Above the Law

Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson Charged With Battery Over Parking Lot Rumble

Joe Patrice — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 19:12:00 +0000

Judge Ryan Nelson of the Ninth Circuit has been charged with misdemeanor battery and malicious injury to property after an April confrontation in an Idaho Falls parking lot that ended, per police, with Judge Nelson swiping a man’s sunglasses off his face, hurling them across the asphalt, running after the man trying to pick them up, and then stomping them into the ground. It’s not exactly a Jets vs. Sharks battle. Or, frankly, maybe it is — in that the level of fighting on display didn’t rise much beyond Broadway levels. What allegedly set Nelson off was the other man saying — twice — “Learn how to park.”

And folks… this guy really needs to learn how to park.

By “allegedly,” we mean that it was allegedly Judge Nelson, because the video of the incident acquired by the Idaho Statesman is pretty definitive that someone did all those things, up to and including goofily chasing down a guy trying to retrieve his own sunglasses to mess with him again. The judge has entered a not guilty plea. His next hearing is scheduled for June 18. But beyond the misdemeanor case, Judge Nelson faces a complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act filed by Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, based on the ethical demand that a judge out of a robe is still bound to “maintain […] high standards of conduct.”

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Arthur Hellman provides a detailed account of the requirements under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, drawing upon a two-decades-old order from the Second Circuit about a Magistrate Judge allegedly assaulting the complainant around a campfire. In that case, the Second Circuit determined that the judge needed no further discipline because her conduct amounted to “a one-time private dispute between private citizens, one of whom happens to be a judge.” That said, the order also notes conflicting accounts of the incident as opposed to the clear video and audio here.

Should a judge be the first aggressor in a public tussle? No. But maybe there are mitigating circumstances. Josh Blackman reports that this is a hospice center parking lot and that could contribute to everyone showing frayed emotions. Though we don’t even need to get into the circumstances surrounding the fight itself because you know what should be disqualifying for a judge?

Parking like this:

What the hell is THAT?

We live in a civilized society. The bare minimum requirement of a citizen is figuring out how to use a parking space. This should be included in at least one concurring opinion for the upcoming birthright citizenship case. How does someone think this is acceptable? It’s not even the failure to stay within the lines — bad though that is — but placing this space-hogging land yacht’s whole ass end out in the middle of the lane is truly unforgivable.

He also thinks he can park like a he’s the only driver who matters because — as the voice in the video says — “I’ve been here for two minutes.” Under that logic, one could Tokyo drift into three handicapped spots at the grocery store as long as you’re going to be quick about it. Unearned entitlement doesn’t come with a temporal grace period.

I get that this is Idaho Falls, meaning that the other driver had a functionally infinite supply of alternative spots available that wouldn’t involve docking his own tub next to the judge’s truck. But that’s not an excuse for ignoring the clearly painted lines. This is the portrait of a man with no respect for the social contract. Parking within the lines is what separates us from the animals.

I mean, what does he think? That parking spaces are like the federal statutes that he can personally rewrite to satisfy his own partisan whims? Judge Nelson decided that a statute limiting the president from calling in domestic military enforcement unless “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” really means the president enjoys a unilateral and unreviewable “range of honest judgment” to decide that an inflatable frog at a protest justifies imposing martial law upon Portland. And he apparently thinks his “two minutes” should “reflect[] a colorable assessment of the facts and law” that trumps the lines we’ve drawn.

Whether or not one believes Nelson’s slapfight (or parking!) deserves judicial discipline, one point Fix the Court makes that should find no argument is that “much like Judge Tom Ludington’s 2025 DUI, the fact that the public only learned about the incident thanks to the press, and months after the fact, doesn’t make Nelson or the Ninth Circuit look great.” Throw in the recent disciplinary decision about Judge Eleanor Ross’s, let’s just call it in camera review, and the effort of her fellow judges to keep her name confidential. There’s a virtue to maintaining confidentiality in an investigation, but these stories read to the public as a judiciary looking to cover for their own.

We’ve watched this exact movie in the Ninth Circuit. When Judge Roger Benitez ordered a marshal to handcuff a crying 13-year-old girl in front of her father — misconduct squarely inside the judicial role unlike whatever game of sunglasses Frisbee golf we’re talking about here — the Ninth Circuit only publicly acknowledged the complaint existed because Above the Law reported it. There’s a way to maintain the presumption of innocence without keeping a whole incident under wraps.

David Lat offered a little more understanding, noting, “as someone who sucks at parking, made a trip to traffic court last year, and doesn’t always have the best temper, I’m not in the best position to judge Judge Nelson.” That said, Professor Hellman flagged the 2018 Wall Street Journal report from Nelson’s confirmation, cataloguing two decades of citations for speeding, blowing through lights and signs, illegal turns, seatbelt violations, driving without proof of insurance, skipping an inspection, and failing to register his vehicle. I’d contend that this is way worse — as a temperament issue — than speeding or missing a red light because those can involve errors in the heat of the moment.

Parking like an asshole is premeditated. Lat may suck at parking (though he’s probably too harsh a critic of his own abilities) but if Lat misses the spot, he’s going to try again! It’s unique among traffic errors in that it can be solved before it has a chance to cause any problems at all.

Parking like this and then choosing to get out and walk away anyway… that is diabolical.

Police: Idaho Falls federal judge knocked off man’s glasses, hurled them across parking lot and stomped on them during confrontation [Idaho State Journal]
Judicial Notice (06.07.26): One Angry Judge [Original Jurisdiction]

Earlier: Formal Complaint Lodged Against Federal Judge For Handcuffing Crying 13-Year-Old Girl
Judiciary Tried To Hide ‘Sex In Chambers’ Judge’s Name. It Left A Roadmap To Identify Eleanor Ross Instead.
Trump Can Now Send SEAL Team 6 To Assassinate Dancing Inflatable Frogs

The post Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson Charged With Battery Over Parking Lot Rumble appeared first on Above the Law.

Ken Paxton Can’t Even Get His Own Lawyer’s Vote

Kathryn Rubino — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 18:30:07 +0000

Texas Attorney General turned GOP candidate for Senate Ken Paxton has had a rough go of it when it comes to loyalty from the people closest to him (which, honestly should give anyone considering voting for him pause). His wife is divorcing him, and her endorsement list conspicuously skipped his Senate race. And now his own lawyer, the guy who defended him through both his impeachment trial and his years-long securities fraud case, is endorsing the Democrat.

Dan Cogdell, a Houston-based criminal defense attorney who has represented Paxton through some of the most legally perilous stretches of his career, told NOTUS that his former client “has lost sight of his core mission, which is to represent the people of Texas.” Cogdell is backing Democratic nominee James Talarico, saying, “I believe to my core that James Talarico believes in unity over division and that he knows how to assemble not only Democrats, but Independents and Republicans, and we need that right now.”

This is quite the story, we have Paxton’s own lawyer affirmatively campaigning for the opposition — and putting his money where his mouth is. Campaign finance records show Cogdell donated $6,500 to Paxton’s campaign last year before cutting a $1,000 check to Talarico in March.

Cogdell has been making his political views increasingly public. He called Trump “the greatest threat to Democracy our country’s ever seen,” a quote the National Republican Senatorial Committee actually weaponized in a since-deleted attack ad calling Cogdell “a liberal Trump-hating trial lawyer.” (You’ll recall the NRSC has been furiously scrubbing its anti-Paxton content since the primary.)

Talarico, for his part, is leaning into it, “If you voted for John Cornyn, you have a place in this campaign,” he said in a statement. “If you’re a Republican tired of the corruption you’re seeing in government, you have a place in this campaign. Even if you’re Ken Paxton’s impeachment lawyer, you have a place in this campaign.”

Meanwhile, a minor update on the home front: the Paxtons’ June 24 divorce trial has been canceled. Ken Paxton’s attorneys say “the parties have made substantial progress toward an amicable resolution of all issues and remain engaged in productive discussions,” and are optimistic a final agreement will be reached soon. The spectacular public airing of adultery allegations we’d been promised will apparently have to wait — or not happen at all, which is very convenient timing for a general election candidate.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1

The post Ken Paxton Can’t Even Get His Own Lawyer’s Vote appeared first on Above the Law.

Legal Geek 2026: We Caught The Car, Now What Do We Do With It?

Stephen Embry — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 17:47:00 +0000

(Image via Getty)

Legal Geek 2026. Last year, we were at a fork in the road at Legal Geek with AI. The question then was whether it would change legal.

Like the proverbial dog who finally catches the car it’s been chasing but not knowing what to do with it, this year it was all about how and how much AI has changed our world. And how to deal with the changes. These were the themes many of the speakers addressed and the esteemed Joy Heath Rush of ILTA summed up so well in her closing presentation.

To understand why Legal Geek was ideally suited to tackle all these issues in a single day you need to understand its uniqueness.

