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

RAISES

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

* “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.

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 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.

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.

Dunn Isaacson Rhee, founded in May 2025 after its top brass — Karen Dunn, Bill Isaacson, Jessica Phillips, and Jeannie Rhee — defected from capitulating firm Paul Weiss, is handing out bountiful bonuses to its associates. In an internal memo viewed by Above the Law, the firm announced that associates will receive special spring bonuses between $10,000 and $25,000, based on seniority.

Congratulations to everyone at Dunn Isaacson Rhee!

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 Boutique Firm Hands Out Spring Bonuses As Compensation Fever Spreads appeared first on Above the Law.

LaBeouf pleaded guilty to three counts of simple battery. Orleans Parish Judge Juana Marine-Lombard handed the actor a six-month suspended sentence and two years’ probation. LaBeouf also must stay away from the victims and the bar.

Chervinsky said LaBeouf wanted “to take accountability for his part in what happened” and called it a “minor Mardi Gras bar tussle.” Chervinsky said there was “no evidence it was about bias or prejudice.”

Did she not see the video? Or does video evidence of calling someone a slur while punching them not rise to the level of evidence in Louisiana? I know the laws there are a little wonky because of the French and Spanish common law influence, but to say there was no evidence seems hyperbolic.

Considering what can happen to people for picking up water bottles or having fake $20s in this country, getting caught punching someone on video and walking away with a suspended sentence and a finger wag is pretty lucky. Staying away from that bar and a specific person can be a heavy toll in a small town with a limited population of people and watering holes, but skipping over one bar for next year’s bar hopping hardly seems like a real punishment.

Hopefully LeBeouf gets the LeHelp he needs to make this battery charge his last one.

Shia LaBeouf Gets Probation After Pleading Guilty To Punching Mardi Gras Bargoers [NBC News]

Earlier: Judge Orders Shia LaBeouf To Rehab After Mardi Gras Brawl

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 Shia LeBeouf Pleads Guilty To Mardi Gras Battery Charges appeared first on Above the Law.

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone goes over the top [of Milbank’s increase] in the next few weeks. Attracting talent at the top end is so vital, and being seen as the firm who’s capable of boosting associate compensation across the board—the firm that’s moving the market—is just such a big notch on the belt when it comes to the talent fight.

—  Thomas Hanlon, executive director of recruiting firm Buchanan Law, in comments given to the American Lawyer, concerning the associate salary increase started by Milbank earlier this week, that was quickly matched by McDermott, Hueston Hennigan, VKHH, and Quinn Emanuel. Stephanie Biderman, an associate recruiter for Major Lindsey & Africa, agreed, saying, “My understanding is now OCI is starting really, really early. The fact that we’re seeing this come out now does have a helpful marketing and recruiting angle.”

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 ‘Over The Top’: The Race To Outdo Milbank’s New Salary Scale Has Officially Started appeared first on Above the Law.

Man, the Department of Justice used to be a serious institution.

Back in April, the Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, asserting that the civil rights organization misappropriated donations to secretly fund hate groups. The fraud theory of the case never made much sense since every genuine donor knew that the SPLC gathers information on hate groups through informants. On top of that, the indictment failed to even properly plead the elements of one of its core charges. Just an all-around clown show.

But this week, the DOJ took another stab at the SPLC case, securing a superseding indictment. And then they appear to have promptly leaked it to right-wing media because this case is more about winning points on Twitter than in court. Did the DOJ fix the deficiencies in the original indictment?

Friends, they did not.

But they did manage to make it worse, forcing us to ask the question: are the prosecutors on this case trying to lose or just stupid?

If the theory of the case — that a civil rights group secretly finances extremist groups — makes no sense, that’s because you haven’t let your brain rot be indulging in the sort of right-wing fever dreams that cast George Soros as the central architect of wokeness. The DOJ’s case enjoys a lot of popularity with the Elon Musk types who want to convince themselves that ripping immigrant children from their parents doesn’t put them in league with their fellow travelers in the Klan because those people are just actors paid by liberals. It’s the same organizing myth that considers January 6 an FBI and Antifa operation AND all January 6ers as heroes — Schrödinger’s insurrectionist, if you will.

