Hint: Three decades later, that same man was himself gunned down — by a deputy U.S. marshal assigned to guard a Supreme Court justice he had threatened — in a killing that produced a landmark ruling on the reach of federal power.

See the answer on the next page.

The post He Quit The Bench To Fight A Duel — And Killed A Sitting U.S. Senator appeared first on Above the Law.

The old model, where a senior partner eventually handed prized client relationships down to the next generation, has largely disappeared. Today, lawyers must take ownership of business development much earlier, cultivating relationships inside and outside the legal profession long before they expect those connections to produce work.

So, how can young lawyers make the most of their limited business development time? Which traditional strategies are no longer effective? And can artificial intelligence help lawyers win clients without sacrificing the personal relationships that matter most?

We recently had the pleasure of speaking with Josette Rodriguez-Winograd, CEO of elite boutique trial firm Elsberg Baker & Maruri, to find out. Prior to joining Elsberg Baker & Maruri, Rodriguez-Winograd served as chief operating officer of Selendy Gay Elsberg. Before that, she led business development departments at Paul, Weiss, Arnold & Porter, and Dechert. Here is what she had to say.

Staci Zaretsky (SZ): What are lawyers still doing that doesn’t really work anymore, and what should they be doing instead?

Josette Rodriguez-Winograd (JRW): Waiting. The traditional model was passive. Partners “waited for the phone to ring” or waited for a rainmaker to retire, at which point they’d slowly pass on the relationship to the next generation, who would repeat the same pattern 15 to 20 years later.

That model doesn’t work anymore because the industry has drastically changed. Waiting for a relationship partner to bequeath their book is a lot like waiting for an inheritance that will never come. Clients hire lawyers, not firms, so even if a young lawyer positions themselves as a successor, they should recognize that there are incumbents at other firms competing for that same opportunity.

Business development is a significant part of your job. Lawyers have to take responsibility for building their own client base from the start. To do that, young lawyers should invest in the relationships they already have. Keep your law school friends close. Get to know the people on in-house legal teams and the co-counsel you work alongside. Make a conscious effort to meet people outside your immediate circle through industry and professional events. You never know where your first client will come from.

SZ: What are the most effective ways for young lawyers to spend limited BD time, and where are they wasting it?

JRW: Many lawyers approach BD like a client matter: developing strategies, researching industries, and gathering information. That’s useful to a point. When it becomes an ideation exercise more than a repetitive action, it’s time to adjust the approach. What works in business development is consistency over time. Thinking endlessly about business development is about as effective as thinking endlessly about going to the gym.

Young lawyers need to make time for BD. Schedule it like any other appointment and protect it. Treat it as nonnegotiable.

Set a target to have a meal with someone twice a month. Make a list of 25 people in your network and try to have a meal or coffee with each of them once a quarter. Join a nonprofit or industry organization that meets regularly and is geared toward young professionals. Choose something you genuinely care about and look for opportunities to take on leadership roles. What matters most is building relationships, more than any other investment of time.

Where lawyers often lose time is by overinvesting in writing client alerts, attending multiday conferences, or sponsoring events for brand recognition. Those activities can support firm marketing, but they rarely translate directly into a personal book of business.

Relationships do.

SZ: When does technology make BD better, and when is there no substitute for being in the room?

JRW: AI is a great tool for getting up to speed on a client’s history, issues, and competitors quickly. Checking LinkedIn to identify points of connection before a meeting is useful. Maintaining contact with a law school classmate across the country is certainly better than letting the relationship go stale. Technology can help you do all of those things more consistently and efficiently.

But they are also things everyone else has access to. They don’t differentiate you.

Winning business requires trust, and trust is still built through human interaction. AI can help you prepare. LinkedIn can help you connect. Zoom can help you stay in touch. But there is still no substitute for sitting across the table from someone, listening carefully, and building the kind of confidence that leads a client to hire you. Every firm has access to technology. Relationships remain the differentiator.

SZ: What advantages do boutiques have, and how can they use AI without sacrificing relationships?

JRW: A law firm’s smaller size used to be viewed as a limitation, but it’s become a feature and a benefit for clients who want Biglaw-caliber expertise without the overhead and large teams that can come with it.

At a boutique, every member of the case team tends to be closely connected to the client and the matter. Associates take direction from partners, not layers of management, and are often in the room when important decisions are made. As a result, clients know more of the team, and younger lawyers gain meaningful client-facing and courtroom experience earlier in their careers.

AI can amplify those strengths by helping lawyers work faster, respond more efficiently, and spend less time on routine tasks. But it should never replace the personal interaction that clients value most. The goal is to use technology to create more time for relationships, not less.

For young lawyers who hope to build successful practices of their own, the message is clear: stop waiting and start building relationships. Technology may help make business development more efficient, but it cannot create the trust that turns a professional connection into a client.

On behalf of everyone here at Above the Law, we’d like to thank Josette Rodriguez-Winograd of Elsberg Baker & Maruri for taking the time to share her business development advice with our readers.

