Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
recent
Lobbying
Disclosure
Act
filings,
the
law
firm
of
Brownstein
Hyatt
Farber
Schreck
set
a
record
for
LDA
revenue
in
2024.
How
much
LDA
revenue
did
they
report
in
2024?

Hint:
The
firm
saw
an
8%
increase
in
LDA
revenue
over
2023.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

You’re
getting
some
associate
rates
cresting
to
over
$1,000
an
hour,
as
much
as
some
junior
partners.
Those
more
senior
associates
—
that’s
where
you
saw
the
biggest
level
of
change.

—
Jennifer
McIver,
director
of
legal
operations
and
industry
insights
for
Wolters
Kluwer
ELM
Solutions,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
one
of
the
major
findings
from
the
recently
released
ELM
Solutions
2024
Real
Rate
Report.
As
noted
in
the
report,
senior
associates
saw
the
biggest
rate
hikes
between
2023
and
2024,
with
the
top
third
quartile
of
associates’
rates
climbing
from
$735
to
$795
year
to
year.
On
average,
the
rate
for
all
associates
jumped
from
$579
to
$597
between
2023
and
2024.

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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
Supreme
Court’s
recent
Death
Penalty
jurisprudence
has
been
pretty
dark:
their
decision
to
deny
a
stay
of
execution
for
Marcellus
Williams
is
and
will
be
a
mark
of
shame
on
this
country’s
history.
But,
in
an
unexpected
break
from
the
Court’s
live
and
let
die
approach
to
death
row,
they
are
giving
an
Oklahoma
inmate
a
second
bite
at
due
process.

EJI
has
coverage:

The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
on
Tuesday
granted
relief
to
Brenda
Andrew,
who
was
sentenced
to
death
in
Oklahoma
after
prosecutors
introduced
evidence
about
her
sex
life
and
her
failings
as
a
wife
and
mother.
The
Court
ordered
the
federal
appeals
court
to
assess
whether
this
“irrelevant
evidence
about
[her]
demeanor
as
a
woman
…
deprive[d]
her
of
a
fundamentally
fair
trial.”
…
The
State
accused
Ms.
Andrew
of
conspiring
with
Mr.
Pavatt
to
murder
her
husband.
At
trial,
according
to
the
Court’s
per
curiam
decision,
the
prosecution
“elicited
testimony
about
Andrew’s
sexual
partners
reaching
back
two
decades;
about
the
outfits
she
wore
to
dinner
or
during
grocery
runs;
about
the
underwear
she
packed
for
vacation;
and
about
how
often
she
had
sex
in
her
car.”
The
prosecutor
also
displayed
her
thong
underwear
to
jurors
while
urging
them
to
convict
her
of
capital
murder.

It
would
have
been
bad
enough
if
the
prosecution

just
referred
to
Ms.
Andrew
as
a
“slut
puppy”
throughout
the
trial
(which
they
did),
but
parading
around
her
underwear?
How
did
that
even
play
out
in
closing
argument?
“Were
her
finger
prints
on
the
murder
weapon?
No.
But
we
did
find
these
revealing
Victoria’s
Secret
panties
in
one
of
her
drawers.
What
other
secrets
might
she
be
hiding?!”

Justices
Thomas
and
Gorsuch
were
the
only
two
Justices
that
dissented
from
the
order.
The
bar
is
in
hell,
but
a
pat
on
the
back
for
Kavanaugh
not
making
that
duo
a
trio.

Supreme
Court
Grants
Relief
in
Oklahoma
Death
Penalty
Case
[EJI]

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
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Biglaw
firms
are
continuing
to
expand
their
offerings
all
over
the
world,
and
at
least
one
top
firm
is
busy
taking
care
of
expansion
in
the
Middle
East.