The Uniqueness Of Legal Geek

Legal Geek has always been your atypical legal tech conference. It was founded 11 years ago by Jimmy Vestbirk, who wanted to create an event that was big on networking and discussion. There are, for example, no long ponderous presentations by speakers who drone on about their credentials and offer wordy and boring power points.

Instead, Legal Geek relies on a fast-paced format: short, punchy talks of 10 minutes in length (really eight minutes according to the speakers), interactive workshops, roundtable discussions and vendor alleyways instead of cavernous expo halls.

Networking is not just encouraged — it’s demanded, with plenty of opportunities for both structured and unstructured encounters. And lots of time for them.

According to the Legal Geek website, there were 50 speakers and over 1,000 attendees this year. Of the attendees, 28% were from in-house legal departments, and 35% were from law firms. My impression was that most of these folks were not practicing lawyers, which is common among legal tech conferences, and perhaps why there is often a disconnect between what tech is purchased and what tech the lawyers actually use, a phenomenon that was frequently mentioned during the day.

The Venue

The venue itself is unique and ideally suited to what Legal Geek is trying to do. There’s a large space for more well-attended sessions. Then an open hallways area where vendors sit at small tables. But the real star of the show is the large outdoor space that connects to the vendor hallway area. Lots of space for networking and bumping into people. It didn’t hurt that the day of the conference was a super nice Chicago spring day.

There Was One Change

I was curious this year what the sale of Legal Geek to ALM (now Centellic) might mean for the sort of scrappy independent vibe the Legal Geek prides itself on.

After all, ALM puts on the gigantic LegalWeek show in New York. But Legal Geek could not be any more different. It’s smaller. Less hype. More low key. It goes out of its way to stress the informality. Vestbirk is still represented to be in charge of the conference, and his ethos remains the same: “Come to learn, and to teach. Come to make friends, not sell. Look after your fellow attendees, you may need their help some day.”

But according to the Legal Geek website, the sale to Centellic will “allow us to grow our Legal Geek audience and events across the world.” But that’s a bit of a catch-22. Part of what makes Legal Geek unique is its small scale and intimate location. If it grows, it risks losing the very thing that makes it frankly geeky.

Fortunately, for this year at least, there were few noticeable changes. The vibe, exhibit area, and networking opportunities seemed pretty much the same. Perhaps a few more talks by vendors but that’s hard to quantify. And few of them sold from podium anyway. The Centellic name certainly was not bandied about.

The Rapid-Fire Presentations

I previously discussed Gina Passarella’s powerful opening presentation. Following her were the 10 minute rapid-fire presentations by others.

One of the more interesting of these was from Joe Dormani of Thomson Reuters Ventures which invests in AI startups. His view was that vendors are moving away from mere retrieval systems to systems of action with the rise of agentic agents. For AI-first firms, this is driving a fundamental business model change and a change in how work is produced. In the future, Dormani believes, agents will automatically produce outputs, and the human lawyer’s job will be to strategically review these outputs and exercise judgment.

David Wang, CIO of the Cooley law firm, started his presentation by shouting “Fuck AI!” which got everyone’s attention. His point though was that legal needs to think through what can be automated and then concentrate on what’s left, not just throw up its collective hands out of fear.

Sarah McCormick of the Honigman law firm talked about the difficulty in getting people and lawyers to change how they do things in light of new technology. She recognized more training could help but understanding human psychology would help more. The fix, she said, is not chastisement but better change management.

Others, like Michael Owen Hill, the director of product marketing at NetDocuments, discussed the importance of accessing and using a firm’s internal documents to take advantage of a firm’s unique wisdom and experience to stand out.

There was also lots of discussion about governance in the age of AI and the risks it poses if not done right. These risks stem in part from rapid development and attempted deployment. They can be minimized by doing things like better mapping and creating what one speaker called modular guardrails.

Other speakers talked about how vendors could better approach legal, how firms could stop spending on what Christina Wojcik called shelf life, how in-house needs to drive their outside firms AI strategy, and how to deal with unknowns. There were also discussions of AI’s impact on diversity programs and on wellness.

Joy Heath Rush: Putting A Bow On It

The last speaker, Joy Heath Rush, best summarized the patterns that were heard throughout the day. Her takeaways were:

There is a need to agree on the definition of AI across the ecosystem.

There’s a need to define where people fit in the brave new world

We need to incorporate AI into work processes and know what we are trying to achieve with it.

We need to make people comfortable with technology and understand the importance of mental and physical wellness.

We need to understand that it’s no longer about AI hype. AI is now “part of our day-to-day life.” Which requires discerning what is realistic.

Well sai,d Joy, as always.

My Takeaways

So here are my takeaways. We are indeed the dog who chased the car only to wonder what to do with it when we caught it. Much of the day was spent trying to figure that out: we may not quite know yet, but we do know it’s a big car and has lots of parts.

Will clients be calling the shots in the new age much more so than ever? They haven’t so far, but AI may finally be the fuel for businesses to demand it. Barring that, though, it will be business as usual.

There are nagging concerns about adaptability and change management to deal with what is certainly the most impactful change of my lifetime brought about by AI. And too many purchasing AI still don’t grasp what problem they’re trying to solve.

There are concerns over how AI will change work processes and what lawyers actually do and how they do it. And last, but certainly not least, is the concern over how AI will impact not only our work but our very wellness.

All of these things were robustly discussed not just by the speakers but in the formal and informal discussions and roundtables that carried through the day.

I go to lots of conferences. But Legal Geek is one of the few that actually stops and tries to holistically figure out what the impact of AI will be instead of trying to please vendors and give windbag speakers and vendors platforms.

Legal Geek may not get it all right. But it’s a start. So let’s hope Legal Geek doesn’t change. We need more of these kinds of conferences.

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.

The post Legal Geek 2026: We Caught The Car, Now What Do We Do With It? appeared first on Above the Law.

‘Trump’ Kennedy Center Gets SLAPP-ed

Liz Dye — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 17:01:35 +0000

As we wait to see if the Kennedy Center complies with Judge Cooper’s order to take Trump’s name off the building by June 12, the arts center lost yet another legal battle on Friday. This time it was Judge Tanya Jones Bosier of the DC Superior Court delivering the benchslap in a case involving the iconic jazz drummer Chuck Redd.

Since 2006, Redd had hosted the Center’s Christmas Eve Jazz Jam, a popular, free concert on December 24th. But in 2025, Trump promised to make the Kennedy Center “GREAT AGAIN” by firing the board and announcing “an amazing Chairman, DONALD J. TRUMP!”

For executive director, he appointed walking shitpost Ric Grenell, who proceeded to fire much of the staff and alienate the entire artistic community.

These changes precipitated an immediate wave of performer cancellations, which turned into a tsunami after the board announced that it was renaming the center for Trump.

“When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,” Redd told the AP.

Grenell responded with his signature tact and grace.

“Your dismal ticket sales and lack of donor support, combined with your last-minute cancellation has cost us considerably,” he sneered in a letter to Redd distributed widely to journalists. “This is your official notice that we will seek $1 million in damages from you for this political stunt.”

On March 5, the Kennedy Center made good on its threat, filing a one-count breach of contract complaint in DC Superior Court. The Center alleged that Redd “agreed to a written contract” to perform on Christmas Eve.

Note that it does not say he signed such a contract, and no copy of this contract was attached!

In this alleged contract, Redd “agreed to a morals clause” barring him from conduct that might “shock, insult, or offend the community or Center workforce or public morals or decency or prejudice Center.”

The complaint argued that Redd “breached the Agreement by abusing the position created for him by the Center as a means to publicize his personal political views instead of providing the promised musical performance.”

Was it wise for the Center to explicitly state that it was suing Redd because of his publicly stated “political views?”

It was not! Particularly since all parties agree that Redd never signed any contract.

According to Judge Jones Bosier’s order, “Redd reached out to the Center in late October to inquire about the 2025 contract, the Center explained that they were ‘finalizing a few things.’” It appears that they were finalizing the morals clause, adding a brand new term that had never appeared in Redd’s prior contracts, all of which were signed before he got on stage. The new version didn’t arrive until December 9, at which point the Center began emailing Redd daily demanding that he sign it. On December 19, he told them he was pulling out, and they canceled the outstanding AdobeSign exchange.

Those are some bad facts for the Center, particularly since DC has a robust anti-SLAPP law that allows for early dismissal, as well as fee-shifting. On March 27, Redd moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim along with special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. And on Friday, Judge Jones Bosier granted both of those motions.

The Center’s threadbare, four-page complaint failed to state a claim, since there was no contract, implied or otherwise, and no damages: “The Center does not proffer any expense or cost in connection with Redd beyond conclusory allegations, the Center did not lose any ticket sales as the concert was free, and the entire performance was canceled as a result of multiple artists canceling, so the Center did not incur costs for staff or other performers.” The court also quoted Grenell’s nastygram, noting that Redd’s cancellation cannot possibly be the cause of a loss of goodwill for a venue that was facing “almost certain destruction.”