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 How Young Lawyers Can Build A Book Of Business Before It’s Too Late appeared first on Above the Law.

Usually, the first year after we’ve passed the bar, professional dues are waived, giving time for new admittees to get on their feet, at least a little bit. So, that is the baby lawyer dues stage.

Then comes the “toddler stage.” We’ve all been through that: still unsteady on our feet and into everything. That’s the next step of bar dues, usually from years two through five, we pay our dues, but at a lesser amount.

After those stages have passed, we graduate to paying dues in full. Usually, there’s no discount for state bar membership. And usually the dues increase in price depending on your years as a lawyer. 

 There’s a big difference between paying our dues literally and paying them figuratively. 

Paying our dues, not just to whatever voluntary or mandatory associations that require our membership, but paying what dues are necessary to move our careers forward, to advance in the profession. If AI takes all the scut work, then how will lawyers pay their dues? What will the young ones do? How do they learn? How will they become good competent lawyers ? Let’s stipulate that by passing the bar doesn’t make us per se competent. 

No one succeeds in this profession, or any other for that matter, without help. No one does it alone. Contrary to popular opinion  (or unpopular for that matter) there is no such thing as “overnight success.” Success takes years and years. I don’t think there is anything or anyone that creates overnight success. Although peeps may argue that, the truth is  otherwise. “Overnight success” is a term of art, if that. As Andy Warhol noted, and I am paraphrasing here, in the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of success. 

It’s an uphill slog from being a junior associate to a senior associate to a nonequity partner to a partner, if that’s your goal. And even if that’s it, there’s no guarantee that you won’t wind up as a senior counsel or a staff attorney or shown the door. 

Nobody in our profession makes it without help. It can be a mentor, a colleague, people you meet at CLE seminars or on Zoom, people you meet while volunteering with bar associations or networking (a term I still loathe). Everyone needs help, a hand up, an offer of assistance. We are often so reluctant to ask for help, seeing that ask as a character flaw.  It is anything but. We need to learn how to ask for help.

Will AI do the tasks or do the job? That’s an important distinction. What role will lawyers play? The necessary menial work that we all cut out teeth on can now be done by AI, more efficiently and usually at lower cost. Partners historically have reduced billings spent on a matter because the associate, who was learning, spent way much time. That’s how we learned, although sometimes at the firm’s expense.

Are we asking AI to do too much? What about that pesky little thing called “authority?” While AI may have the authority to write the contract or review, does AI have the authority to make decisions about implementation? Can AI negotiate changes to the document without human approval? At what level is authority needed? Who has the required authority? Who tells AI what it can and cannot do? How are “whoops” avoided?

A recent survey shows that, in addition to concern about AI hallucinations, there is distrust about AI being used in administrative tasks, the bane of every lawyer, no matter what size firm. Of those surveyed, 28% named lack of trust in AI as a barrier to reducing administrative work, with another 25% citing data privacy.

So, if there’s a billing dispute with a client, who is the first firm contact? The machine or  the billing partner or the attorney who worked on the matter? While firms are spending big bucks on AI, many of them have not harvested much ROI; in other words, clients are in no hurry to pay those bills.

Uh-oh. As we all have learned, billing is one task. Collecting is another, and so far, AI is not collecting those receivables.

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 Finding Our Way By Paying Our Dues appeared first on Above the Law.

Grades and school reputation matter because some employers use them as shortcuts. We should not pretend otherwise. They do not measure every trait that makes a strong lawyer, including judgment, discipline, resilience, curiosity, and the ability to earn trust. If your transcript does not create those assumptions, replace assumptions with proof. Your job search must show what your credentials do not.

I learned this when I searched for an associate position as a third-year law student. The market was brutal. I sent resume after resume, sat through interview after interview, and collected rejection after rejection. I did not need every employer to say yes. I needed one reputable employer to see what I could become. So do you.

Use a Rifle, Not a Shotgun

I use the phrase guerrilla tactics loosely. I do not mean tricks, pressure, or deception. I mean a focused, resourceful campaign. Stop sending the same materials through portals and hoping someone discovers you. Build a list of about 30 employers based on practice, location, training, reputation, and the work you want to learn.

Divide that list among first choices, strong fits, and credible bridge opportunities. A position at a smaller firm, a clerkship, government service, legal aid work, a fellowship, or a supervised role with an insurer may provide better training than the job with the most impressive name. Before contacting anyone, identify two specific reasons you fit that employer, two people who can teach you about it, and one next action. Track every application, conversation, promise, and follow-up in a spreadsheet. A job search is simple. It is not easy.

Make the Resume Prove Something

Use one page unless you had a substantial career before law school. State your status precisely, such as “J.D., May 2026. Sat for the July 2026 Florida Bar Examination; results pending.” Never call yourself an attorney before admission. Use conventional formatting, consistent dates, a professional file name, and a PDF unless requested.

Replace claims with evidence. Do not say you are a strong writer. Identify the motions, memoranda, clinic matters, or research projects you completed. Translate prior work into relevant skills. Sales can show client judgment. Restaurant work can show composure. Military service can show leadership. Omit an unhelpful GPA or rank unless requested, but never round, disguise, or misstate it. One typo can defeat an entire paragraph about attention to detail.