Earlier
this
week,
King
&
Spalding
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$2,137,941,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
17
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
ranking
—
announced
that
it
had
acquired
Saudi
Arabian
law
firm
Al
Fahad
&
Partners
in
Riyadh.
The
merged
firm
will
operate
under
the
name
King
&
Spalding
Al
Fahad.
The

Global
Legal
Post
has
additional
details
on
the
tie-up:

The
combination
brings
the
US
firm
17
mostly
fee
earners
in
Riyadh,
including
Al
Fahad
&
Partners’
founder
and
managing
partner,
Abdulaziz
Al
Fahad,
and
three
other
partners:
Fahad
Alarfaj,
Ibrahim
Alkhudair
and
English-qualified
lawyer
Phil
Loynes.

Alarfaj
has
been
named
managing
partner
of
the
combined
office,
while
Al
Fahad
will
serve
as
chairman
of
King
&
Spalding’s
Saudi
Arabia
practice.

K&S
chairman
Robert
Hays
said
the
combination
would
give
clients
a
“differentiated
offering,”
while
Al
Fahad
said
that
merging
with
the
larger
U.S.-based
firm
was
a
“perfect
fit.”

Congratulations
to
King
&
Spalding
on
its
latest
business
acquisition
in
Saudi
Arabia.

King
&
Spalding
merges
with
Saudi
firm
[Global
Legal
Post]

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

HSBC
settled
a
case
with
plaintiff
David
Rubin
over
claims
it
improperly
denied
disputed
charges
on
a
credit
card
for
$250,000
plus
attorney
fees
and
costs.
Trying
to
determine
those
attorney
fees
resulted
in
Eastern
District
of
New
York
Judge
Frederic
Block
railing
against
the
district’s
“blind
adherence
to
outdated
precedent”
(and
using

poetry
to
make
his
point).

Block
wrote
that
how
the
standard
for
attorney
fees
were
derived
was
a
“mystery”
lacking
a
“well-articulated
rationale.”
Noting
that
trying
to
determine
what
a
“reasonable
client”
would
pay
is
“a
lofty
standard,
but
it
is
fantastical.”
And
he
wondered,
“How
is
anyone
able
to
calculate
what
that
mystical
reasonable
paying
client
was
willing
to
pay?”

As

reported
by
Law.com,
Rubin’s
attorneys
request
$728,998
in
fees,
with
hourly
rates
for
the
attorneys
of
$1,185,
$795,
$760,
and
$445;
$325
for
a
law
clerk;
and
$125
for
a
paralegal.
HSBC’s
attorneys
cited

Zaslavsky
v.
Weltman,
Weinberg
&
Reiss,
which
set
the
rates
at
$300-$450
per
hour
for
partners,
$200-$300
per
hour
for
senior
associates,
$100-$200
per
hour
for
junior
associates,
and
$70-$100
per
hour
for
paralegals.
But
those
“rates
have
no
currency”
according
to
Block.

Instead,
Block
noted
“times
have
changed,”
and
settled
on
the
following
standard
for
fees:
$450-$650
for
partners,
$300-$450
for
senior
associates,
$150-$300
for
junior
associates,
and
$100-$150
for
paralegals.
Block’s
new
standard
netted
Rubin’s
attorneys
$550,506.50.

Read
the
full
decision
below.

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
Mastodon

@[email protected].

cv-20-4566-rubin-v-hsbc-bank-usa-memoradum-and-order

One
of
the
planks
of
President
Trump’s
campaign
was
bashing
trans
people.
And
he
wasted
no
time
delivering
on
his
vow
to
inflict
maximum
harm
on
minorities.

Promises
(to
be
cruel)
made,
promises
(to
be
cruel)
kept!

Within
hours
of
taking
the
oath
of
office,
he
issued
an

executive
order
“Defending
Women
from
Gender
Ideology
Extremism
and
Restoring
Biological
Truth
to
the
Federal
Government.”