All parties agree that a bunch of other performers pulled out without talking to the press, and none of them got sued. And the Center’s lawyer, Earl N. “Trey” Mayfield, III, was kind enough to draw a straight line between Redd’s brief comment to the AP and the lawsuit. (The DOJ wasn’t getting anywhere near this dumpster fire.) Unsurprisingly, the judge had no difficulty determining that this lawsuit was filed to punish protected speech.

“[T]he instant breach of contract claim sufficiently arises from Redd’s speech and expressive conduct protected under the Anti-SLAPP Act,” she wrote. “Contrary to the Center’s contention, the Center’s Amended Complaint does not merely arise from Redd’s ‘fail[ure] to show up for work.’”

And since DC’s anti-SLAPP law presumptively shifts attorney’s fees, all that’s left now is the accounting.

That’s one expensive free concert that never happened!

Liz Dye produces the Law and Chaos Substack and podcast. You can subscribe by clicking the logo:

The post ‘Trump’ Kennedy Center Gets SLAPP-ed appeared first on Above the Law.

The Legal Profession’s Yankee Stadium Moment

Mike McNamara — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 16:19:05 +0000

Ed. note: Please welcome Mike McNamara, chief executive officer of Baretz+Brunelle, to the pages of Above the Law. In this new series, he and his colleagues at B+B will share their thoughts on trends they’re seeing across the legal industry.

People ask me daily where the legal profession is heading. That question is more challenging than ever, but I have a begrudging answer: Yankee Stadium.

Tough admission from a Royals fan who grew up hating the Yankees. But out of the corner of my eye while passing a Yankees game on TV in a New York bar, I saw something that would have been unfathomable just two years ago. Right there, behind home plate: an advertisement for a legal tech company. I don’t mention this because the advertiser — Legora, the AI tool with Jude Law as its brand ambassador — is a client. (Full disclosure: it is.) Rather, the placement of this ad in that particular setting crystalizes how dramatically the legal industry has changed in a short time.

I’m not talking only about the growth of legal tech, although that is part of the story. The appearance of a legal tech product in prime advertising real estate, where you would actually expect placement of a bank, beer, or sports betting ad, tells just how valuable overnight the most powerful legal tech tools have become. The global legal tech market now projects to grow from $39 billion this year to $72 billion in just five years. Investors have noticed. Legal tech funding hit $4.3 billion last year, up 54% from the previous year, with AI-powered tools driving much of the gain.

Other factors as well are making this an under-the-lights, Yankee Stadium moment for the legal asset class — one grabbing attention like never before. As most things do, this comes down in large part to money. Over the past 50 years, legal services have outgrown every other sector of the economy other than healthcare. Even with the emergence of legal tech tools that might intuitively erode billable hours, the top 100 firms recorded record revenue and profits last year. Mid-sized firms and those in the lower half of the Am Law 200 are thriving as well, outpacing the Am Law 100 in demand growth.

The revolutionary technology and historic profit levels now prevailing are two of four factors combining to make the legal sector more dynamic than ever. Consider just a few headlines from the cacophony of legal news in just the last few days: Kirkland invests $500 million in its own AI platform. Gibson Dunn pays $15 million a year for an appellate star. An M&A boutique sells a stake in its back office to private equity.

The last two touch on the additional factors I mentioned. One takes the metaphor of Yankee Stadium from behind home plate ads to the dugout. The savage war for talent across legal is fueling compensation for rainmaking lawyers up and over amounts being paid to some Yankee players. Recruiting for even the most junior talent is reaching new levels of competitiveness and absurdity, with firms signing ~~draft picks~~ summer associates before they even have their first law school grade.

Very much related to outsized payments to stars and overperformers, law firms are making colder calculations about who can join or stay in their equity tier. Polsinelli reported a 15% decline in its equity partner ranks in 2024, coinciding with a 31% rise in profits per equity partner. Meanwhile, the nonequity partnership tier, once a rarity at white-shoe firms, has suddenly become universal. Cravath created a salaried partner tier in late 2023; holdouts Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Cleary, Skadden, Debevoise, Arnold & Porter, Sullivan & Cromwell, and Freshfields have all followed since.

For the first time, nonequity partners now outnumber equity partners at major firms. Lockstep compensation, the defining feature of elite firm culture for generations, feels as quaint as a box of Cracker Jack, having been abandoned at firm after firm. Long-held norms suddenly become vulnerable to transformation, as the failure to do so becomes indicia, or precursor, to failure itself — evidenced by a number of storied Wall Street firms recently combining into global firms to avoid fates that befell firms that are now historic footnotes.

Heading back up to our Bronx metaphor, you cannot ignore the owner’s box. When the Royals’ nemesis and Yankee owner George Steinbrenner assembled his big-name rosters, some felt that the capital-rich outsider was sullying a hallowed game. Private equity encountered a similar reaction as it drew closer to a profession long insulated from outside funding. But now, law firms are expressing increasing exploratory if not actually mutual interest — in many cases, to support their quest for the best talent and technology.

The management services organization structure — allowing investors to own a law firm’s operational infrastructure without owning the firm itself — has gone from an obscure workaround to a mainstream conversation overnight as my partner predicted it would. Roughly a dozen MSO deals closed in 2025, and as the recent example noted above suggests, the trend is ongoing. Even among the largest firms, McDermott Will & Schulte confirmed it is exploring the model. Simultaneously, KPMG received a law firm license in Arizona in early 2025, putting the Big Four formally inside the gate.

All of these changes are raising new and fundamental questions for law firm leadership. How should they price services that have been enhanced with the use of technology? How should they train associates when the repetitive work they formerly learned from has been automated? How do they maintain a sense of partnership after they become a collection of business generators operating on diverse economic arrangements (or should they even care about doing so)? And on and on.

The challenge of helping law firms, corporate law departments, legal innovators, and investors in legal answer these newly relevant questions drew me to Baretz+Brunelle two years ago. Over the coming months, my partners will be discussing them in this space, sharing what we’re seeing in the market.

And to anyone who finds themselves understandably uncomfortable with the change being wrought in the profession, I offer this consolation: Baseball is as timeless as the law, and it looks different than it did just a few years ago too. The game invented by Doubleday now has a pitch clock, a ban on the shift, bigger bases, and an umpire who can be overruled by a machine — changes that felt jarring when they arrived. The game is faster now, and attendance is up.

Full confession: I really do not love watching baseball on TV. But maybe I will more, given what the ads reveal.

Mike McNamara is chief executive officer of Baretz+Brunelle, a growth advisory firm to the world’s preeminent businesses in the legal industry. He previously served as CEO of Dentons US.

The post The Legal Profession’s Yankee Stadium Moment appeared first on Above the Law.

John Oliver Turned Todd Blanche’s Groveling Into A Dr. Seuss Book

Kathryn Rubino — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 15:32:00 +0000

John Oliver turned his attention to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Sunday’s Last Week Tonight, and the results were… not flattering for the man who has spent the better part of two months relentlessly (ultimately successfully) auditioning for the permanent AG gig.

Oliver played a clip of Blanche’s, well, embarrassing statement to reporters: “It’s the greatest honor of a lifetime. And if President Trump chooses to keep me as acting, that’s an honor. If he chooses to nominate me, that’s an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and I go back to being the DAG [Deputy Attorney General], that’s an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say thank you very much. I love you, sir.”

Oliver’s reaction: “Jesus, Todd! There is sucking up and whatever that was!”

From there, Oliver diagnosed the quote as Blanche “freestyling a version of ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ about what he’s willing to do for the president,” before unveiling the cover of a mock Dr. Seuss book titled Brown Nose Goes H.A.M.

“‘I’d kiss his ass on a boat, I’d tickle his balls with a goat,'” Oliver recited as he turned through illustrated pages of the parody. He finished with: “‘I love the president with my soul, I yield to him my every hole.'”

In fairness to Oliver’s read of the situation: it’s not wrong. As we noted last week, Trump has (sort of) confirmed Blanche will get the permanent nomination, describing Blanche as having “done a very good job” during his probationary period. Which, given what the audition tape contains — declaring the president’s “right” to direct criminal investigations of his political enemies, a press conference about a missing bullet, going after the press, and defending the now likely dead $1.8 billion slush fund — does tell you something about what “a very good job” means in this context.

The man who left his Cadwalader partnership to become Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney has, apparently, secured the bag… even if it cost him his dignity along the way.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1

The post John Oliver Turned Todd Blanche’s Groveling Into A Dr. Seuss Book appeared first on Above the Law.

Another Firm Says ‘All Aboard’ To Higher Associate Salaries

Staci Zaretsky — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:42:00 +0000

The raise train keeps picking up passengers. With associates eagerly tracking every compensation announcement and firms facing increasing pressure to remain competitive, another firm has decided to match the latest salary scale set by Milbank and keep the momentum going.

On Friday, the Groom Law Group, a D.C. firm specializing in benefits, health, and retirement law, announced that it would be matching the new associate salary scale. The executive committee noted in its memo concerning the raises that “[t]his investment reflects our appreciation for the talent, dedication, and hard work of our associates, whose contributions are essential to delivering exceptional service to our clients and strengthening the Groom brand.” Check out the firm’s new compensation grid.

