Author: TSA Press

And
That’s
Just
The
Kozinski
Article!:
Try
not
to
cry
as
we
parse
through
a
judge’s
really
crappy
reasoning.
Law
Schools
Are
Cutting
Diversity
From
Their
Websites:
Control
the
purse,
force
policy
changes.
Boo!
Eat
Less
Chikn!:
Will
someone
at
FedSoc
switch
up
the
damned
catering
options?
That’s
Not
The
Serving
Cops
Should
Be
Doing:
DA
gets
immunity
for
violating
the
4th
and
sharing
someone
else’s
nudes.
You
Can
Teach
AI
New
Tricks:
Linklaters
ran
their
AI
through
a
law
exam
and
saw
improvement
from
last
time!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

The
Department
of
Justice
has
shut
down
which
database
established
by
Joe
Biden
in
2022,
but
first
proposed
by
Donald
Trump
in
2020?

Hint:
On
January
20,
2025,
Trump
revoked
Executive
Order
14074,
which
led
to
the
decommissioning
of
the
database.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed
note: This
is
the
third
in
a
series.
Read
the previous
installment
here.

Imagine
your
follow-up
as
a
gourmet
meal,
not
just
a
quick
snack.

It
should
be
substantial,
memorable,
and
leave
your
contact
looking
forward
to
more.

This
means
offering
value
in
a
way
that
enriches
your
connection,
turning
a
brief
meeting
into
a
potentially
lasting
relationship.

Recipe
for
a
Valuable
Follow-Up:

Share
Insightful
Resources:
Just
as
a
chef
might
recommend
a
rare
ingredient,
share
articles,
reports,
or
tools
that
are
relevant
to
their
interests
or
industry.
For
example,
“I
came
across
this
article
on
blockchain
trends
and
immediately
thought
of
our
discussion.
I
hope
you
find
it
as
insightful
as
I
did.”

Offer
Solutions:
If
they
mentioned
a
challenge
they’re
facing,
suggest
a
practical
solution
or
introduce
them
to
someone
who
can
help.
This
is
like
offering
a
perfectly
paired
wine
with
a
meal.
Try
saying,
“I
recall
you
mentioned
challenges
with
project
management.
I
have
a
colleague
who’s
an
expert
in
this
area
and
could
provide
some
great
insights.
Would
you
like
me
to
connect
you
two?”

Invite
to
Events:
Extend
an
invitation
to
a
relevant
workshop,
seminar,
or
networking
event.
It’s
like
inviting
them
to
a
tasting
menu
of
experiences
that
could
benefit
their
professional
palate.
For
instance,
“There’s
a
virtual
seminar
on
cybersecurity
next
week
that
I
think
you’d
find
valuable.
Would
you
like
me
to
send
you
the
details?”

Provide
Personalized
Advice:
If
you
have
expertise
in
an
area
they’re
interested
in,
offer
some
tailored
advice
or
tips.
This
is
akin
to
giving
a
cooking
class
to
someone
eager
to
learn.
A
message
like,
“Based
on
our
conversation
about
improving
team
productivity,
I
have
a
few
strategies
that
worked
wonders
for
my
team.
Happy
to
share
them
if
you’re
interested,”
can
be
very
effective.

Follow
Through
on
Promises:
If
you
promised
to
send
information,
make
an
introduction,
or
look
into
something
for
them,
ensure
you
do
it.
This
shows
you’re
reliable
and
considerate,
much
like
a
chef
ensuring
their
guests’
dietary
preferences
are
respected.

By
adding
these
elements
of
value
to
your
follow-up,
you’re
not
just
reaching
out;
you’re
building
a
bridge
for
ongoing
interaction
and
potential
collaboration.
Your
aim
is
to
make
your
follow-up
as
nourishing
and
enriching
as
a
well-prepared
meal,
leaving
them
satisfied
yet
eager
for
future
engagements.

More
Than
Just
a
Flash
in
the
Pan:
Adding
Value

✔️
Share
resources
and
articles
relevant
to
their
interests.
✔️
Offer
solutions
or
make
introductions
to
address
their
challenges.
✔️
Invite
them
to
relevant
events
or
workshops.

---

Sejal
Patel
is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
dedicated
to
helping
attorneys
turn
relationships
into
clients.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
strategically
analyzes
attorneys’
networks
to
uncover
revenue
and
relationship
opportunities,
crafting
individualized
approaches
that
align
with
their
unique
strengths
and
styles.
Learn
more
at www.sageivyconsulting.com.  