The
order
has
been
widely
mocked
for
being

biologically
illiterate.
It
defines
“male”
as
“a
person
belonging,
at
conception,
to
the
sex
that
produces
the
small
reproductive
cell,”
despite
the
fact
that
sexual
differentiation
of
zygotes
does
take
place
until
several
weeks
post-conception.

But
it
will
still
cause
major
destruction,
particularly
to
trans
and
non-binary
prisoners.
Specifically,
Trump
instructed
the
Attorney
General
and
Secretary
of
Homeland
Security
to
“ensure
that
males
are
not
detained
in
women’s
prisons
or
housed
in
women’s
detention
centers,
including
through
amendment,
as
necessary,
of
Part
115.41
of
title
28,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
and
interpretation
guidance
regarding
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act.”

Title

28
CFR
115
lays
out
implementation
standards
for
for
the

Prison
Rape
Elimination
Act
of
2003
(PREA).
Section
115.41
provides
that
every
inmate
shall
be
assessed
on
intake
for
“their
risk
of
being
sexually
abused
by
other
inmates
or
sexually
abusive
toward
other
inmates”
including,
among
several
other
criteria
“Whether
the
inmate
is
or
is
perceived
to
be
gay,
lesbian,
bisexual,
transgender,
intersex,
or
gender
nonconforming.”
But
Trump’s
new
order
insists
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
transgender,
intersex,
or
gender
nonconforming
—
they’ve
been
defined
out
of
existence
by
executive
fiat.
And
to
make
darn
sure,
he’s
instructed
prisons
to
deny
non-existent
trans
people
medical
care,
forcibly
detransitioning
them
and
ordering
trans
women
to
be
transferred
to
men’s
prisons.

It
should
be
noted
that,
while
America’s
carceral
system
is

plagued
with
sexual
assault
and
abuse,
gender
non-conforming
inmates
are

particularly
likely
to
be
victimized.
And
so,
under
the
guise
of
“defending
women,”
Trump
will
now
send
trans
women
into
settings
where
they
are
in
grave
danger
of
being
sexually
assaulted,
in
direct
defiance
of
the
mandates
of
the
PREA.

As
reporter
Adam
Rhodes
notes
at

The
Appeal,
while
the
PREA
standards
are
only
binding
on
federal
facilities,
they
provide
a
financial
cudgel
to
force
states
to
implement
their
guidelines:

PREA
standards
are
binding
for
federal
agencies
but
not
for
state
facilities.
However,
in
order
to
receive
federal
grants,
state
carceral
institutions
must
prove
they
comply
with
PREA.
For
those
that
do
not,
the
federal
government
reduces
their
grants
by
5
percent. For
the
2024
fiscal
year, all
but
six U.S.
states
and
territories
met
PREA
guidelines.

Rhodes
also
notes
that
the
new
guidelines
will
run
into
multiple
existing
court
orders
and
consent
decrees,
which
oblige
state
and
federal
facilities
to
provide
medical
care
consistent
with
a
prisoner’s
gender
identity.
But
considering
how
successfully
Trump
was
able
to
demonize
Harris
by
accusing
her
of
supporting
gender
reassignment
surgery
for
prisoners,
it’s
likely
the
new
president
would
relish
such
a
fight.

And
meanwhile,
rates
of
prison
rape
are
almost
certain
to
go
up.
But,
as
ever,

the
cruelty
is
the
point.

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Courts
generally
frown
on
missing
deadlines.
They
also
don’t
like
when
folks
appearing
before
them
are
late.
Put
both
together
and
it’s
like
gleaming
the
cube
of
irritation
for
a
judge.
Add
in
a
3:30
a.m.
filing
and
you’ve
got
a
well
and
truly
pissed-off
judge.

