting place is reviewing your past performance evaluations for ideas.

Additionally, I recommend asking yourself these pointed questions:

• Have you grown exponentially in the scope and oversight of your work?
• Are you feeling stagnant in your current role (and what’s actually driving that)?
• Is there room to grow further, or have you hit the ceiling at your organization?
• What’s your five-year plan? Your 10-year plan? Is a board seat in your future?

These are the precise questions I ask all job seekers at the inception of a coaching or writing engagement because they are the foundation of a targeted, intentional job search. Knowing where you want to go and what type of role and organization you’re targeting elevates every interaction, but is also essential before you update your legal resume or LinkedIn profile. If you’re unsure what your next move looks like, executive coaching is a strong consideration. Stepping into conversations with legal or executive search recruiters without distinct clarity on your career story or what you want next puts you at a significant disadvantage. 

Build And Update Your Brag Sheet

Before Q3 passes you by, update your brag sheet. As part of any effective career management strategy, I always recommend keeping a running “brag book,” which can be in the form of a notepad, journal, or digital document. It is somewhere easily accessible where you capture projects, deals, and leadership moments as they happen. Far too many executives wait until they need their resume updated to list their achievements. By then, the details can be murky and fragmented. 

While the first half of the year is still fresh, ask yourself: What did I actually accomplish from January through June? Consider ways in which you increased revenue or cut costs, participated in significant matters (deals, transactions, litigation), expansion of responsibilities or new leadership oversight, and even recent praise from a peer, client, executive, or board member. Perhaps you attended or spoke at a major conference, undertook additional training courses in emerging practice areas, or obtained a new certification.

Take the time to review emails, client feedback, and performance reviews. Look for specific metrics and outcomes. These are the details that transform a resume from a laundry list of job functions and responsibilities into competency-based achievements. As I’ve previously noted, always keep a file of positive feedback about your work on a specific project or deal. It becomes invaluable when updating your career documents.

Conduct A Candid Resume And LinkedIn Audit

When it comes to auditing your resume and LinkedIn profile, your goal should be brand clarity. While your resume will never include every single initiative you’ve led, or every deal or transaction you’ve closed, it needs to center on your unique value and your best assets. One rule is clear: your resume is a snapshot of your legal career. Do not send the reader on a fishing expedition. It shouldn’t take until page two for someone to realize you served as general counsel at a Fortune 500 company. Front-load your key differentiators. Legal recruiters and executive search firms move quickly, and they’re scanning for specific information. For a deeper look at how to approach this process, read my article, Quick Ways To Refresh, Optimize, And Modernize Your Legal Resume. For further insights into recruiter perspectives drawn from my presentation at the NALSC conference this past February, read my article, What Happens To Your Resume After You Hit Send: What Legal Recruiters Wish You’d Done Differently. 

Your LinkedIn profile deserves the same scrutiny. Your headline should include information beyond just your job title. Your summary section delivers a brief career narrative with your key areas of focus and value to the organization and its leadership. Most importantly, dates, titles, and company names should be synchronized with your resume. For insights on how to update your LinkedIn profile, read my article, Quick Ways To Refresh And Optimize Your LinkedIn Profile.

Use The Summer To Strengthen Your Network And Set Yourself Up For A Successful Fall Launch

Summer is ideal for informational interviews and coffee chats, the conversations that feel casual but plant important seeds. As I’ve emphasized previously, the informational interview is one of the most underutilized tools in the senior executive’s job search arsenal, and summer is a great time to put it to work.

Make a list of people worth connecting with over the next 60 days. Here’s one I’ve previously suggested:

• Former colleagues and high-ranking executives at prior companies or firms
• Leaders and members of industry associations you’re affiliated with, such as the American Bar Association (ABA), Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), Women’s General Counsel Network (WGCN), and The L-Suite 
• Legal recruiters who specialize in in-house and executive-level legal roles
• Lawyers in your niche practice area, at and above your career level, and in geographies you’re targeting
• College and law school alumni in relevant industries

If you’re not a member of one of the aforementioned organizations, now is a good time to consider joining. Many have local chapters for extra networking, annual conferences, quarterly events, and even continuing education opportunities. 

This goes without saying: your network is not something you occasionally dust off only when you need it. It requires consistent attention and care. You never know who holds the key to the door for your next role.

The key for a successful fall launch is a targeted strategy. You want to enter conversations knowing exactly what you bring to the table and what you’re looking for in that next career chapter. For a step-by-step look at how to approach the fall hiring season, read my article, A Comprehensive Guide To Prepare For And Launch Your Fall Job Search. 

Ferris Bueller said it perfectly, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”

Wendi Weiner is an attorney, career expert, and founder of The Writing Guru, an award-winning executive resume writing services company. Wendi creates powerful career and personal brands for attorneys, executives, and C-suite/Board leaders for their job search and digital footprint. She also writes for major publications about alternative careers for lawyers, personal branding, LinkedIn storytelling, career strategy, and the job search process. You can reach her by email at wendi@writingguru.net, connect with her on LinkedIn, and follow her on Twitter @thewritingguru.

The post The Midyear Career And Brand Audit You Should Be Doing Right Now appeared first on Above the Law.

* A little lost in the Supreme Court shell game yesterday, the Court quietly snuffed out Trump’s bid to get out of the E. Jean Carroll case. [NY Times]

* More NBA players indicted over gambling scheme. [ESPN]

* Man detained for playing Darth Vader’s march at National Guard troops occupying Washington secures settlement after ACLU steps in. [Washington Post]

* White-collar defense attorney: “It is general knowledge in our practice that for $2 million, you can have a pardon.” [The Atlantic]

* Justice Sotomayor discloses that Bad Bunny gave her tickets to his show, which is sort of like accepting free luxury vacations from parties with direct interests before the Court and then trying to conceal it, except in the way that it’s not like that at all. [CNN]

* Texas Supreme Court halts Houston area program providing legal services to low income individuals accused of immigration violations, claiming it’s unconstitutional to give public funds to anyone without a “legitimate public end.” Texas does, in fact, have a lottery. [ABC13]

The post Morning Docket: 06.30.26 appeared first on Above the Law.