1st Year: $235,000

2nd Year: $245,000

3rd Year: $270,000

4th Year: $320,000

5th Year: $385,000

6th Year: $410,000

7th Year: $440,000

8th Year: $455,000

Not only will the firm be adopting the Milbank money scale, it will also be paying the difference between its current salary scale and the new scale in two lump sum payments, one in September and one in December.

Congratulations to everyone at Groom Law Group!

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 Another Firm Says ‘All Aboard’ To Higher Associate Salaries appeared first on Above the Law.

What The ‘One Nation, Overcharged’ Campaign Aims To Achieve

Marissa Plescia - MedCity News — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:03:00 +0000

One Nation, Overcharged, a campaign backed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, launched to raise awareness of rising healthcare costs.

The post What The ‘One Nation, Overcharged’ Campaign Aims To Achieve appeared first on Above the Law.

Morning Docket: 06.08.26

Above the Law — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 12:50:00 +0000

* Goldman's David Solomon asks Kathy Ruemmler to unresign. [Bloomberg Law News]

* DOJ lawyers are getting a lot of heat for telling the DC Circuit that Trump could unilaterally tear down the Statue of Liberty if he wanted to, but honestly the only way his ballroom argument works is if the court accepts that premise. [Politico]

* AI presents new risks in insurance. [Law.com]

* Legal sector added jobs last month. [Law360]

* Morgan & Morgan considers selling a billion-dollar stake to private equity in hopes of one day going public. [Reuters]

* Law school merger approved by ABA, to the extent states still listen to the ABA. [ABA Journal]

* An argument against granting AI legal personhood. [Financial Times]

The post Morning Docket: 06.08.26 appeared first on Above the Law.

RAISES!!! — See Generally

Above the Law — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 23:35:00 +0000

Milbank Shocks The Market: Everyone had settled into the old associate pay scale, when Milbank decided to yet again respond to the rise in the cost of living.

Scoreboard: Follow all the matching salary moves with this scorecard.

That's The Price Of A Checked Bag: Davis Polk's Spirit Airlines bankruptcy filing shows second-year associates billing $1,410 an hour.

Send In The Clones: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease built AI "personas" of 19 of its partners so associates can consult a low-resolution map of the partner's brain without bothering the actual partner.

You Got Mossed: A federal judge gutted the DOJ's theory that "86 47" reads as a threat, holding in a separate protest case that the phrase is protected speech weeks before James Comey's seashell trial.

DOJ Lawyers Either Very Dumb Or Working As Moles: The superseding indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center managed to make the government's already flimsy case even worse.

Never Never Land: A federal judge ruled Trump's handpicked board can't rename the Kennedy Center after him and found the president lied about the renovation study, prompting Trump to rage-quit.

Calvinball With A Twist: Supreme Court Republicans used the shadow docket to let Alabama install new, racist maps... because they don't want to even try to pen an opinion explaining this one.

Regularity Is A Virtue: Supreme Court reform is almost inevitable. The latest installment in this spirited debate explains why term limits are the right answer.

The post RAISES!!! — See Generally appeared first on Above the Law.

Salaries Are On The Rise! — See Also

Chris Williams — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 23:00:00 +0000

Another Biglaw Firm Matches Milbank: Katten Muchin bumps up their salaries!

Keeping Up With The Milbanks: Check to see if your firm is on the scoreboard!

Here Lies Diversity Lab: The FTC successfully harassed the diversity initiative into shutting down.

Alternative Facts And Alternative Histories: The Trump administration tries erasing proof of the failed Jan. 6th coup.

Associate Prosecutor Disbarred Over Law School Stealing: Reminder of how important it is to police the police.

Lawyers Worth Their Fee Know Silence Is Golden: Talking less could make you better at your job.

The post Salaries Are On The Rise! — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

Law Firm Exploring New Way To Take In Money

Kathryn Rubino — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 22:16:00 +0000

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

Which law firm, the largest personal injury law firm in the U.S., is reportedly exploring a minority stake sale that could raise $1 billion+ and bring in an outside partner?

Hint: This deal could be the first step to an eventual IPO for the firm.

See the answer on the next page.

The post Law Firm Exploring New Way To Take In Money appeared first on Above the Law.

Former FDA Officials: There’s Opportunity To Rebuild The Agency — But Not The Way It Was

Frank Vinluan - MedCity News — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 21:30:00 +0000

Rick Pazdur, formerly the FDA’s top oncology official, said the FDA is at a critical juncture that could determine the direction of the world’s top regulator of medicines.

The post Former FDA Officials: There’s Opportunity To Rebuild The Agency — But Not The Way It Was appeared first on Above the Law.

Lawyers Should Sometimes Talk Less

Jordan Rothman — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 20:44:00 +0000

Lawyers are known to be talkative. Since attorneys are paid to advocate for their clients, some lawyers may feel as if they have to speak more in order to effectively complete their jobs. Moreover, some lawyers are just talkative people, and this might be one of the reasons that they entered the profession. However, sometimes lawyers are best served by keeping quiet rather than advocating on behalf of a client.

Earlier in my career, I had to argue a matter for a client, and the court scheduled a telephone conference for a temporary restraining order on about an hour’s notice. My adversary was having technical issues. I was raring to go and asked the court if I should start presenting my client’s case since I was not having technical difficulties. The court then correctly advised me that since my adversary was the movant, they should have the first say on the matter.

During the call, the judge was extremely hostile to my adversary’s position. My adversary had significant hurdles to clear in order to obtain the relief he sought, and he simply did not make out a sufficient case to obtain such relief. Although I really wanted to make the case for my client, I could tell that my adversary was going to lose without me even saying a word, and if I said something, I might complicate matters. In the end, I won the matter on behalf of my client, and I only said a few words in total at the hearing.

At another time in my career, I had a court conference on a case in which all parties were pretty close to a settlement. Accordingly, everyone wanted an adjournment of the conference to have more time to talk about the settlement. I asked my adversary if he wanted to ask the court for an adjournment in advance of the client, and he said that he preferred to ask for the adjournment at the scheduled conference itself.

When the court attorney called all of the cases on the docket, people could either ask for an adjournment or a conference. My adversary asked for a conference and later explained that he wanted to advise the court of the settlement talks rather than merely ask for an adjournment. I was not happy with this approach, since we needed to sit in the courtroom for another 90 minutes to conference the matter with the court rather than merely ask for an adjournment and leave immediately.

When we were finally called to conference the case, my adversary spoke the entire time about what the case was about, the claims, and the status of settlement talks. The court attorney asked if we wanted an adjournment, and we were able to adjourn the matter for a while so that we could finalize the settlement. I have no idea why my adversary could not just ask for an adjournment and leave earlier in the appearance. Perhaps this adversary wanted to bill more time to his client, or perhaps he just loved to hear the sound of his own voice. However, this cost us nearly two hours that could have been saved by speaking less.

All told, lawyers might feel a natural urge to talk more at hearings, court conferences, and the like since they might think that more speaking benefits clients. However, lawyers would often be better served by speaking less in certain circumstances.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.

The post Lawyers Should Sometimes Talk Less appeared first on Above the Law.

$225K Law School Theft Scheme Costs Attorney His License

Chris Williams — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 20:02:00 +0000

We’ve covered some very cool law school side hustles — raking in six figures as a “Jeopardy!” contestant is a personal favorite. That isn’t the only way to rake in six figures as a student though. An attorney found a way to skim hundreds of thousands of dollars while he was still a law student. It just cost him his license. Court News Ohio has coverage:

The Supreme Court of Ohio today permanently disbarred a Gallia County attorney who was convicted of theft after stealing more than $225,000 from an estate he administered.

Nathan Harvey was a legal assistant attending law school when attorney Britt Wiseman arranged for Harvey to serve as the administrator of an estate. Shortly after opening a bank account for the estate, Harvey immediately began stealing from it. Wiseman later discovered the theft and reported Harvey’s actions to disciplinary authorities.
…
Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy stated that Harvey’s case is a first for Ohio, “and a disturbing case of first impression it is: a law student who put into action a theft scheme to misappropriate client funds for two years and eight months and did not get caught until” after he was certified as a legal intern and admitted to practice law.

The disbarment was a corrective measure. Harvey was previously sentenced to 60 months of community control and had his license indefinitely suspended, but the severity of his abuse of client trust deserved a harsher sentence. You don’t hear about someone ruining their legal career before they start it every day. Fun fact: after law school, Harvey went on to become an assistant prosecutor. Call me crazy, but if I knew I stole six figures from someone, I’d be doing my damndest to stay as far away from that office as possible. Goes to show that thinking like a lawyer doesn’t require common sense.

For every hopeful going to law school with the express purpose of earning money, this is not the way to do it.