Former
Massachusetts
state
senator
Dean
Tran
was
convicted
on
charges
he
improperly
collected
unemployment
benefits
under
a
pandemic
relief
program.
Prosecutors
are
recommending
a
two-year
prison
sentence.
He
was
due
to
be
sentenced
on
January
17th,
but
in
the
wee
hours
of
the
morning
—
3:30
a.m.
—
his
attorney,
Michael
Walsh,
filed
a

sentencing
memo
challenging
the
advisory
sentencing
guidelines.
What’s
more,
he
showed
up
at
10:06
a.m.
for
the
10:00
a.m.
hearing.
And
Judge
F.
Dennis
Saylor
IV
was
not
pleased
about
any
of
that,
as

reported
by
Law360:

“I’m
unhappy,
very
unhappy
that
Mr.
Walsh
was
late,
I’m
unhappy
that
Mr.
Tran
was
out
in
the
hall
when
I
took
the
bench,
and
what
I’m
really
unhappy
about
is
that
this
morning
the
defendant
filed
a
sentencing
memorandum
that
raises
a
number
of
issues,”
Judge
Saylor
continued.

“There
was
a
deadline
for
doing
that,
which
Mr.
Walsh
blew
through,”
Judge
Saylor
said.

But
there
was
no
emergency
or
unforeseen
circumstance
that
justified
the
last
minute
filing
—
Walsh
just
explained
that
it’s
hard
work
being
a
lawyer.

“I
spent
weeks
with
the
sentencing
manual
trying
to
figure
out
which
way
is
up,”
Walsh,
speaking
rapidly,
told
the
judge.

“Most
of
us
were
in
bed
at
3:30
this
morning,
asleep,”
Judge
Saylor
responded.
“I
was
certainly
not
sitting
up
waiting
for
you.”

The
judge
said
the
situation
was
“unfair
and
inappropriate,”
but,
fearing
Tran
could
argue
ineffective
counsel
on
appeal
if
he
refused
to
consider
the
memo,
he
pushed
sentencing
back
to
February
7th.
One
bit
of
advice
for
Walsh:
shows
up
on
time.

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
Mastodon

@[email protected].

With
growth
still
top
of
mind
in
2025,
Biglaw
firms
are
continuing
to
expand
their
footprints
across
the
United
States
—
and
some
firms
aren’t
afraid
to
poach
entire
teams
from
their
rivals
to
get
the
job
done.

Kirkland
&
Ellis,
the
No.
1
firm
in
the
country
according
to
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
ranking,
is
making
a
big
splash
with
its
entrance
to
the
Philadelphia
market.
According
to
the

American
Lawyer,
Kirkland
will
open
up
shop
in
the
City
of
Brotherly
Love
with
the
help
of
a
five-member
mass
torts
team
from
Skadden
Arps.
The
team,
led
by
litigation
partner
Allison
Brown,
also
includes
partners
Jessica
Davidson,
Geoffrey
Wyatt,
Nina
Rose,
and
Christopher
Cox.

Here’s
some
additional
information,
courtesy
of

Am
Law:

“Alli
is
among
the
most
accomplished
and
sought-after
trial
lawyers
in
the
country,
and
the
arrival
of
this
team
will
build
on
the
significant
growth
and
success
of
Kirkland’s
litigation
department
in
recent
years,”
said
Jon
Ballis,
the
firm’s
chair,
in
a
Tuesday
statement,
adding
that
Brown
is
among
the
“world’s
best
litigators”
and
that
the
firm
is
“excited
to
work
alongside
her
as
we
embark
on
this
new
chapter
for
Kirkland
in
Philadelphia.”

In
her
own
statement,
Brown
said,
“This
is
an
exciting
time
to
join
Kirkland,
which
has
an
incredibly
impressive
litigation
practice
with
a
deep
bench
of
the
most
talented
lawyers
practicing
today.”

Skadden
wished
the
departing
attorneys
well,
thanking
them
for
their
contributions,
noting
that
their
exits
would
take
place
“later
this
year.”
At
this
time,
their
official
start
date
at
Kirkland
is
unknown.

