The lawsuit points out that his Memphis-area data centers are violating the Clean Air Act, funneling all manner of pollutants into minority neighborhoods that already see a disproportionately high number of pollution-caused childhood illnesses:

“xAI’s power plant in Southaven has the potential to emit more than 1,700 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) each year. The staggering emissions numbers likely make the facility the largest industrial source of NOx in the greater Memphis area, an area already failing to meet national smog standards. The illegal turbines also have the potential to release up to 180 tons of fine particulate matter, 500 tons of carbon monoxide, and 19 tons of formaldehyde—a toxic, cancer-causing chemical—each year.“

The Trump administration had tried to intervene on behalf of their favorite billionaire authoritarian, leveraging the power of the DOJ to claim that holding Musk accountable for violating environmental law would run in contrast to the country’s national security interests. The admin also ham-fistedly tried to have the Trump EPA take over the lawsuit as plaintiff and “voluntarily dismiss” the case.

Apparently advertising that fact wasn’t a particularly smart idea. US District Judge Debra Brown ‌last week issued a ruling stating the US Environmental Protection Agency could intervene in the case but lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to unilaterally terminate the lawsuit after joining it.

“The EPA’s role as a primary enforcer of the Clean Air Act does not mean that the federal government retains complete control over all Clean Air Act litigation,” Judge Brown wrote.

A cornerstone of the Trump administration has been a close collaboration with oligarchs and corporate power to hijack the courts, then obliterate already extremely shaky regulatory autonomy and corporate oversight. While the gambit has been broadly successful, likely culminating in decades of avoidable deaths and suffering, every so often the court system still procedurally balks at Trump’s ham-fisted corruption.

“The NAACP, along with our partners, is pleased that the Fifth Circuit Court recognized the importance of following Civil Procedure 101,” Abre’ Conner, NAACP Director of Environmental and Climate Justice, said of the ruling. “The DOJ tried an end run to the court of appeals, but its effort did not work in its favor. Our case has always been about holding polluters accountable and making sure that entities follow the law. The court made clear today that the law applies to everyone, including the federal government. We look forward to continuing our fight against pollution in the courtroom.”

Musk is facing a different class action lawsuit in Memphis for the massive noise (see this local video) created by his unpopular regional data center operations.

Court Tosses Trump’s Clumsy Attempt To Scuttle Musk Memphis Data Center Pollution Lawsuit

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

The Trump Admin Isn’t Bright Enough To ‘Ban’ Foreign Robots And Drones, And The Press Should Stop Pretending Otherwise
Your Diary Has A Creditor: What Character.ai’s Bankruptcy Does To Freedom Of Thought
Fifth Circuit Flips Earlier Ruling, Once Again Declares Migrants Have No Due Process Rights

The post Court Tosses Trump’s Clumsy Attempt To Scuttle Musk Memphis Data Center Pollution Lawsuit appeared first on Above the Law.

* Oopsie! Government cops to error in SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein’s criminal appeal. [ABA Journal]

* The top of the law firm partner pay charts is not New York — the highest paid law partners are in Silicon Valley. [Reuters]

* The DOJ is probing California state and local election workers in its quest to find voter fraud. [Bloomberg Law News]

* Finally Vivek Ramaswamy pulls his problematic and gross ad featuring Amy Acton’s birth mother. [The Hill]

* Donating to Donald Trump’s vanity projects now has corporate giants, fearing a Dem takeover, calling their lawyers. [Politico]

The post Morning Docket: 10.30.26 appeared first on Above the Law.

The LSAT Won’t Get Harder In 2027, Just Longer And Sneakier: Every question might be the one that doesn’t count. Good luck figuring out which.

Bill Essayli Ran Out Of Job Titles: Interim, acting, special, first assistant… and still not lawful.

Spirit Halloween Meets Weil: Caption this for the “merger” Biglaw needs right now.

The post Weil Gotshal Is Dying, But The Billable Hour Is Immortal — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

This 55-year-old Washington powerhouse — a titan of antitrust and patent litigation — made a bold wager in the late 2000s, shifting much of its work onto contingency and other “alternative” fee deals instead of the billable hour. When those big-case paydays didn’t arrive on schedule, cash ran short, its lenders grew nervous, and partners fled en masse (most of them to a single rival). It voted to dissolve in March 2011 and tumbled into bankruptcy — and its own chairman pinned the blame on the very fee experiment the firm had championed. Name the firm.