Court Disbars Attorney Who Stole $225,000 From Client’s Estate [Court News Ohio]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn’t hurt either. You can reach him by email at christopherrashadwilliams@gmail.com and by Tweet/Bluesky at @WritesForRent.

The post $225K Law School Theft Scheme Costs Attorney His License appeared first on Above the Law.

Why Milbank Decided To Rewrite The Biglaw Salary Scale Instead Of Writing A Bonus Check

Staci Zaretsky — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 19:11:00 +0000

Ed. note: Welcome to our daily feature, Quote of the Day.

Milbank’s decision to raise salaries as opposed to giving another bonus has a far bigger impact because it impacts so many associates over the long run. The bonus is really, theoretically, meant for exceptional years—this is going to be more impactful than any bonus would have been.

—  Stephanie Biderman, an associate recruiter for Major Lindsey & Africa, in comments given to the American Lawyer, concerning the impact of Milbank’s decision to raise associate salaries, rather than hand out a one-time special bonus. Milbank’s raise was quickly adopted by McDermott, Hueston Hennigan, VKHH, Quinn Emanuel, and Katten.

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 Why Milbank Decided To Rewrite The Biglaw Salary Scale Instead Of Writing A Bonus Check appeared first on Above the Law.

The Real ‘AI Moment’ In Litigation Is Data Organization, Not Generative Output

Jeremy Barker — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 18:32:00 +0000

Getty Images

Ed. note: This article first appeared in ILTA’s Peer-to-Peer Magazine.

The promise of artificial intelligence in law feels almost boundless. Each week brings new announcements about firms adopting generative tools to automate drafting, summarize case law, or predict outcomes. But beneath the excitement lies a quieter, more stubborn problem, one that technology cannot solve alone.

Most firms’ data is not ready for AI.

Litigation teams in particular face the steepest challenge. Their work spans years, involves countless stakeholders, and touches everything from discovery to budgeting. That creates a mountain of unstructured information, including pleadings, correspondence, financial records, and court updates, often stored across dozens of systems that do not talk to one another.

Before AI can be transformative, firms must get serious about something far less glamorous: governance. That means understanding, structuring, and maintaining litigation data so it’s reliable, consistent, and ready to power intelligent tools. Without that foundation, AI is like building a skyscraper on sand.

The Reality of Litigation Data Today

If you ask a litigation coordinator where a document lives, the answer might depend on the day. Matter data lives in shared drives, emails, billing systems, case management tools, and sometimes even handwritten notes. Case teams rely on spreadsheets to track filings, manually copy data between systems, and recreate reports that never quite match.

This fragmentation carries a real cost. Attorneys spend time hunting for the correct version of information. Teams duplicate work or make decisions using outdated data. Forecasting legal spend becomes guesswork.

At a governance level, the issue is simple: poor data management leads to poor decision-making. Without a trusted source of truth, leaders cannot see where cases stand, how much exposure they face, or how workloads are distributed.

Even firms that have invested in practice management software often struggle to enforce consistent data entry. When each matter owner or paralegal uses their own naming conventions, automation breaks down. A tool cannot identify trends or flag anomalies if the trial date is recorded inconsistently across cases.

Why Data Governance Is the Foundation for AI

Generative AI has raised expectations and also exposed weaknesses. Every AI system, no matter how advanced, relies on the quality of its inputs. “Garbage in, garbage out” is more than a cliché; it is a technical truth. Structured, standardized data is what allows AI to function responsibly and accurately. If a firm wants to analyze case outcomes, predict litigation costs, or automate routine updates, it needs consistent, validated information. Without that, even the most innovative tool can produce unreliable or misleading results.

Many firms are discovering that AI readiness is more of a data hygiene problem than a technology challenge. The push toward automation is forcing leaders to confront long-standing issues around data ownership, accuracy, and accessibility. In some ways, AI is accelerating the maturity of governance. To deploy new tools safely, firms must first ask a few foundational questions:

Where does our data come from?

How clean and consistent is it?

Who is responsible for keeping it accurate?

Those are governance questions, not engineering ones.

What Evolving Governance Looks Like in Practice

Forward-thinking litigation teams are redefining governance beyond mere compliance. They see it as the backbone of operational efficiency and innovation, supporting how people actually work day to day. In practice, that shift comes down to a few core principles.

Centralization: Create one reliable source of truth for case data. That does not always mean a single system, but it does mean a single governing framework in which all data connects logically. When teams operate from a shared foundation, duplicate tracking disappears, reporting becomes faster, and decision-making becomes more transparent. Centralization also reduces risk by ensuring updates and disclosures are managed consistently across cases.

Standardization: Define consistent naming conventions, tags, and required data fields. The goal isn’t to add bureaucracy but to make information predictable and usable across matters. When data fields are structured the same way, whether for case type, jurisdiction, or stage, teams can run comparisons, automate updates, and surface insights that were previously buried. Standardization creates the conditions that enable automation to be trustworthy.

Access Control: Map permissions to roles and confidentiality needs. Governance isn’t just about visibility, but about the proper visibility. Clear access rules protect sensitive data, reduce accidental disclosures, and reinforce ethical walls without slowing collaboration. Well-designed access controls also make it easier to work with outside counsel, clients, and vendors in a controlled yet connected environment.

Accountability: Assign clear ownership for maintaining data quality. Someone (or a small committee) should be responsible for ensuring that data remains accurate and up to date. Governance does not succeed through software alone. It requires people who see themselves as stewards of the data. Defining accountability creates feedback loops, encourages consistency, and helps firms spot systemic issues before they become entrenched.

Many firms are finding that purpose-built matter or case management platforms can serve as the backbone of this governance framework. When data about case milestones, financials, documents, and outcomes lives in a single, structured environment, it becomes far easier to standardize naming conventions, apply permissions, and maintain accuracy over time. The goal is to create a governed system of record that supports collaboration and insight, rather than silos.

Modern governance is also scalable. There is no need to fix everything at once. Start with one practice group or data category, define what good looks like, and expand from there. Progress compounds as teams see tangible benefits like faster reporting, fewer discrepancies, and easier collaboration.

How Litigation Teams Can Start Improving Governance

For firms unsure where to begin, a simple self-audit can help clarify the path forward. Where does litigation data live today? How many versions of key documents exist? Which reports require manual re-entry or reconciliation? The goal is not to shame teams but to visualize complexity. Once you see the sprawl, improvement feels achievable.

From there, momentum builds through a few intentional steps. Start by assigning ownership. Governance rarely gains traction when framed as everyone’s job. Designate a data owner or a small governance committee to make decisions, track progress, and set standards that others can follow.

Next, simplify before layering in technology. Clean, consistent data in a basic system will outperform messy data in an advanced one. Resist the urge to fix disorganization by adding more tools.

For many teams, that simplification begins with consolidating scattered spreadsheets and trackers into a shared environment where data relationships are preserved automatically. Even a modest shift toward structured inputs, such as deadlines, budgets, and case stages, can reveal previously hidden gaps. The goal is to make good governance easy to practice within the normal flow of litigation work.

Finally, look for something measurable to pilot. A small reporting dashboard, a standardized intake form, or a short data-cleanup sprint can demonstrate the value of better governance almost immediately. Small wins build credibility and reinforce that governance is a daily habit, not a project to finish.

Governance Is Innovation

The firms that modernize governance will be the first to realize tangible benefits from AI, not because they adopt faster, but because they adopt smarter. In the long run, data governance is the foundation of innovation, not red tape. It enables efficiency, accountability, and insight. It allows legal teams to shift from reactive management to proactive strategy.

As the next wave of litigation technology evolves, the most valuable platforms won’t necessarily be those with the flashiest AI features. They will be the ones who help teams govern their data with clarity and confidence. Firms that build on that foundation today will be ready to harness whatever innovation comes next. True modernization starts with clarity. Knowing what data you have, where it lives, and how you can trust it. Once that foundation is in place, the potential of AI becomes not just possible, but sustainable.

Keao Caindec is the CEO and co-founder of Clarra, a fast-growing legal practice management platform redefining how firms and organizations manage matters. A veteran technology leader and entrepreneur, he has built and scaled companies that have transformed mature markets across legal, financial, and technology sectors. At Clarra, Caindec introduced a litigation-focused, docket-driven approach that has quickly gained traction among midsize plaintiffs’ firms, AmLaw 100 firms, and corporate legal teams. Before founding Clarra, he held leadership roles at Farallon Technology Group, Mocana, 365 Data Centers, OpSource, Yipes, and CyberCash, all of which achieved successful acquisitions. An active member of ILTA, ABA, and CLOC, Caindec frequently writes and speaks on legal technology and the business of law.

The post The Real ‘AI Moment’ In Litigation Is Data Organization, Not Generative Output appeared first on Above the Law.

It’s Official: The Trump Administration Finished What It Started With Diversity Lab

Kathryn Rubino — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 17:48:00 +0000

Back in February, we told you the Trump administration was bullying one of Biglaw’s best diversity initiatives out of existence. At the time, Diversity Lab founder Caren Ulrich Stacy was calling it a “pause.” We were… skeptical that was the right word for it. Turns out, our skepticism was warranted.