Write a Letter Only One Employer Could Receive

Your resume supplies the record. Your cover letter makes the argument. Explain why this employer, what you can contribute, and why the employer should meet you. Mention a practice strength, public matter, recent hire, expansion, article, or community connection. Connect that fact to your experience. Generic praise proves only that you found the website.

Keep the letter short and employer-specific. Do not repeat your resume or turn the letter into an autobiography. Send a polished writing sample reflecting your work and judgment. Get permission, remove confidential information, and explain any editing by others. If you lack a suitable sample, prepare a concise analysis of a recent public decision affecting the employer’s practice. Do not send free advice about an actual client matter.

Reach People, Not Just Portals

Contact classmates, alumni, professors, former supervisors, local bar members, and lawyers several years ahead of you. Ask for 15 minutes of advice, not a job. Ask how they entered the practice, what their employer values, and what a new graduate should learn. Ask whether there is one other person you should meet. Seek permission before using anyone’s name. Relationships fail when candidates treat people as tools.

Do more than attend a reception and collect cards. Volunteer for a bar committee project, help organize a program, prepare a public case update, or assist a nonprofit. Contribution lets lawyers see how you work. Fellowships, clerkships, government offices, and legal aid programs can open careers, but confirm the work, pay, supervision, duration, and path forward. Until you are admitted, describe yourself and your title accurately and perform only work delegated and supervised by a licensed lawyer.

Build an online record that supports the same story. Google yourself. Use a current photograph, a clear LinkedIn headline, accurate bar status, and a summary of your interests. Follow lawyers and employers in your target field. Add thoughtful comments about public developments, then turn worthwhile exchanges into conversations. Never share confidential information or offer legal advice you are not authorized to provide.

Prepare for the Questions You Know Are Coming

Research beyond the employer’s recruiting page. Read lawyer biographies, public cases, recent hires, and practice news. Learn each interviewer’s role and pronounce every name correctly. Prepare six short stories that show judgment, writing, teamwork, initiative, response to criticism, and the ability to manage competing deadlines. Each story should identify the problem, your action, the result, and what you learned.

Practice direct answers to “Tell me about yourself,” “Why this employer?” “Why this practice?” “Why these grades?” and “Tell me about a mistake.” If grades come up, state the truth, accept responsibility, briefly provide any legitimate context, and pivot to evidence of growth. Do not blame professors or classmates. The longer you defend a weakness, the larger it becomes.

Prepare questions that reveal how the employer develops lawyers. Ask who assigns and reviews work, how often first-year lawyers receive feedback, what success looks like after six months, why the position is open, and what responsibility you can expect. Ask a junior lawyer to describe a recent assignment and the feedback received. That answer may reveal more than a polished speech about culture.

Change Your Approach for the Room

In a panel interview, learn the names and roles before the meeting. Answer the person who asked the question, then include the room through natural eye contact. In a series of interviews, keep your facts and core message consistent while asking each lawyer different questions. In a one-person interview, let the conversation develop. Listen, follow up, and do not fill every silence.

For a virtual interview, test the platform, sound, lighting, internet connection, background, and display name. Look at the camera, close notifications, and keep only a few keywords nearby. Do not use hidden coaching, recording, or transcription. For an in-person meeting, test the route, arrive about ten minutes early, bring clean copies of your materials, and silence your phone. Treat every staff member with respect. The interview begins before you enter the conference room.

Interview the Employer, Too

A respected name does not guarantee a healthy workplace. Check the lawyers’ bar status and public disciplinary history. Review public dockets, sanctions, and credible news. Speak with a current junior lawyer and, when possible, someone who recently left. One angry review proves little. Repeated concerns deserve attention.

Ask about supervision, turnover, billing, and mistakes. Watch how lawyers treat staff, clients, and opponents. Don’t give in to pressure to misstate your status, inflate time, or ignore conflicts. No job is worth your license.

Follow Up and Negotiate the Whole Offer

Send each interviewer a concise personal thank-you within twenty-four hours. Mention one point from the conversation and connect it to one relevant strength. If the employer gave a decision date, wait until it passes. Then make one measured inquiry. If rejected, respond with grace, ask for one useful suggestion, and seek permission to remain in touch. Today’s rejection can become tomorrow’s introduction.

When an offer arrives, get every term in writing. Salary matters, but so do billable expectations, bonus formulas, benefits, leave, training, hybrid schedules, bar expenses, start dates, reviews, and the plan if results are delayed or unfavorable. Review repayment duties, arbitration terms, and restrictions on outside work. Negotiate two or three priorities with honest market support. Never invent another offer or deadline. If salary is fixed, ask about bar costs, an earlier review, or schedule flexibility.