Hint: Its chairman, Robert Ruyak, blamed the firm’s embrace of alternative fee arrangements for its downfall — then, months later, landed at Winston & Strawn, the very firm that had scooped up most of his former partners. Its name lent itself to an unforgettable run of ATL headline puns.

See the answer on the next page.

The post The 55-Year-Old Litigation Giant That Was Undone By Its Own Billing Bet appeared first on Above the Law.

As I wrote in a column almost a decade ago, “Some lawyers proclaim that they will never retire, but, after a certain point in time, I think most, if not all, lawyers of dinosaurian vintage get tired — tired of the endless demands of clients; tired of the nonstop requirement of billables, receivables, and collectibles; tired of the endless routine of business development; tired of trying to explain to newbie lawyers why their ‘great case’ isn’t so great, and why the case needs to resolve.” Now almost 10 years later, add to that list, the need for competency in AI and its many tendrils. 

Yes, we dinosaurs may think that we are still in charge, but if we are, it’s not for much longer. For early boomers like me, we can see all around us that the landscape of lawyers is changing, if not already changed.  Even for those at the end of the boomer period we are already in our sixties. (Do I see cringing?) We are finding (at least I think this is true for early boomers), the professional contacts we cultivated over our careers are no longer where they once were. General counsel and other higher-ups in corporate legal departments have retired, been pushed aside in corporate acquisitions (aka riffed, as it’s always better to be on the acquiring team), or taking dirt naps. Those contacts are no longer regarded as viable sources of business. They were here today and are now gone, good while it lasted. Now, who to jawbone for business?

We see it also in the musical chairs that play out as lawyers move from one firm to another in search of more money and maybe more prestige if that is important. However, it’s the money that moves people and as Gordon Gekko said in the movie “Wall Street”: “Greed is good.” But is it really? Is that the single motivating factor for so many of those Biglaw moves? Are those moves a betrayal of common values, friendships, and loyalties created over years of working together? I wonder.

Every time there’s a change in leadership at a client, it’s full-speed business development all over again. We are not just lawyers any more, now we have to also be selling. That’s been a tough adjustment for many of us, me included. Business development has, up to now, not been a required class in law school (not a bar exam question). Perhaps it should be. At least one Biglaw partner thinks so, stating that lawyers are no longer just lawyers, but salespersons. Not an easy adjustment for many lawyers to make, especially of dinosaur vintage. Is there still a reason  to have a law degree? Perhaps an MBA with some law courses may suffice in the future. What are law schools doing about this, if anything? Are they preparing the law students for this new brave world?

Far from being irreplaceable, we are now seemingly fungible. What can we do that AI can’t? Be human and cultivate relationships. Relationships that can endure throughout the professional career. Relationships that prompt a phone call between lawyers to resolve matters without the need or desire to inject a third party. Relationships between counsel that demonstrate, in spite of evidence to the contrary, attorneys can be civil so as to benefit their respective clients. But so many lawyers (and their clients) can’t resolve their disagreements amicably. Rambo tactics, anyone?

In dinosaur times, collegiality between opposing counsel allowed cases to settle without the expense of a neutral, whose fees nowadays can be stratospheric. Whatever happened to the ability of lawyers to steer clients in the right direction? Are we doing any better today to serve the interests of justice? Are we meeting the unfulfilled demands of legal deserts across the country? The lessons of Weil Gotshal’s winding down after almost a century should be taken to heart, that is, if we have any heart.

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 Passing The Torch appeared first on Above the Law.

Even if you’re not using AI yet, your clients are — and they’re not always telling you about it. This disconnect can have strategic implications if you’re involved in litigation. If you don’t get a handle on it early on, your client’s decision to run a few questions by a chatbot could derail the case.

A number of courts have already addressed the issues that arise when parties conduct research using AI tools. The applicability of work-product protection depends on the stage of litigation and the status of the AI user. Is the person appearing pro se? If they’re represented by counsel, was the research conducted at the request of their attorney? Or did they ask someone else to query the AI tool on their behalf?

For example, in Morgan v. V2X, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67939, [Dist. Colorado 2026], the court determined that even though publicly available AI tools often rely on user input to train their models, a pro se plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to assert work product protection regarding his AI use.