Diversity Lab is shutting down.

The Federal Trade Commission, which launched its investigation into Diversity Lab in January with a splash, issuing a press release and 42 warning letters to law firm clients, has now completed its work of dismantling one of the most effective diversity initiatives the legal profession has ever produced. The FTC and Diversity Lab spent months in negotiations over a proposed consent decree. Stacy wouldn’t sign it. And honestly, it’s a corporate death sentence dressed up in regulatory language. Among other requirements, the decree would have prohibited Diversity Lab from hosting or participating in any meetings among employers in the legal industry for 10 years, banned it from collecting or sharing disaggregated data for a decade, and required it to end the Mansfield Rule entirely, while submitting compliance reports to the FTC every 150 days and paying for an FTC-selected monitor to watch over them.

“We lacked operating funds to continue. We lacked operating funds to outlast litigation, and even if we had had the operating funds, I certainly wasn’t willing to continue negotiating on a consent decree,” Stacy said. “And I certainly wasn’t willing to go into litigation with the possibility of having to hand over confidential client information to the FTC, knowing they would weaponize it, so the only remaining choice was dissolution.”

As Stacy wrote in her open letter closing out the organization, it wasn’t a stellar legal argument that tanked Diversity Labs, but resources, pure and simple, “The FTC didn’t need a valid legal argument to win. It just needed a bully pulpit, the resources of the federal government to outlast our small operating budget, and the leverage of threatening to drag our clients into a baseless investigation.”

Remember, The FTC’s position was, to use a technical term, bullshit. Arguing that the Mansfield Rule, a voluntary certification requiring law firms to consider diverse candidates for leadership roles, constituted an anticompetitive agreement among law firms. A federal court said as much; U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, in the Perkins Coie executive order case, affirmed that Mansfield “expressly does not establish any hiring quotas or other illegally discriminatory practices, requiring only that participating law firms consider attorneys from diverse backgrounds for certain positions.”

Not that the FTC seemed particularly interested in what courts had to say. The agency’s chair had already made his priorities plain, writing in a press release that “DEI is a scourge on our institutions” and stating on X: “Under my leadership, the FTC is doing its part to end the DEI plague.” This was a political operation with a paper-thin legal theory attached to it, and it worked exactly as intended.

The work, to Stacy’s credit, isn’t entirely gone. As she wrote in her closing letter, the structural changes Mansfield drove don’t disappear just because the certification program does: “400 law firms and legal departments now have transparent advancement processes and promotion criteria that doesn’t go away, because Diversity Lab or Mansfield Rule goes away.” The OnRamp Fellowship returned more than 125 lawyers to practice after extended career breaks. The disability inclusion pilot drove a 3x increase in overall applicant volume at participating firms. The parental leave pilot brought men’s leave usage from 50% to 95%. These are documented results.

“All of the work we did wasn’t about programs with start and end dates — it was about fixing systems and leveling the playing field,” Stacy said. “So that lives on well past Diversity Lab.”

Maybe; hopefully. But let’s not paper over what happened here with optimistic framing. Diversity Lab was targeted by multiple federal agencies (DOJ, EEOC, and FTC) in coordinated succession, driven to financial ruin, and forced to close because it was doing work an administration with a “DEI is a plague” worldview didn’t like.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1

The post It’s Official: The Trump Administration Finished What It Started With Diversity Lab appeared first on Above the Law.

Associate Compensation Scorecard: The 2026 Summer Of Salary Increases

Staci Zaretsky — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 17:00:00 +0000

Since we broke the news of the new $235K salary scale for associates at large law firms in the United States — a trend that was started by Milbank on Tuesday, June 2, 2026 — firms are quickly falling in line to match the scale. In addition to these hefty new salaries, Biglaw and boutique firms alike are rolling out seasonal bonuses. When will your firm announce its new salary and bonus scales for associates?

Today, for your viewing pleasure, we unveil tables of all of the firms that have already matched the new salary scale (or instituted raises, generally, because of the new salary scale) and bonus scales, the date those matches were made, the minimum hours generally required at those firms to receive bonuses (if available), and the date bonuses will be paid (if available). We presume all raises are effective July 1, 2026. We will be updating this table on a daily basis, sometimes multiple times, as news on raises and bonuses unfolds. If you see any information here that is incorrect or needs clarification, let us know.

We are covering this trend extensively, so please drop us a line — text (646-820-8477) or email (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”) — when you know of a firm making a compensation move. 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. Sources are kept confidential.

Don’t forget, if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts, please enter your email address in the box below. 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 compensation announcement that we publish. Cheers to a happy bonus and raise season, everyone!

BONUSES

Firm Date Matched Minimum Hours Payout Date

Selendy Gay
Bonuses up to $25K May 27, 2026 Bonuses awarded to associates on track to meet their billable expectations Undisclosed

Hueston Hennigan
Bonuses ranging from $10K to $35K, regardless of class year May 29, 2026 2000 hours (higher bonuses for higher hours) Undisclosed

Dunn Isaacson Rhee
Bonuses ranging from $10K to $25K, based on class year June 4, 2026 Undisclosed (additional bonus money possible for those who have had an “outsized impact”) Undisclosed

RAISES

Firm Salaries Minimum Hours

Milbank
FIRST MOVER
June 2, 2026 Class of 2026/2025: $235K
Class of 2018: $455K None

McDermott
June 2, 2026 Class of 2026/2025: $235K
Class of 2018: $455K 2000 hours

Hueston Hennigan
June 2, 2026 Class of 2026/2025: $235K
Class of 2018: $455K Undisclosed

Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes
June 3, 2026 Class of 2026/2025: $235K
Class of 2018+: $455K 1800 hours

Quinn Emanuel
June 4, 2026 Class of 2026/2025: $235K
Class of 2018: $455K 2000 hours

Katten
June 4, 2026 Class of 2026/2025: $235K
Class of 2019+: $440K 2000 hours

Groom Law Group
June 5, 2026 1st Year: $235K
8th Year: $455K Undisclosed

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 Associate Compensation Scorecard: The 2026 Summer Of Salary Increases appeared first on Above the Law.

Gina Passarella’s Powerful Talk At Legal Geek: Law Firms That Don’t Face Change May Soon Run Out Of Gas

Stephen Embry — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:20:25 +0000

Legal Geek North America was held June 2 in Chicago. Despite some changes, it’s still geeky. And still cool. Its tone was set in a powerful 10-minute opening talk from Gina Passarella, Centellic’s chief content officer. Last year, I wrote that the conference tone was one of legal being at a fork in the road when it came to AI.

After hearing Passarella, it’s clear that for some, mainly clients, we are long past the fork of “as they are” or “will be demanding change from their traditional outside law firms.” And, I know from experience, when business people manage a legal matter and outside counsel, the matter is handled differently. It’s not “anything goes” when it comes to legal work. It’s “you better show me why the work is necessary.”

So, for outside law firms, Passarella’s message is, “It’s their work to lose” right now.

The In-House Perspective

Given that Centellic (ALM) has its fingers on the pulse of legal and particularly Biglaw, what Passarella said in her 10 minutes speaks volumes about where we are.

Her topic was the state of legal tech and the current business climate given AI. While Passarella noted we have seen big changes in legal before, we are now at a once in a generation period of change, and key parts of the ecosystem are or will be impacted.

From the in-house perspective, Passarella believes the pressures are extreme. Unlike in times past, business leaders are demanding in-house change. They are demanding that AI tools be used to reduce costs. They are demanding in-house legal do more and reduce outside spend. They are also demanding that in-house stop willy-nilly approving any and all rate increases. And a number of other pressures are weighing on in-house counsel, who must feel like they are under siege. Pressures stemming from things like data ownership and privilege questions.

Given this, some of the more sophisticated in-house counsel are not waiting on outside providers to make changes in light of the efficiencies AI and automation can bring. If their providers don’t get better, says Passarella, more and more in-house counsel will simply go elsewhere.

And there is more and more elsewhere to go, according to Passarella. Hybrid providers such as AI-first law firms are popping up all over the place and are attractive alternates to in-house counsel seeking options to their incumbent, traditional law firms that are slow to adapt. And as we all know, massive tech companies like Microsoft, Anthropic, and, more recently, Open AI, are getting into the legal space.

Reactions (Or Lack Thereof) From Outside Firms

But how are firms responding to these pressures and threats? Not well, says Passarella. Many firms are not well prepared to face these competing pressures. Most firms’ current AI strategy, according to Passarella, is that they “are using AI but not changing how they operate.” So while the firms say some adoption is going on, they just aren’t going to let AI impact the work they do.

This is reflected by research cited by Passarella that shows over half of the firms let their CIO team set and run AI strategy. Since few CIOs have a direct line to law firm leadership, that’s a troubling gap and leads to expensive tech being unused since it doesn’t meet lawyers where they are.