You Need One Right Offer

When I was a law clerk, I earned $15 an hour, paid for parking, walked 10 minutes to my car, worked late, and learned from a trial lawyer who had tried hundreds of cases. The job was not glamorous, but the access, responsibility, and instruction carried lasting value. That experience taught me to evaluate more than a title. It did not teach me to accept mistreatment, vague promises, or unethical practices. The right first job will not give you everything. It should give you honest work, sound supervision, useful feedback, and room to grow.

Your first job matters, but it does not decide your entire career. The bar result will tell you whether you passed an exam. It will not measure your judgment, reliability, courage, or capacity to improve. Your transcript will remain the same, but your strategy can change today. Keep reaching out. Keep showing up. Keep doing useful work. You do not need every employer to choose you. You need one right employer, and then you need to prove that employer right. That is enough to begin a career no class rank, school name, or rejection letter can predict.

Frank Ramos is a partner at Goldberg Segalla in Miami, where he practices commercial litigation, products, and catastrophic personal injury. You can follow him on LinkedIn, where he has about 80,000 followers.

The post Your Transcript Is Not Your Destiny: A Guerrilla Job Search For New Law Graduates appeared first on Above the Law.

GoLocalProv, the same publication that first reported on the offending emails, reports that the association has installed Kate Gehl, a Foley & Lardner partner working out of Milwaukee, as lead counsel in Jake Picard v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Gehl’s opening assignment is to argue against a temporary restraining order in front of a judge whose intelligence her predecessors questioned.

Not the ideal set up when inheriting a file.

The backstory, for anyone who missed it: Jake Picard, a Providence-area football player who became an All-American at Villanova before tearing his ACL five games into last season, seeks a medical hardship waiver to play this season. Villanova petitioned for that waiver on his behalf, citing the knee as well as intestinal issues. The NCAA denied it multiple times, prompting Picard to sue in Pennsylvania, where he failed to secure an injunction. At that point, he withdrew that case and refiled the same day in Rhode Island under the state’s antitrust law.

In a world where LSU is actively signing NFL players, giving an injured player one more year at an FCS school feels like the bare minimum the NCAA could accommodate.

Somewhere in the middle of the legal maneuvering, Holland & Knight partner Taylor Askew informed the team that “the poop man cometh once more,” referencing Picard’s intestinal health and senior counsel Natalie Molz turned her attention to the plaintiff’s mother — “Mama Picard really just can’t give up her dreams for baby boy” — and then mused about litigation tactics to make the case “easier for a dumb judge in RI.”

How did these emails see the light of day? It’s a question a lot of people have asked ever since we wrote about it. Well, WPRI explains:

The email thread was forwarded as part of a message sent to Picard’s attorney, Joseph Carnevale of Providence-based Savage Law Partners LLP, who responded by telling the attorneys he would share the contents with Superior Court Judge Brian Stern, who is assigned to the case.

“Yikes guys… do better,” Carnevale wrote to Cole, calling the email exchange “clearly indicative of the NCAA’s thoughts on all of these things.”

“Feel free to let me know if you need recommendations for accommodations in Providence,” Carnevale added.

Recommendations. 10/10. No notes.

For what it’s worth, the bench in question is Judge Brian Stern. If the theory was that a state trial judge in a small jurisdiction needs analysis pre-chewed and vomited into his mouth like a baby bird, the NCAA drew the wrong judge. Stern has sat on the Rhode Island Superior Court since 2009 and has run its Business Calendar since 2011, meaning he’s spent around fifteen years doing nothing but complex commercial litigation. As you might imagine, Picard’s attorneys weren’t going to let that go:

“The unprofessional language used by the NCAA’s counsel is insulting to us, our client, and the Rhode Island Judiciary. We have the utmost faith and confidence in the Rhode Island Judiciary, which we hold in the highest regard. This case is on the Superior Court Business Calendar and pending before Judge Brian Stern. Judge Stern has served as a Director of the American College of Business Court Judges and has been, along with his colleagues on the Business Calendar, a national thought leader on business law jurisprudence. He and all Rhode Island judges deserve the respect of all who enter their courtrooms, including the NCAA’s attorneys,” said Christopher J. Fragomeni, a partner at Savage Law Partners.

Holland & Knight is apparently still on the Pennsylvania matter, but the NCAA seems to have thought better of sending the firm in front of Judge Stern at this point. So they lit the “Foley-signal,” which is like the Bat-signal but nerdier. Now they’ll take over digging the NCAA out of this hole.

As they say in football, it’s all about bench depth.

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 NCAA Swaps Law Firms After Its Biglaw Lawyers Called Rhode Island Judge ‘Dumb’ In Email CC Disaster appeared first on Above the Law.

Why would a law firm agree to sell off a stake to private equity? The elephant squatting in that room is artificial intelligence, a costly investment in any case, and even more so if it’s the sort of firm interested in building its own bespoke AI model. Private equity can inject a lot of cash for big capital investments, and that industry sees legal as a lucrative business to enter.

The problem for private equity is that we have ethical rules preventing non-lawyers from owning law firms. When entities unbound by the professional rules of lawyers take financial stakes in the success of a law firm, it gives at least the appearance of the firm as a business having obligations beyond those owed to the client and the profession.