If a court determines that the work-product doctrine applies, another issue that arises is whether using a third-party AI platform waives that protection. This remains unresolved, with some courts treating AI chats as disclosure to a third party, while others have concluded that they’re simply tools, no different from other technologies. 

In Assini v. Hayward, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26086 (2026), New York Supreme Court Justice Rhonda E. Fischer considered whether a pro se defendant’s AI use amounted to work product. The court concluded that, because the responses were obtained in preparation for litigation, they were protected by the work-product doctrine since the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality.

Most recently, in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach, the court weighed in on a related work product issue. In this case, decided earlier this month, a represented defendant conducted  AI research of his own volition.

In Fontainebleau, the plaintiff sought access to many of the defendant’s communications with third-party AI providers. In opposition to the plaintiff’s discovery demands, the defendant cited Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 3d 629 (E.D. Mich. 2026) for the proposition that “litigation-related materials do not automatically lose work-product protection merely because a party used a third-party AI platform to prepare them.”

A United States District Court magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida agreed that using AI tools did not necessarily act as a work product waiver, and concluded that the work product could protect some, but not all, of the defendant’s AI-assisted research.

The court acknowledged the holding in United States v. Heppner, 820 F. Supp. 3d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2026)—that the defendant’s research, performed independently and not at the behest of counsel, was not protected by work product—but concluded that Heppner does not necessarily establish “that all materials independently prepared by a represented party are categorically unprotected.” 

According to the court, work product could protect some of the defendant’s AI research since the “Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 26(b)(3)(A) confirms that work-product protection is not limited to materials prepared by counsel but extends to materials prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation.”

Privilege protection is not automatic, however, and applicability turns on “the purpose and circumstances of the particular communications.” Applying that principle, the court determined that all queries related to “producing public-facing statements or pursuing Defendant’s independent activities, rather than preparing the defense of this litigation” were not covered by the umbrella of privilege.

Lastly, in an effort to protect privileged materials while disclosing relevant and discoverable information, the court required the defendant to “identify the withheld material and describe the nature of the asserted protection sufficiently to permit Plaintiff to assess the claim without revealing the protected information itself.”

In other words, content is king. But so is context. Who was using the AI tool, and why were they using it? Answer those questions, and you’re halfway there. In fact, you’d better be prioritizing these issues. Because your clients will use these tools, whether you like it or not. 

Rather than ignore this reality, get a handle on it. Talk to your clients about AI, including how to use it and under what circumstances. Explain why you need to be notified when they interact with chatbots about the litigation and how AI research can impact their case. 

Make that conversation part of your intake process. Ask whether clients have already discussed the dispute with AI and what they shared. Their answers can help you identify and prepare for potential discovery issues. The bottom line: transparency at the start of a case can make all the difference, and become all the more important as AI becomes ubiquitous.

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

The post Content And Context Matter When Your Clients Use AI appeared first on Above the Law.

In 2015, I left the practice of law to run my career branding and executive resume writing business. I spent a lot of time in the early years defending my decision and explaining why I left law to pursue what I had always dreamed of doing.

My father often shared a quote with me that his own father had passed down to him: “Choose a job you will love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” That Confucius quote sat in a frame on the wall of my father’s office for nearly 20 years. As a young attorney, I understood the words intellectually. Yet, it took me years, and a significant career pivot of my own, to truly understand what they meant in practice.

Just as I had to reimagine my own career and rediscover my purpose, my executive clients face the same dilemma.

They worked hard, climbed the corporate ladder, and built something impressive. Some have hit the ceiling. Others are seeking a career change as the antidote to years of career fatigue or a spark that has dimmed. What I’ve learned from working with over 1,750 senior legal and business leaders is this: before you make a move, you need to diagnose the root of the problem.

Understand Your Career Crossroad Before You Decide

Before you update your resume or fire off a message to a recruiter, ask yourself the question: is it the environment, or is it the work itself? These are two very different career crossroads with two very different solutions.

You might not fit in with the culture of Biglaw, but thrive in an in-house environment. You might love complex M&A work but feel depleted by the billable hour and the volume that comes with it. You might be at the right company but in the wrong role, or at the right career level but the wrong industry. Or you might be ready to step outside the practice of law altogether and explore an alternative legal career.

Identifying the root of your dissatisfaction with candor is the essential first step, because without it, you risk making a lateral move that relocates your unhappiness to a new address. 