Biglaw hiring exemplifies these gaps in understanding and in facing new realities. Many firms, says Passarella, are hiring graduates right out of law schools in record numbers. They are doing so seemingly without considering that increased use of AI may reduce the need for entry-level (and even beyond) associates. Their rationale: demand right now is strong and, in Passarella’s words, they “don’t want to leave any money on the table.”

Passarella is equally blunt when it comes to rate increases. She doesn’t believe that they can continue as a way to offset costs and losses due to AI efficiencies reducing billable hours.

What’s It All Mean?

This business as usual approach by firms ignores the pressures being placed on in-house counsel and what is going on in the legal market. The greatest evidence of this is the unquestioning approval of gargantuan rate increases.

Most remarkably, Passarella believes in-house counsel that have traditionally not insisted on big changes by their incumbent law firms will now be forced to by the business to make changes.

My Take

Passarella is right. My experience is that other than grumbling a bit about what law firms charge, how they do things, and how they do work, clients have mostly gone along with what their firms were doing and how they did it. Maybe that’s because in-house counsel had much the same law school training and, indeed, often worked for the same outside firms their companies were using before going in-house. They are risk-averse lawyers and often don’t see or accept new ways of doing things. And since the business took their word for it (mostly), they got away with not making demands on outside counsel.

But having the business exert more control changes the matrix. I could see a remarkable difference in approach in matters where I reported to a businessperson, not a lawyer. It was reflected not only in cost decisions but also risk analysis and how and what work they believed was necessary to be done.

Now with access to more and more AI tools, we are on the cusp of significant change as business takes more and more control.

When I was a kid, I remember a TV political ad in a close senate race. An incumbent was depicted driving a car as his associate kept saying senator, we are running out of gas. But the senator just didn’t hear it. Or didn’t want to. He lost the election.

That may be where many law firms are today: running out of gas but not wanting to hear it. A pretty strong message packed into less than 10 minutes.

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.

The post Gina Passarella’s Powerful Talk At Legal Geek: Law Firms That Don’t Face Change May Soon Run Out Of Gas appeared first on Above the Law.

How Appealing Weekly Roundup

Above the Law — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 15:39:44 +0000

Ed. Note: A weekly roundup of just a few items from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, the Web’s first blog devoted to appellate litigation. Check out these stories and more at How Appealing.

“The Supreme Court Doesn’t Care About Voting Anymore”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court Backs F.C.C. Power to Levy Fines Against Cellphone Carriers; AT&T and Verizon said they were deprived of their right to a jury trial when the agency penalized the companies for failing to protect consumer information”: Ann E. Marimow of The New York Times has this report.

“Bang, Bang, Bang: Callais Kills Off the Voting Rights Act.” Pamela S. Karlan has this post at the “Just Security” blog.

“House Republican Preps Impeachment Bid Against Atlanta Judge”: Olivia Alafriz of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Texas high schooler fights punishment over hair length at Fifth Circuit; Darryl George claims his school district’s male-only hair length limit is unconstitutional gender discrimination and a violation of the Texas CROWN Act”: Christina van Waasbergen of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Bonus 230: Justice Barrett’s Vote in Margolin; A single vote to join a single concurring opinion in a case that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention could portend massive consequences across a range of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

The post How Appealing Weekly Roundup appeared first on Above the Law.

Trump DOJ Proudly Rewrites History By Deleting January 6 Insurrection Press Releases

Techdirt — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 14:50:07 +0000

History is written by the winners, they say. But it can also be written by losers.

Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. In response, he told everyone the election had been rigged, if not actually stolen. He said some of this to his faithful MAGA followers the morning the election results were to be certified. The rest is, as they say, history. His supporters stormed the Capitol building for the sole purpose of preventing the election from being certified. They broke into the building, assaulted police and federal officers, forced the Senate into hiding, and walked off with whatever souvenirs they could.

Many of these insurrectionists were ultimately arrested, charged, and convicted for their crimes. When Trump was elected president for a second time, one of the first things he did was issue pardons to the people who broke the law on his behalf back in 2021.

As awful and self-serving as that move was, it wasn’t the end of it. Playing both sides of a lawsuit, Trump managed to secure a revenge fund via a “settlement” by the IRS over the leaking of his tax files years earlier. Trump claims it’s an “anti-weaponization” fund meant to soothe the nerves of supposedly politically persecuted members of his MAGA flock with cash rewards for criminal acts.

Of course, he didn’t say exactly that, but everyone knows how this $1.776 billion slush fund is going to be used. The court handling the lawsuit seeking to dismantle the fund knows it as well. Whether or not it can find a way to shut it down remains to be seen. There’s not a whole lot of precedent on transparent self-dealing by a sitting president, mainly because most presidents (and their cabinets) are generally a little more careful to obscure their true motives.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is continuing to erase history it doesn’t like. This project started far from the White House, forcing national parks to take down anything that presented America as anything less than perfect. This effort, however, takes place on the administration’s home field. Rather than simply allow history to exist, the DOJ is proactively deleting evidence of the agency’s past actions.

A review by NBC News found that the vast majority of press releases pertaining to Jan. 6 defendants have been removed from the DOJ website as of Friday evening.

The move to wipe hundreds of press releases from the official government site is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to reframe the Jan. 6 siege and to paint the rioters who participated in it as victims.

It’s not like the DOJ or administration gave anyone a head’s up that this purge would be happening. It took regular people noticing it for the government to respond. And respond it did, as only this administration can: by gleefully admitting it was engaging in the sort of memory-holing we used to condemn foreign autocracies for doing.

Washington Post journalist Meryl Kornfield pointed out the “quiet” disappearance of January 6 indictment press releases from the DOJ’s website. The DOJ’s “Rapid Reponse” X account jumped in immediately to gloat about its destruction of the public record:

Nothing “quiet” about it.

We are proud to reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping DOJ’s website of partisan propaganda.

There it is: yet another middle finger to Americans from an administration that claims no one loves America as much as it does. Sure, press releases may contain statements from government prosecutors that contain as much opinion as facts, the rest of the releases generally just state the facts as dryly as possible so there’s little room for interpretation.

The question is where the DOJ goes from here. Is it willing to start destroying court records and/or placing these under seal where they’re inaccessible to the general public? Will it deliver a fresh set of non-facts to replace all of the history it’s erasing?

While this makes it more difficult to trust the DOJ to maintain its own records, it doesn’t change the fact that most things on the internet are forever, whether you want them to be or not. What’s been deleted has already been archived. Even if this government is willing to block sites like the Internet Archive from preserving history as it happens, it can’t keep dozens of other people from preventing this administration from simply wishing all of its wrongdoings into the internet cornfield.

Lawfare is just one site that’s making sure the permanent record remains permanent since this administration is objectively opposed to letting its history speak for itself. The results of its ongoing efforts to prevent Trump, et al. from simply pretending this never happened can be accessed here.

What’s detailed in the deleted documents isn’t evidence of “partisan propaganda” or “DOJ weaponization.” What happened actually fucking happened. The DOJ is supposed to handle federal crimes and it did exactly that. The truth is that Trump supporters committed several crimes in an effort to undermine — if not actually destroy — the democratic process. This was one of the darkest moments in American history. It should never be minimized, much less discarded just because it makes the people in power (and the people who support them) look as awful as they actually are.

These are the acts of a dictator and his enablers. It’s the antithesis of the independence that’s going to be celebrated by the same people who are busy destroying everything this country is supposed to stand for. It’s not something to be tolerated. And it should never be forgiven.

Trump DOJ Proudly Rewrites History By Deleting January 6 Insurrection Press Releases

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Todd Blanche Pinky Swears The $1.8 Billion J6 Slush Fund Is Dead, But Won’t Sign Anything Saying That
In NetChoice V. Murrill, The Copia Institute Asks The Fifth Circuit Not To Keep Ignoring The First Amendment
Former California AG Bill Lockyer Offers A Dumb And Lazy Defense Of The Paramount Warner Bros Merger

The post Trump DOJ Proudly Rewrites History By Deleting January 6 Insurrection Press Releases appeared first on Above the Law.

Biglaw’s Raise Parade Rolls On With Another Match

Staci Zaretsky — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 14:02:00 +0000

Biglaw associates have spent the last few days doing what they do best when compensation news breaks: refreshing Above the Law, obsessively texting group chats, and wondering whether their own firm is about to make an announcement. Ever since Milbank kicked off the latest round of salary increases, the market has been moving quickly to catch up. Now, another a firm known for rewarding its hardest workers come bonus time is bumping up salaries for associates across the board.

The latest firm to announce is Katten Muchin. The firm brought in $912,273,000 gross revenue in 2025, putting it at No. 66 in the most recent Am Law 100, and it’s chosen to use the Milbank scale (for the most part) for its salary increases. Check out the firm’s new compensation grid.

The firm’s summer associates will see their salaries raised as well.