After the indictment, the SPLC explained that paid informants are part of its legendary intelligence gathering efforts on extremist organizations. And it routes the payments through fictitious entities so the moles do not get, you know, murdered.

The superseding indictment manages to screw around and fully endorse the SPLC’s defense:

F-31 and F-32 were members of a Ku Klux Klan organization in their area. In or about 2010 F-31 and F-32 feared for their safety from other Klan members and wanted out of the movement. F-32 had seen media coverage about how the SPLC helped an individual leave an extremist organization and how the SPLC paid for this individual’s tattoo removals. This media coverage prompted F-32 to reach out to the SPLC, unsolicited, and ask the SPLC for help to get F-31 and F-32 out of the movement.

Right. The government’s new marquee evidence is that the informants were genuinely working against their hate groups and legitimately feared for their own safety? That’s… the whole SPLC argument. The indictment adds even more allegations about moles wanting to quit or fearing for their personal safety or both. The SPLC’s lawyers could not have written it better.

When Todd Blanche unveiled this busted criminal case, the pitch was that the SPLC was bankrolling hate groups — either intentionally or because they’d been duped by white supremacists taking SPLC money to fund cross burnings. Now the superseding indictment tells the tale of unnamed informants working to undermine extremist groups at tremendous personal risk.

The DOJ didn’t need to add these details about the informants. For their purposes, they just needed to say Klan members got cash from shell organizations.

What the DOJ did need to do, to fix this case, was plead some sort of scheme to defraud a financial institution. The government brought charges under the bank deception statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1014 — that criminalizes knowingly making false statements for the purpose of influencing a bank’s action on an application, loan, or agreement. 

The first indictment read:

On or about the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institution.

This misses the second part of § 1014 entirely, which posed a problem for them since the Supreme Court already held that merely alleging false or misleading statements is not enough to make a crime. So this time they’ve amended that section to read:

On or about the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institution for the purpose of influencing the actions of that financial institution.

Bravo, dipshits.

No, you do not allege a scheme to influence a bank by saying “this was a scheme to influence a bank.” There is still no allegation of what action the bank was being induced to take — no loan, no advance, no application, nothing the statute actually contemplates. They threw in the language of the standard like it’s a legal alchemy transforming their nothing into something.

The SPLC had already moved to dismiss the original charges as a vindictive prosecution. The DOJ isn’t beating those charges based on this superseding indictment. Add in that SPLC’s counsel, Abbe Lowell, claims the DOJ handed the unsigned copy of this superseding indictment to friendly media before the court unsealed it and the case for this being a vindictive prosecution case looks even more compelling.

This superseding indictment made the DOJ’s case worse. But why? Is it just that all the competent lawyers are gone and they just don’t understand how they’re digging themselves deeper? Or are the lawyers on this really moles trying to help the SPLC?

(Superseding indictment on the next page…)

Earlier: Trump DOJ Indicts Civil Rights Group For Working To Take Down Hate Groups
Justice Department’s SPLC Indictment Just Got Dumber, Which Seemed Impossible

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

The post New SPLC Indictment Has Us Wondering If The DOJ Is Trying To Lose appeared first on Above the Law.

And of course Quinn is matching the prevailing market rate. The firm matched in 2016 when the modern salary wars kicked off. It fell right in line in 2018. It was one of the first to match Cravath in 2022. And lest we forget, in 2023, the firm handed out special fall bonuses that topped out at nearly $33,000 for associates billing serious hours. Quinn Emanuel does not mess around when it comes to paying its people.

Because the firm can absolutely afford it. Quinn Emanuel partners are taking home payouts of around $9 million for 2025, putting them in the extremely rare company of Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton as the only large law firms to crack that threshold. The firm looked at $2.7 billion in revenue for 2025, a 10 percent increase over 2024. When your partners are printing money at that level, matching a Milbank scale isn’t a hard decision. It’s just math.

So congratulations to Quinn Emanuel associates, $10K to $20K richer as of July 1, and working at a firm that has never once needed to be dragged into a salary increase. That counts for something.

Now, who’s next?

Remember everyone, we depend on your tips to stay on top of compensation updates. When your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Memo preferred, photo works just fine.

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