Many
states
impose
mandatory
retirement
ages,
set
by
statute,
on
judges. Such
retirement
ages
make
sense
since
it
is
important
that
individuals
retire
when
they
may
be
less
able
to
fulfill
the
duties
of
their
demanding
jobs
and
so
that
new
people
can
fill
roles
held
by
those
who
retire. Some
law
firms
also
have
mandatory
retirement
ages,
but
from
my
perspective,
it
seems
as
if
such
retirement
ages
are
falling
out
of
favor.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
more
law
firms
should
consider
mandatory
retirement
ages
for
partners
and
perhaps
other
attorneys.

When
I
was
an
associate
attorney
at
different
law
firms,
I
was
not
usually
apprised
of
retirement
ages
and
other
matters
governing
the
partnership
of
the
law
firms
at
which
I
worked.
However,
at
one
firm
at
which
I
worked,
I
am
pretty
sure
that
partners
who
reached
65
either
needed
to
retire
or
at
least
start
thinking
about
succession
planning
so
that
they
could
begin
the
process
of
leaving
the
firm. I
always
thought
65
was
a
little
young,
and
to
me,
70
or
perhaps
even
75
seems
like
a
fairer
retirement
age. I
know
plenty
of
lawyers
who
are
extremely
capable
in
their
late
60s
and
early
70s,
and
it
seemed
that
retirement
requirements
could
be
a
little
higher.

In
any
event,
mandatory
retirement
requirements
have
a
lot
of
benefits. They
permit
younger
attorneys
who
may
be
entering
the
prime
of
their
careers
to
make
the
types
of
client
contacts
that
ensure
certain
clients
stay
at
a
firm. 
Moreover,
younger
lawyers
may
be
more
willing
to
stick
around
and
work
at
a
law
firm
if
they
know
that
they
will
have
ownership
of
the
firm
and
not
need
to
share
profits
with
senior
partners
who
may
have
originated
clients
ages
ago. 
Additionally,
there
are
a
number
of
smaller
benefits
to
partners
retiring.
I
remember
one
lawyer
telling
me
that
having
senior
partners
give
up
their
prime
offices
when
they
neared
retirement
was
an
important
part
of
mandatory
retirement
requirements.

Recently,
I
met
up
with
a
number
of
lawyers,
and
one
attorney
mentioned
that
at
her
firm,
many
older
partners
still
work
at
the
shop
even
though
their
abilities
have
diminished
due
to
age. This
friend
also
told
me
that
this
caused
friction
within
the
firm
since
younger
lawyers
did
not
enjoy
feeling
like
they
were
carrying
older
lawyers.
We
also
mused
about
why
older
lawyers
would
want
to
stick
around
a
law
firm
into
their
70s
since
the
legal
profession
is
a
grind,
and
more
senior
lawyers
would
presumably
want
to
enter
retirement
away
from
the
legal
profession.

In
any
case,
more
law
firms
both
big
and
small
should
consider
imposing
mandatory
retirement
ages. 
Some
smaller
law
firms
permit
lawyers
to
withdraw
from
a
firm
without
as
many
consequences
after
they
reach
a
certain
age,
but
do
not
impose
an
explicit
retirement
requirement. Moreover,
some
law
firms
might
be
too
small
to
really
consider
imposing
a
mandatory
retirement
age. I
am
willing
to
bet
that
such
a
requirement
would
not
have
too
much
meaning
in
my
own
firm
since
it
is
just
my
brother
and
me
at
the
shop
and
there
is
not
much
of
an
age
difference
between
the
two
of
us.

As
can
be
seen
in
the
political
arena,
people
in
power
have
a
tendency
to
stay
in
power
as
long
as
possible,
even
if
their
abilities
may
diminish
with
age
and
even
if
this
makes
it
difficult
for
younger
individuals
to
move
up
a
hierarchy. As
a
result,
more
lawyers
should
consider
retirement
requirements
for
their
law
firms. I
would
love
to
hear
from
readers
about
their
own
perspectives
on
mandatory
retirement
ages,
but
just
like
such
requirements
benefit
the
judiciary,
mandatory
retirement
ages
can
be
advantageous
to
law
firms
as
well.

---

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at




[email protected].

WASHINGTON
—
The
Defense
Department
has
ordered
all
acquisition
shops
to
review
consulting
service
contracts to
determine
whether
they
are
essential
to
Trump
administration
priorities,
and
terminate
those
deemed
not
to
fit
that
bill.

“To
ensure
we
are
accountable
for
every
dollar
we
spend
and
that
we
are
aligned
with
the
President
of
the
United
States’

America
First
priorities
and
Secretary
of
Defense
[Pete]
Hegseth’s
direction,
Component
heads
will
conduct
a
comprehensive
review
and
validation
of
existing
contracts
for
consulting
services,”
states
the
Feb.
18
memo
[PDF]
memo
signed
by
Steven
Morani,
who
is
performing
the
duties
of
DoD’s
undersecretary
for
acquisition
and
sustainment.