Undeterred, private equity has a workaround. Instead of buying a direct stake in the firm as is, the business would bifurcate and the lawyers would sit in a wholly lawyer-owned practice of law entity, while all the administrative and back-office work would become a spinoff entity owned by private equity. This “managed services organization” (MSO) would then collect fees for providing all the business of law services to the law firm while taking all those expenses off the law firm’s direct books in exchange for a big payday. It’s how private equity took over dentistry.

And, depending on the terms, it may not be the worst thing in the world! There are efficiencies to be gained in back office operations and lawyers might not be the optimal people to manage that. On the other hand, bifurcating businesses and paying fees to transfer wealth from Peter to Paul is what hastened the destruction of Red Lobster 1.0. All this is to say that I’m not entirely opposed to private equity investment, as long as lawyers approach it cautiously and with a clear eyed understanding of ethical obligations.

But yesterday, I read about another proposed advantage for private equity that made me say, out loud, “oh, hell no” even though absolutely no one else was in the room.

Infodash CEO Ted Theodoropoulos — always a great resource on legal tech and the industry by the way — posted an interesting conversation on his blog with a pair of Holland & Knight attorneys who have become the experts on law firm MSO deals. In his LinkedIn post describing the episode, he included one nugget that threw me:

I repeat: oh, hell no.

For clarity, this is the exact quote: “It can help with retention. If an equity partner at a law firm has equity in the law firm, they can leave whenever they want. If they have equity in the MSO, the MSO has more latitude around, for example, non-competes, and tying lawyers up that way.” On the podcast, both lawyers explain that every deal they work on complies with ethical rules and there’s no reason to doubt that. But if you’re inventing whole new business structures to get around the letter of an ethical rule, then you’re very much in breach of the spirit.

This was an off-the-cuff conversation, so maybe there’s more nuance to this. But on the four corners of the podcast — we’ll stick with that analogy — this would seem to be a selling point that at least some firms are getting from private equity, and of all the reasons to go down that road, it’s a troubling one.

Non-competition agreements are a vile employment practice designed to trap workers in undesirable arrangements. For lawyers, the consequences are worse. A lawyer who can’t freely port their client to the most advantageous platform is at least potentially constrained from doing right by their client. Conflicts can block clients from having the lawyer of their choice. It’s just bad news all around.

Rule 5.6 could not be more clear on this:

A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making:

(a) a partnership, shareholders, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement; or

(b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.

Law firms can already employ shady tactics to steal away books of business by building institutional ties designed to entangle clients even if the original relationship partner departs. But making them sign non-compete agreements, otherwise barred by Rule 5.6, by putting on a different hat takes it to a new level.

And, frankly, if the MSO non-compete functionally prevents a lawyer from enjoying their freedom to move their legal business, it should be a violation of Rule 5.6 anyway. “Restricts” is, one could argue, intentionally broad.

It would be one thing to say — as proponents of MSOs would — that lawyers with stakes in the MSO would be incentivized to stay in ways that pure firm equity couldn’t match. MSOs can use the business side of a firm to open new revenue streams that might be sufficiently attractive to a lawyer to keep them on with a firm they might otherwise not love. There are perfectly fine reasons to adopt an MSO model.

But to raise the spectre of non-competes for lawyers? As a selling point for a firm to gain asymmetrical power over your flow of lateral talent?

That’s worrying no matter what caveats come with it.

Earlier: Private Equity Found A Law Firm That Said Yes
The Richest Law Firms Are Looking At Private Equity Cash Because I Guess They Don’t Have Enough Money
Biglaw Partners Aren’t Ready To Hand Over The Keys To Private Equity Just Yet

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 Private Equity Investment In Law Firms Floated As *One Neat Trick* To Get Around Ethical Obligations appeared first on Above the Law.

When Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, a leading international law firm, made the decision to adopt legal AI, it knew building the right foundation would be key to a successful rollout. The firm first built Wendell Intelligence, its in-house AI orchestration platform, before choosing Lexis+^® with Protégé™ and adopting the solution firmwide as part of its broader strategy for grounded, human-centered AI.

“Our attorneys have long been fans of the entire Lexis platform,” said Todd Friedlich, Director of AI & Innovation at Willkie. “So, when the opportunity arose to partner with LexisNexis on the integration of the Protégé APIs and the full Lexis+ stack, we saw tremendous potential.”

Friedlich has spent more than two decades in legal technology, starting with early knowledge management systems, and building toward the AI-driven workflows Willkie is developing today. His approach to AI adoption is anchored in the conviction that new technologies must be deeply integrated into everyday use to deliver true value.

“Innovation without adoption is really just theory,” he noted. “We can buy and build the most incredible tools imaginable, but if the attorneys and staff aren’t using them, it’s just a waste of time and money.”

Central to Willkie’s AI philosophy is the principle of grounded legal data. In a practice environment where accuracy and verifiability are non-negotiable, the firm has been deliberate about ensuring every AI-generated response connects to authoritative, reviewable sources. This is where the integration of Lexis+ with Protégé plays a key role, giving attorneys fast access to legal content they can trust and cite.