Kirkland
Enters
Philadelphia,
Luring
Skadden
Mass
Torts
Team
[American
Lawyer]

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

Artificial
intelligence
claims
it’s
coming
for
the
lawyers.

That’s
mostly
overhyped
tech
puffery,
but
there’s
no
denying
that
technology
will
cut
into
the
number
of
“brute
force”
opportunities
for
young
attorneys.
With
law
schools
struggling
to
teach
“practice-ready”
lawyers,
we’ve
always
depended
on
big
firms
to
hire
200
new
lawyers
to
churn
through
documents
in
a
Topeka
warehouse
while
learning
the
real
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
practice
on
the
job.
As
firms
cut
back,
how
will
aspiring
lawyers
amass
practical
experience?

One
innovative
solution
seeks
to
deliver
practical
experience
before
lawyers
leave
law
school.
Top-flight
litigation
boutique

MoloLamken
is
once
again
offering
a
one-week,
intensive
training
program
for
12
rising
3Ls
called
the

MoloLamken
Advocacy
Academy
and
the
deadline
to
apply
for
current
2Ls
is
fast
approaching
—
February
10,
2025.

And,
perhaps
most
importantly,
this
program
isn’t
designed
to
trade
off
with
a
traditional
summer
job,
with
the
schedule
tailored
to
accommodate
students
participating
in
law
firm
summer
associate
programs
and
government
or
public
interest
internships.
The
Academy
begins
on
the
evening
of
Sunday,
August
3,
and
runs
through
the
early
afternoon
of
Friday,
August
8,
2025.

And,
on
top
of
everything
else,
MoloLamken
Scholars
receive
a
$4,500
cash
award,
and
travel
and
lodging
will
be
provided
for
those
coming
from
outside
of
New
York
City.

The
course
includes
both
lecture-based
learning
on
courtroom
strategies
and
demonstrations
drawn
from
actual
cases,
as
well
as
stand-up
experience
examining
witnesses
and
making
trial
and
appellate
arguments.
Throughout,
the
students
receive
personalized
feedback
and
tips
from
faculty
headed
by
firm
cofounders
and
veteran
litigators
Steven
Molo
and
Jeffrey
Lamken.

Last
year,
we
wrote
about
the
exciting
potential
of
the
Academy’s
first
season.
Now
with
a
year
under
their
belt
we
have
real
feedback
from
MoloLamken
Scholars
about
their
experience.
One
described
the
program
as
“a
great
way
to
push
yourself
out
of
your
comfort
zone
to
develop
both
trial
and
appellate
skills.”
And
by
getting
outside
one’s
comfort
zone
another
comment
elaborated
that
the
program
fostered
a
“low-pressure
environment
where
we
were
encouraged
to
take
risks.”

Another
said
the
program
provides
“practical
experience
applying
courtroom
skills
and
thorough
feedback
from
some
of
the
best
to
ever
do
it,”
a
bit
of
an
understatement
from
a
faculty
that’s
collectively
tried
hundreds
of
cases
and
argued
hundreds
of
appeals.

“It’s
difficult
for
lawyers
starting
out
to
get
practical
courtroom
skills
training.
This
program
provides
outstanding
law
students
who
want
to
become
great
advocates
a
solid
grounding
based
on
our
real-world
experience,”
said
co-founding
partner
Jeffrey
Lamken.

Not
to
bring
it
all
back
to
a
“doom
and
gloom”
outlook
for
the
industry,
but
we
could
be
approaching
a
critical
juncture
where
training
opportunities
become
fewer
and
farther
between.
If
you’re
a
law
student
hoping
to
get
into
litigation,
you
need
to
go
out
and
grab
any
high-quality
training
you
can.

And
if
you
get
paid
for
doing
it,
all
the
better.

Earlier:

Donald
Trump’s
Lawyer
Keeps
Botching
Basic
Trial
Procedure
—
Don’t
Grow
Up
To
Be
Alina

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.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.