The
memo
mandates
an
assessment
of
“the
essentiality
of
contracts
…
for
the
purpose
of
terminating
or
descoping
contracts
for
activities
that
are
not
essential
for
the
Department
to
fulfill
its
statutory
purposes.”

Components
are
organizations
within
the
Pentagon
that
have
acquisition
authority.
Morani’s
memo,
first

reported
by
DefenseScoop,
is
addressed
to
“senior
Pentagon
leadership,
defense
agencies
and
DoD
field
activities
directors.”

The
DoD
review
is
taking
place
in
two
parts:
first
looking
at
contracts
let
under
the
General
Services
Administration
vehicle,
then
other
types
of
contracts.
Component
heads
have
until
March
19
to
submit
to
the
results
of
the
first
review
and
until
April
19
for
the
second.

The
memo
doesn’t
define
“consulting
services,”
so
it
is
unclear
what
exactly
will
fall
under
the
review
and
how
much
money
is
currently
being
spent
on
these
types
of
contracts.

However,
according
to

a
2023
report
by
the
Government
Accountability
Office,
DoD
spent
between
$184
billion
to
$226
billion
from
2017
to
2022
on
all
types
of
“service
contracts,”
including
administrative
and
technical
support.
That
said,
the
report
noted
that
data
is
hard
to
collect
as
the
various
offices
within
the
DoD
do
not
use
the
same
criteria
to
keep
track
of
such
spending.

Morani
explains
that
if
certain
consultancy
contracts
are
found
to
be
“essential,”
then
a
“short
justification”
including
a
validation
of
the
requirement
by
“a
General
Officer/Senior
Executive
Service
member”
should
be
provided.

The
memo
comes
against
the
backdrop
of
Hegseth

ordering
Pentagon
leaders
to
redirect
roughly
$50
billion
planned
for
the
fiscal
2026
budget
request
towards
a
set
of
priorities
that
better
align
with
Trump’s
goals
for
the
department,
as
well
as
the
arrival
of
Elon
Musk’s
DOGE
team
at
the
Pentagon.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Amy
Bowen
and
Elise
Buie
back
to
our
pages.
Click


here

if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.

Raising
children
isn’t
easy.
There,
I
said
it,
so
you
don’t
have
to.
I
raised
four,

who
I
also
homeschooled
for
10
years.
When
my
divorce
sent
me
back
to
work
and
my
kids
back
to
brick-and-mortar
schools,
college
tuition
payments
looming
large,
I
started
my
own
family
law
practice
from
scratch
in
a
new
city,
far
from
home,
where
I
pretty
much
knew
nobody. 

My
natural
ability
to
network,
coupled
with
becoming
the
sole
breadwinner
for
my
family,
translated
into
many
long
days
(and
nights).
I
started
getting
referral
after
referral
and
quickly
became
the
“it”
girl
for
guardian
ad
litem
work.
I
was
able
to
pay
for
my
first
child’s
college
education
and
the
ones
that
followed
as
those
referrals
became
the
foundation
upon
which
I
built
my
family
law
and
estate
planning
practices.
But
wow,
did
I
work
a
lot!

I
was
used
to
it,
though.
The
memories
of
working
in
person
for
a
law
firm
during
my
early
days
as
a
young
lawyer,
racking
up
the
billable
hours,
were
never
far
from
my
mind.
It
was
all
I
knew.

Decades
later,
I
realized
that
many
traditional
practices
in
law
—
working
in
person
during
“normal”
business
hours
and
expecting
women
to
manage
both
professional
and
household
responsibilities
without
adequate
support
—
were
not
just
impractical.
They,
for
lack
of
a
better
word
and
because
I
like
it,
sucked.     

I’ve
tried
many
approaches
to
buck
the
system,
each
with
varying
degrees
of
success.
My
greatest
achievements
so
far?
Building
a

fully
remote
law
firm,
implementing

Eve
Rodsky’s
Fair
Play
model
at
home,
teaching
others
to
do
the
same
in
their
households,
and
most
recently,
rolling
out
flat-fee
billing.
We
introduced
it
earlier
this
year
for
relationship
agreements
and
estate
planning,
marking
an
exciting
milestone
in
our
evolution.

Since
things
are
going
well,
we
plan
to
continue
adding
more
services
at
flat
fees
next
year
—
and
the
year
after,
if
needed.
I
genuinely
believe
in
the
power
of
flat-fee
pricing
to
improve
how
we
approach
work-life
balance.
Personally,
though,
I
prefer
the
term
“life-work
integration,”
with
an
emphasis
on
the
life
part,
something
many
lawyer-moms
struggle
to
achieve.
Here’s
how
flat
fees
can
help.