“Grounding the data within our generative AI tools is of the utmost importance to Willkie,” said Friedlich. “It’s how we ensure our answers are based on current law and authoritative documents. Our attorneys know every answer they receive must include a citation that they can actually click through, review the underlying document, review the source, and vet the accuracy of the information themselves.”

With the integration of Lexis+ with Protégé into Wendell, legal data requests are routed directly to Protégé, which identifies the best source across the Lexis content library to answer each question. The result is a more seamless experience for attorneys, who no longer need to move between separate systems to gather and verify information.

“By ensuring our attorneys have access to tools like Lexis+ with Protégé, we can simplify the process of exposing grounded information to them,” Friedlich added. “We’re no longer requiring them to go to separate data systems and gather that information and then enter them into some other AI to provide an answer.”

Willkie’s growing use of AI workflows, including applications in due diligence and deposition analysis, standardizes best practices and reduces variability in how attorneys engage with AI tools, part of the firm’s broader commitment to human-centered AI: freeing attorneys from repetitive tasks so they can focus their time and experience where it matters most.

“We’re creating automated workflows that improve the quality of life for our associates and partners,” Friedlich continued. “It’s not just about saying, ‘Here’s a tool to automate a document.’ It’s about identifying and automating the simple tasks that don’t deliver significant value to clients and bring little joy to our attorneys. We’re eager to build processes that make our lives and our work better.”

The Willkie case study underscores LexisNexis’ ongoing effort to partner with law firms to approach AI thoughtfully, with a focus on trusted content, attorney confidence, and real-world results.

Read the case study and watch the video testimonial: Willkie LexisNexis partnership.

The post Willkie Elevates Legal Work With Lexis+ With Protégé appeared first on Above the Law.

Not American football. The game the rest of the world calls football.

After weeks of watching extraordinary players, brilliant coaches, and unforgettable matches, I am already wishing I could watch this level of competition year-round. The talent is incredible, but talent alone does not explain why certain teams consistently perform at the highest level.

Behind every successful team is a coach who evaluates the players, develops the strategy, makes adjustments, and keeps everyone moving toward the same goal.

The parallels to legal business development are hard to miss.

Many lawyers believe that hiring a coach means paying someone to motivate them or hold them accountable. Those things matter, but they represent only a small part of effective coaching.

A great coach changes how a player prepares, performs, evaluates results, and improves. The same is true for lawyers who want to build a substantial book of business.

Here are five ways the right business development coach can change the game.

1. Identifying the Gaps

Before a football coach can develop a player, the coach needs to understand what that player brings to the field.

What are the player’s strengths? Where are the weaknesses? What experience do they have? How can their natural abilities best serve the team?

Legal business development coaching should begin the same way.

Before developing a strategy, I evaluate the lawyer’s current relationships, reputation, network, communication skills, time management, activities, and goals. I also look at what they have already tried and why those efforts have or have not produced results.

In about 30 minutes, I can usually identify the primary gaps standing between a lawyer and the next level of their practice.

Sometimes the issue is time management or lack of focus. Sometimes it is poor targeting, inconsistent follow-up, ineffective messaging, or an inability to convert relationships into opportunities. In many cases, the lawyer has significantly more potential than they realize. They simply do not have the business development systems, skills, or structure to access it.

The evaluation tells us where the player is starting. Commitment and execution determine how far that player can go.

2. Building a Winning Game Plan

No World Cup team walks onto the field without a strategy.

Coaches study the opponent, select the lineup, assign responsibilities, and determine how the team will attack and defend. The plan may change during the game, but the players begin with a clear understanding of what they are trying to accomplish.

Most lawyers do not have anything resembling that level of preparation for business development.

They attend events, schedule lunches, post on LinkedIn, and reconnect with old contacts. While those activities may be useful, they are often disconnected from a larger strategy.

Every lawyer I coach develops a clear business development plan, a tracking system, and what I describe as a personal GPS. They know which relationships to prioritize, what activities deserve their time, and what actions should move those relationships forward.

A strong plan also tells us when someone has gotten off track. Rather than losing six months to random activity, we can quickly identify the problem, adjust the route, and continue moving toward the goal.

3. Reviewing the Game Tape

Every serious sports team review game film.

Players and coaches’ study what worked, what failed, and what should change before the next match. They do not rely solely on memory or assume that experience automatically creates improvement.

Lawyers rarely do this with business development.

They move from networking meetings to conferences to prospective client conversations without stopping to evaluate their performance. As a result, they may repeat the same mistakes for years.

I encourage my clients to call me after an important meeting or complete one of our debriefing forms. We review what happened, what questions were asked, how the other person responded, where the conversation gained momentum, and where it may have stalled.

That real-time feedback can be incredibly revealing.

A lawyer may have talked too much, failed to ask an important question, missed a buying signal, or left without establishing a next step. The purpose is not to criticize the performance. It is to improve the next one.