Gil Soffer, Katten’s chairman, had this to say about the firm’s compensation move:

“Our associates are integral to our exceptional client service and to the continued success of our firm. This investment reflects our commitment to recognizing and rewarding the talent, dedication and contributions of our attorneys while ensuring that Katten remains highly competitive in attracting and retaining the industry’s top talent. As we continue to execute on the goals of Katten 2030, our strategic plan for sustained growth and excellence, investing in our people remains one of our highest priorities.”

On that note, it’s worth mentioning that just like the last time the Biglaw salary scale went up, Katten’s most senior associates — those in the Class of 2018 and beyond — are not being offered Milbank’s top salary ($455,000), but instead will receive the same salary as the Class of 2019 ($440,000), putting those attorneys below market. On the other hand, based on past precedent, we know that associates who have really billed their butts off come year end likely stand to make above-market bonuses, with the firm’s most senior associates usually eligible to receive tens of thousands of dollars more than their peers at other firms. On top of these elevated bonuses for high billers, the Katten has previously offered additional “superstar” bonuses available for the most dedicated associates.

Congratulations to everyone at Katten!

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 Biglaw’s Raise Parade Rolls On With Another Match appeared first on Above the Law.

Morning Docket: 06.05.26

Above the Law — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:55:28 +0000

* Maduro adding Diddy's lawyer. [Reuters]

* "Deepfake Mocks Judge Spearheading Judiciary Deepfake Rule" [Law360]

* John Bolton expected to plead guilty. [CBS News]

* Law school deans call for professional independence. [ABA Journal]

* Lawyers among the government workers who lost protections. [Bloomberg Law News]

* The worst horrors rely on enablers. [The Hill]

* Biglaw's junior classes are down, but it's not AI's fault yet. [National Law Journal]

* Dentons partner on leave after cocaine test. [Roll on Friday]

The post Morning Docket: 06.05.26 appeared first on Above the Law.

Matching Is Easy When You’re Raking In This Much — See Also

Chris Williams — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 22:47:00 +0000

Quinn Emanuel Matches Milbank's Salary Scale: With $2.7 billion in revenue for 2025, they can afford it!

This Boutique Is Doling Out Milbank Money: Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes is spreading the riches!

Spring Bonuses!: Dunn Isaacson Rhee announces special bonuses up to $25K!

Shia LeBeouf Pleads Guilty To Battery: He walked away with a slap on the wrist.

Interested In IP?: These schools should be at the top of your list!

The post Matching Is Easy When You’re Raking In This Much — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

Judge Leans Into The Dystopia Of 2026

Kathryn Rubino — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 22:03:00 +0000

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

Judge Craig A. Karsnitz of which state’s Superior Court recently upheld a local provision authorizing voting by in-state corporations, LLCs, trusts, and partnerships owning property?

Hint: He recognized the scifi of it all, writing, “Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction,” but “trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations are expressly recognized as ‘persons’” by state law.

See the answer on the next page.

The post Judge Leans Into The Dystopia Of 2026 appeared first on Above the Law.

The AI Consultant Problem: What A Disgraced Immigration Lawyer Teaches About The Perils Of An Unqualified Lawyer Coach

Carolyn Elefant — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 21:12:00 +0000

For lawyers and their clients, the risks of hiring an unqualified coach are substantial.

The post The AI Consultant Problem: What A Disgraced Immigration Lawyer Teaches About The Perils Of An Unqualified Lawyer Coach appeared first on Above the Law.

Trump Executive Order On AI Gives Central Role To NSA

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. - Breaking Defense — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 20:30:00 +0000

The EO creates a 'voluntary framework' for AI developers to give the government early access to their latest tech.

The post Trump Executive Order On AI Gives Central Role To NSA appeared first on Above the Law.

Now Is Not The Time

Jill Switzer — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:42:00 +0000

In a recent New York Times op-ed, a fifth-year associate at a Biglaw firm (WilmerHale to be specific — and one of only the four that ATL listed on its “Spine Index”) threw in the law practice towel. He left because of what he saw as a troubling overlay of political interference.

I understand why people, similarly situated, would say “I’m outta here,” but I also think that it’s too soon to make that call, especially at WilmerHale. Perhaps I would better understand if the departure was from one of the many firms that caved, rather than from one of only four Biglaw firms that has had the courage to say “no” to 47.

It’s harder than ever to be a lawyer of whatever vintage these days. The author started law school at the ripe old age of 30. Looking back on my earliest lawyering years, we had it easy, although we didn’t think so. But today, when economic pressures, business development responsibilities, student loan repayments, and AI collide, it’s hard sometimes to stay the course. Even Biglaw monies cannot necessarily compensate.

Let’s stipulate that the practice is different now. In dinosaur times, young lawyers could expect to get some trial experience, could expect to argue some motions, and counsel clients on smaller matters. Today, partners need/want to continue to fill their own trough, so sharing work, let alone delegating it, is harder. AI will not make sharing any easier, given how quickly and efficiently it can do various tasks, regardless of accuracy and hallucinations. How to divide the pie when pieces are smaller? How many slices can you get out of a layer cake? Does it depend upon how you slice it? And how many are willing to take smaller pieces? You tell me.

The departing associate was disillusioned about a number of things in practice. Parts of the firm’s advocacy troubled him: how you present the facts, how you structure the argument(s) and cases that support the reasons why the client should prevail. The facts and law are purposefully written in the client’s favor; that’s the nature of advocacy. Everyone deserves representation, and in a Biglaw firm associates do not usually get to make that call. At the end of the day, attorney fees drive the business of lawyering.

He also believes that the “legal system is broken and is in dire need of repair.” The author, a relative latecomer to law school and then to practice, is not happy about what he sees as the Biglaw paradigm, the reverse of the “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” He saw the firm help rich clients get even richer. He says that Wilmer Hale was a wonderful place to work, but it rankled him that a disturbing contrast existed between the “democratic responsibilities of lawyering” and the “highly profit-driven industry.”

To him, it was a conflict that he couldn’t resolve. Did he jump off the Biglaw hamster wheel too soon? Not for me to say, but I wince when I think about all the sunk costs (time and money) spent with high hopes and now dashed dreams.

For those of you taking the bar next month, waiting for bar results, or in your early years of practice, don’t let what you see now in the federal government dissuade you from your legal careers. There are opportunities for lawyers at the local and state levels. those who want to represent people against faceless corporate entities, opportunities for those who want to make a difference by working for various nonprofits that represent people but also advocate for necessary changes in the law.

It was a much more collegial atmosphere in dinosaur days. While I am not advocating a RTW five days a week, I liked walking down the hall and asking for help from a subject matter expert: “What do you think about this? How best to handle it? Any particular law to look at?” Better than googling and the best way to develop friendship and knowledge. Few, if any, colleagues refused my request.

This new generation of lawyers needs all the intellectual firepower and commitment to the rule of law that it can muster. Figure out what you really want to accomplish as a lawyer. Find a practice area that stimulates and motivates you. Take it from someone (aka me) who had a number of different fits and starts as a lawyer before finally latching on to what was best for me. Winston Churchill (Google him if you don’t know who he was) reportedly said, “When you are going through hell, keep going.” So, keep going.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

The post Now Is Not The Time appeared first on Above the Law.

Foundation 365, Litera’s AI-Powered CRM Platform For Law Firms, Is Now Available Within Microsoft 365

Robert Ambrogi — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:03:00 +0000

Litera says five of the Global Top 10 Law Firms and more than 4,000 firms worldwide use Foundation 365.

The post Foundation 365, Litera’s AI-Powered CRM Platform For Law Firms, Is Now Available Within Microsoft 365 appeared first on Above the Law.

Firm	Date Matched	Minimum Hours	Payout Date
Selendy Gay Bonuses up to $25K	May 27, 2026	Bonuses awarded to associates on track to meet their billable expectations	Undisclosed
Hueston Hennigan Bonuses ranging from $10K to $35K, regardless of class year	May 29, 2026	2000 hours (higher bonuses for higher hours)	Undisclosed
Dunn Isaacson Rhee Bonuses ranging from $10K to $25K, based on class year	June 4, 2026	Undisclosed (additional bonus money possible for those who have had an “outsized impact”)	Undisclosed

Firm	Salaries	Minimum Hours
Milbank FIRST MOVER June 2, 2026	Class of 2026/2025: $235K Class of 2018: $455K	None
McDermott June 2, 2026	Class of 2026/2025: $235K Class of 2018: $455K	2000 hours
Hueston Hennigan June 2, 2026	Class of 2026/2025: $235K Class of 2018: $455K	Undisclosed
Vartabedian Katz Hester Haynes June 3, 2026	Class of 2026/2025: $235K Class of 2018+: $455K	1800 hours
Quinn Emanuel June 4, 2026	Class of 2026/2025: $235K Class of 2018: $455K	2000 hours
Katten June 4, 2026	Class of 2026/2025: $235K Class of 2019+: $440K	2000 hours
Groom Law Group June 5, 2026	1st Year: $235K 8th Year: $455K	Undisclosed