Reconnect With What Energizes You

One of the most powerful exercises I recommend to those who feel lost or uninspired is to identify the common threads of their career. Look back at every role, every project, every assignment that energized you. Where did you feel most passionate? What drove that passion?

For me, the common thread was writing and public speaking. In high school, I competed at local and national speech and debate tournaments. In college, I did pro bono writing and tutoring. In law school, I gravitated toward research and writing for the dean of students and several professors, as well as undertook courses focused on jurisprudence and advanced legal writing techniques. In my legal career, I was the designated brief writer. Every one of those threads pointed me toward the same thing, and yet it took more than a decade for me to connect those dots and reimagine my career around them.

You have your own common theme. The question is whether you’ve paused long enough to discover it.

Take a moment and reflect on your top skills and talents. Think about the things you’re not only good at, but that also energize you when you do them. Write down a list of what’s missing in your current role, and what you need from your next one. Don’t be afraid to pursue a path that feels like a departure from where you are now. With risk comes great reward, but you have to prepare adequately.

Tackle The Burnout Before You Make A Career Move

Career burnout is often accompanied by chronic stress, exhaustion, depleted energy, decreased motivation, and a growing negativity surrounding your work. You may be experiencing the infamous “Sunday Scaries.” You may feel lost, deflated, or withdrawn, not because you lack ambition, but because you’ve given so much for so long that you’ve lost sight of yourself in the process.

Before you take the leap into a new role or a new career path, take stock of where you are mentally and physically. Set and communicate clear boundaries. Consider working with an executive coach who can provide support and an outside perspective. Sometimes, we are so consumed by our own emotions that we cannot see ourselves objectively. An executive coach sees the 30,000-foot view of your career, and can help you identify roadblocks, create clarity from chaos, and develop a strategic plan for what comes next.

More than 85% of my senior executive and C-suite clients have worked with, or are concurrently working with, an executive or leadership coach. There is no shame in asking for support, and there is immeasurable value in it.

Invest In Your Skills And Your Career Value

One of the most powerful things you can do when you feel stagnant is to invest in yourself, which means growing new skills in emerging practice areas or expanding your executive acumen. Even if you’ve reached the C-suite, there is always room to learn and grow. Certificate programs and targeted online courses give you specialized training without the long-term time or financial commitment of a degree. They also give you something equally valuable: a renewed sense of purpose and engagement in your work. 

Whether you’re pursuing an executive leadership certificate, board governance training, or ramping up your data privacy knowledge through the CIPP/US certification, investing in your skills signals to the market, and to yourself, that you’re deeply committed to professional growth and advancement.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping every industry, and the legal profession is no exception. Understanding the intersection of AI and your career is no longer optional for senior legal and business leaders. For a deeper look at how AI is affecting the job search process specifically, reference a recent webinar I co-presented with BarkerGilmore.

Build Your Strategy And Take Action

Your career is a marathon, not a sprint. If you haven’t already done a career and brand audit, start there. Review your performance evaluations. Build your brag sheet. Audit your resume and LinkedIn profile for brand clarity. Begin strengthening your network now, before you need it. As I’ve written previously, the Q4 job search rewards those who prepared in advance, not those who scrambled when the calendar flipped. 

Make a list of targeted companies, firms, or leaders you want to reach out to. Seek out informational interviews — they remain one of the most underutilized yet powerful tools in your job search arsenal. Organize your outreach. Be sure to follow up. Nurture the relationships you build. The most effective job searches are organized, prepared, and proactive.

Reigniting That Spark

The career you love is not some distant, unreachable destination. It has been there in the background this entire time, waving at you. Sometimes all it takes is the courage and clarity to recognize it. You just have to decide it’s time to find that spark again.

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

The post When The Spark Is Gone: How To Reimagine Your Career And Rediscover Your Purpose appeared first on Above the Law.

I said, ‘I have an answer to not being able to get it past the Democrats or the Republicans together.’ I would pick Ted Cruz to be the next Supreme Court justice, and I wouldn’t have to worry about it. I wouldn’t have to make a phone call.

The Democrats will 100% vote for it because they hate the guy and the want to get rid of him. And the Republicans would 100% vote for it because they can’t stand him, they would like to get rid of him. So I’d get 100% of the vote, and he would be a Supreme Court justice and he’d do a great job.