Experience only becomes valuable when we take the time to learn from it.

4. Calling the Plays Before the Meeting

Coaching does not only happen after the game.

Before a conference, pitch, networking meeting, or important client conversation, my clients frequently call to talk through their approach.

They may already have several good ideas. I may contribute a few more. Together, we identify the strongest options and decide how they should enter the conversation.

Who should they meet? What questions should they ask? How can they position their experience? What outcome would make the meeting successful? What should the next step be?

This preparation can transform a routine conversation into a significant business opportunity.

Lawyers often improvise because they are intelligent and accustomed to thinking on their feet. But preparation does not limit spontaneity. It gives the lawyer more confidence, greater focus, and better options when the conversation changes direction.

The best players make difficult situations look natural because they prepared before stepping onto the field.

5. Providing Support on and off the Field

The strongest coaching relationships extend beyond plans, forms, and scheduled meetings.

When lawyers work with me over time, they know they have my complete attention. We become partners in their success, and in most cases, we become lifelong friends.

I recently met with one of my most successful clients from 15 years ago. We spent 45 minutes strategizing about how he could finish the year strongly. He is no longer an active coaching client, but he knows I am still in his corner.

That kind of long-term support matters.

Building a book of business can be isolating. Lawyers face rejection, internal politics, demanding clients, unpredictable schedules, and pressure to produce immediate results. Having someone who understands the game, recognizes patterns, and provides honest feedback can help them navigate those challenges without losing momentum.

Great coaching does not replace talent, effort, or personal responsibility. It helps bring those qualities together.

The World Cup’s best teams do not leave performance to chance. They evaluate their players, develop a plan, review the game tape, prepare for critical moments, and provide support throughout the journey.

Lawyers who want to build the book of their dreams should expect nothing less.

To evaluate your legal business development potential and identify what may be holding you back, schedule a 30-minute conversation with me at Fretzin.com/letstalk.

Build your book. Own your future. BE THAT LAWYER.

Steve Fretzin is a five-time bestselling author, host of the BE THAT LAWYER and Future Rainmakers podcasts, and a business development coach who works exclusively with attorneys. For more than 18 years, he has helped lawyers build strong books of business without selling, pitching, or chasing, using his proven Sales-Free Selling™ approach. His clients consistently become top rainmakers and credit his coaching and systems for driving meaningful, measurable growth. Steve can be reached directly at steve@fretzin.com, or through his website at bethatlawyer.com. Connect with him on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin. His ALL NEW BE THAT LAWYER Community is changing how lawyers develop the skills never taught in law school. Learn more at bethatlawyer.com/community.

The post What World Cup Coaches Can Teach Lawyers About Building A Book Of Business appeared first on Above the Law.

I want to build on that idea. 

There is a specific moment in practice where patience matters most, and it is the moment when the other side walks into the room angry.

Resist The Urge To Respond In Kind

You know the feeling. The email lands and the tone is aggressive. They question your motives. They accuse your organization of acting in bad faith. Your instinct is to match their energy and tone. You want to fire back. You want to show them you will not be pushed around. Here is what I have learned. When you match someone’s energy you are playing on their field. If they come in hot, they are telling you something about their position and not yours. Anger often signals fear or uncertainty. Your job is to hear the signal underneath the noise.

If you match the heat, you do nothing but stoke a raging fire. When you take the heat out of it and respond calmly and factually, you change the dynamic entirely.

Give Them The Floor

One of the most powerful de-escalation moves is counterintuitive. You give the other side more time to talk than you take. When people feel heard they start to shift. It does not always happen right away, but the act of being listened to changes the posture of a conversation. It moves people from adversarial to collaborative and sometimes they do not even notice it happening.

This means structuring the conversation so they get most of the time. You prepare your remarks. You keep them tight and then you listen. You will learn more from their 45 minutes than they will learn from your five. I have been in rooms where the turning point was not something I said. It was the space I created for the other side to say what they needed to say. Once they said it, we could start working.

Build On Their Work

When the other side puts a proposal on the table the temptation is to tear it down and start over. You want to show them how it should have been done. I would encourage you to resist that.

Take their framework. Preserve their language where you can and add what is missing. When someone sees their own words with your additions layered in they are psychologically closer to yes than if you hand them a completely new document. I have found that the fastest path to agreement is to treat the other side’s draft as the starting point even when it is not where it needs to be. You build on it. You let them see that you took their work seriously. You then have a conversation about the gaps.

Frame Your Ask As Their Interest

Every request you make should be something the other side can explain to their client without feeling like they lost. There is a difference between “we need this” and “this protects both of us.” There is a difference between “your draft is inadequate” and “we think adding this clarity prevents a dispute down the road.” The substance can be the same. The framing determines whether you get a yes or a fight.

One reframing I have used goes like this. “We are not asking for something new. We are asking that this agreement not take away something that already exists.” That single sentence changed the trajectory of a negotiation. The other side stops defending and starts problem-solving.

Structure Creates Calm

When a situation is volatile, structure is your best tool. You set an agenda. You define who speaks and when. You put time limits on the conversation. These are not bureaucratic exercises. It is scaffolding that keeps a difficult conversation from becoming an unproductive one.

People behave differently when they know the rules of the room. An agenda tells everyone what to expect. A defined speaking order prevents the loudest voice from dominating. A time limit creates urgency without panic. I have watched disorganized meetings spiral into personal attacks. That rarely happens in a well-structured meeting.

The Long Game

De-escalation is not about being soft. It is about being deliberate. You can be firm on substance and measured in tone. You can hold the line on what matters and still make the other side feel respected. Those two things are not in conflict.

The agreement you reach today is not the last agreement. The opposing counsel you work with this month may be across the table again next year. The way you conduct yourself in the hard moments determines whether the next conversation starts from trust or from suspicion. You can get the right result and still leave the relationship intact. You can protect your organization and still treat the other side like professionals. That is the long game. The lawyers who play it are the ones who keep getting called back into the room.

The temperature in the room is your responsibility. Lower it, and you will be surprised at how much gets done.

Lisa Lang is an accomplished in-house lawyer and thought leader dedicated to empowering fellow legal professionals. She offers insights and resources tailored for in-house counsel through her website and blog, Why This, Not That™ (www.lawyerlisalang.com). Lisa actively engages with the legal community via LinkedIn, sharing her expertise and fostering meaningful connections. You can reach her at lisa@lawyerlisalang.com, connect on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/).

The post The Temperature In The Room Is Your Responsibility appeared first on Above the Law.

[Lawyers ​continue to] submit materials that have hallucinations or have some other anomaly, and they attribute it to AI, and that simply can’t ‌exist. Our ⁠system, our courts, our judiciary has to rely on the integrity of the litigants and the advocates. And if they can’t do that, everything breaks down.

— California state Senator Tom Umberg, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in comments given to Reuters, concerning legislation he introduced to govern lawyers’ use of generative artificial intelligence in legal practice. Umberg said the measure “gives the courts another tool if lawyers don’t follow the law, in terms of potential sanctions.” The bill has been approved by both chambers of the California Legislature and now awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature.

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 California Is Coming For Lawyers Who File AI-Generated Nonsense appeared first on Above the Law.

But, as sad as it is, this is information that’s been known for a minute now. What’s noteworthy here is that judges, who almost never talk about this stuff, agreed to describe the environment on the record. Federal judges find themselves facing verbal attacks, falsehoods about the courts, and outright defiance of court orders. And the tactics are, by now, also grimly familiar. Swatting. Anonymous pizzas sent to judges’ homes as a way of saying we know where you live, some in the name of Judge Esther Salas’s murdered son. Specific death threats, like Judge Ana Reyes being told she should “eat a bullet” after an immigration ruling. And the Marshals Service tally keeps climbing — hundreds of threats against hundreds of judges — meanwhile the leaders of the DOJ call the victims “deranged” and “lunatics,” declare war on “rogue” judges, and, as Salas has pointed out, stay conspicuously silent about the threats themselves. Retired Judge Jeremy Fogel, who runs the Berkeley Judicial Institute and contributed to the report, put none too fine a point on the importance: judges and lawyers alike have “a direct stake in an independent judiciary and in the rule of law.”

The report’s central ask is that lawyers and bar associations, not the judges, who are constrained by their own ethics rules from mounting much of a defense, step up and publicly defend judicial independence. It’s a reasonable request and it’s also one the profession keeps flunking in real time. Just this week the Florida Bar couldn’t be bothered to open an investigation (even with 128 former judges, scholars, and prominent practitioners signing the complaint) when a DHS lawyer branded four sitting federal judges the “worst of the worst,” using the same language his agency reserves for murderers and rapists.

And the attacks on judges run alongside other affronts to the rule of law. There are vindictive prosecutions like the seashell indictment of James Comey on the laughable 86 47 theory, and resulting benchslaps. Recently, the DOJ told the Sixth Circuit to rewrite the vindictive-prosecution doctrine so a judge could almost never apply it. And the administration has been working hard since the start of Trump 2.0 to make sure the legal profession doesn’t utter a peep when things go south — what do you think the Biglaw executive orders were truly about? That nine of the country’s most powerful firms wrote checks — roughly $940 million in pro bono work steered toward Trump-approved causes — rather than defend themselves proves a good chunk of the bar has already failed in its obligation to the rule of law when the pressure is on.

When lawyers cave, the judges face the consequences.

Earlier: ‘I’ll Put A Bullet In Your Head’: The Disturbing Reality Of Being A Judge In America
‘The Silence Is Deafening’: Judge Esther Salas Blasts DOJ Over Threats Of Judicial Intimidation
Amy Coney Barrett Swatting Incident Tests Whether Anyone Cares About Threats To Judges Who Aren’t On SCOTUS
DHS General Counsel Names Four Federal Judges ‘Worst Of The Worst’ As Threats Against Judiciary Hit 564
An Administration Drowning In Vindictive Prosecution Motions Would Like To Abolish The Category

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