— President Donald Trump, at a campaign rally in Lubbock, Texas, where he revived his suggestion that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) could be a future Supreme Court pick. As noted by USA Today, Trump called Cruz “a brilliant guy, brilliant lawyer, brilliant all that.” This isn’t the first time Trump has floated Cruz for the high court. The Texas senator, who was in the audience, has said in the past that he isn’t interested in serving as a judge.

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 Trump’s Supreme Court Pitch For Ted Cruz: Everyone Wants Him Gone appeared first on Above the Law.

When firm leaders announced the shutdown to all attorneys, they had a message for associates, according to Above the Law tipsters. It started out about as well as these things can:

We also recognize that many of you will begin exploring new professional opportunities, if you have not already. We understand that and we want to be helpful, we intend to support your efforts to find new opportunities and facilitate introductions where we can. We know that Weil’s associates, counsel and staff are among the most talented professionals in the industry, and we will do what we can to help you take the next step in your careers. We will provide additional information about available resources and transition support as the process develops.

Weil associates spent the past week watching partners frantically send résumés to rivals, and at least one practice head had already told his associates to look for work elsewhere. These are lawyers who pinned their careers to the Weil partnership, and the partnership couldn’t keep it together. Helping them land on their feet is nice… or at least the barest of professional courtesies.

There’s money attached, too. According to insiders, the firm will provide up to 90 days of salary and benefits to associates, counsel, non-capital partners, and staff who remain with the firm. Eligible staff will get bonuses in mid-December, and eligible associates, counsel, and non-capital partners who stay through January 1, 2027, will get bonuses paid in early January 2027. That’s a real cushion for people who didn’t create this mess.

Of course, it isn’t just career services time at Weil, there’s legal work that still has to be attended to:

While we work through the next steps, it is imperative that we continue operating the firm and serving our clients, our clients must continue receiving the same exceptional legal service they have always expected from Weil. We have important obligations to our clients, our colleagues and one another. Those obligations do not change [because of the wind-down]. We need to continue billing for work performed, collecting outstanding fees and managing the firm’s operations responsibly. These efforts are essential to meeting the firm’s obligations, supporting our people and carrying out an orderly process.

So… we’ll help you find your next job, but first, timesheets! And, that makes sense — attorneys are acutely aware of their professional responsibilities and an orderly wind-down runs on collected receivables, and Weil has been having consultants comb through obligations like pensions and office leases. It’s just that “the ship is sinking, please remember to record your time in six-minute increments” is hard to hear for the people with the least say in steering it.

At least leadership closed with an acknowledgment that it’s asking a lot:

We recognize that asking everyone to remain focused on their work during a period of such personal uncertainty is difficult. We do not take that for granted. But your continued professionalism and commitment, will make an enormous difference for our clients your colleagues and success of this transition.

Leadership also acknowledged that “uncertainty” has been a pain point throughout this process, said the firm “wants to do better as we move forward,” and committed to sharing information “as promptly and clearly as possible.” Which, I guess… better late than never? Because don’t forget in September the firm was “not engaged in merger discussions with any firm,” then negotiating one a month later, and told the Wall Street Journal “No decision has been made to dissolve the firm,” days before deciding to dissolve the firm.

None of which changes the fact that this is a shitty time to be a Weil associate. So if you know one, buy them a drink, give them a hug, or offer to proofread their résumé, because they need the kindness right about now.

Earlier: After 95 Years, Weil Gotshal Is Winding Down
Weil Cancels Webinar Inviting 1Ls To ‘Explore What A Career Here Could Look Like’
Weil Practice Head Tells His Associates To Start Looking For Work Elsewhere
Weil Gotshal Is Now Discussing A Possible Wind-Down
Weil Partners Are ‘Frantically Sending Résumés’ As Leadership Weighs Its Options
Weil’s Successor Walked Away, And Now The Firm Has A ‘Run On The Bank’ Problem
Weil’s Incoming Leader Won’t Take The Job, And Might Take One At Simpson Thacher Instead
Weil’s Merger With Willkie Is Dead, But Its Partner Exodus Is Very Much Alive
Weil Gotshal Is Reportedly Negotiating A Merger, About A Month After Saying It Wasn’t In Merger Talks
Weil Seeks To Strengthen Its ‘Platform’ As Merger Rumors Swirl
Weil’s Corporate Chair Decamps For Cravath, Which Weil Would Like You To Know Is ‘A Smaller Platform’

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