Flat
Fees
Lower
Administrative
Costs  

It’s
a
basic
concept,
but
one
that
should
still
be
discussed
and
emphasized
due
to
its
importance.
Flat-fee
billing
lowers
administrative
costs
—
from
the
lawyer
to
the
bookkeeper. 

With
flat-fee
billing
in
place
and
calibrated
to
the
point
that
we
are
confident
it’s
accurately
reflecting
the
work
we’re
doing,
lawyers
won’t
have
to
calculate
how
much
time
they’re
spending
on
even
the
most
minute
tasks,
such
as
reading
and
answering
quick
emails.
As
we
all
know,
those
time
expenditures
can
eat
away
at
the
day,
chipping
into
the
time
we
could
otherwise
take
advantage
of
for
strategy
and
casework. 

The
same
holds
for
the
administrative
staff
in
our
offices,
whose
organization
talents
we
could
otherwise
apply
to
on-demand
projects
leading
to
the
firm’s
growth,
for
example.
That
is,
if
they
weren’t
so
focused
on
creating
and
sending
out
invoices. 

We
are
still
tracking
it
for
everything
during
this
experimental
phase,
but
so
far
so
great.Bottom
line:
The
reduced
time
and
financial
resources
offered
by
flat-fee
billing
allow
law
firms
to
reallocate
these
valuable
assets
to
more
meaningful
areas,
enhancing
the
efficiency
of
operations.

Flat
Fees
Promote
Conflict
Resolution

In
the
traditional
hourly
billing
structure,
lawyers
are
rewarded
for
the
hours
they
bill
and
penalized
(even
fired)
if
they
fail
to
meet
their
firm’s
yearly
billable
hour
goal.
This
goal
is
arbitrary
and
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
quality
of
work
done
by
an
attorney.
Therefore,
the
quick
resolution
of
cases
is
not
the
obvious
path
to
success
for
attorneys
confined
to
this
method. 

With
flat
fees,
however,
attorneys
are
rewarded
according
to
how
many
matters
they
close,
incentivizing
them
to
seek
conflict
resolution
on
behalf
of
their
clients.
Conflict
resolution
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving,
especially
in
family
law,
where
amicable
relationships
between
spouses
continue
to
help
exes
and
co-parents
relate
long
after
they
sign
their
divorce
decree. 

But
should
court
become
the
only
viable
solution,
rest
assured,
there’s
a
flat
fee
for
that
as
well.
We
all
know
court
appearances
don’t
come
cheap,
and
with
flat-fee
billing,
the
client
will
understand
the
cost
of
those
services
upfront. 

This
knowledge
continues
to
incentivize
both
client
and
attorney
to
do
what
they
came
to
do:
the
client
because
they
likely
won’t
want
to
keep
incurring
court
costs,
and
the
attorney
who,
if
they
don’t
achieve
resolution,
will
have
already
received
a
flat
fee
for
that
segment
of
the
case
and
likely
will
not
receive
any
further
payment
until
the
case
progresses.
In
this
way,
conflict
resolution
frees
up
time,
whether
for
another
matter
or
to
spend
time
doing
something
else

besides
working. 

Flat
Fees
Encourage
Attorneys
And
Clients
To
Invest
In
Their
Future

In
a
traditional
hourly
billing
model,
clients
are
discouraged
from
asking
their
lawyer
questions
for
fear
of
the
clock
ticking.
Every
question
comes
with
a
hefty
price
tag
in
the
client’s
mind.
Not
asking
questions,
alternatively,
leaves
clients
confused
and
insecure.

Clients
who
communicate
with
their
lawyer
despite
hourly
billing
about
every
thought
they
have
as
it
pops
into
their
heads
present
different
challenges.
The
first
is
clients
receiving
a
large
bill
they
weren’t
expecting
in
their
inbox,
which
they
then
vent
about
to
the
lawyer
and
anyone
else
who
will
listen.
The
second
is
the
time
lawyers
must
spend
addressing
frequent
emails
and
phone
calls,
emails
and
phone
calls
that
could
be
answered
if
the
clients
had
access
to
the
right
resources
and
were
educated
about
the
issues
being
addressed
in
their
cases.
Both
scenarios
drain
lawyers
and
their
clients
of
money,
time,
and
energy.

Recognizing
this,
I
am
developing
a
“university”
for
my
clients
to
access
at
their
leisure,
which
will
coordinate
well
with
our
flat-fee
billing
system.
In
addition
to
our
already
plentiful
educational
resources
—
our
website
blog,
on-brand
client-facing
articles
we
pitch
for
publication
to
outside
platforms,
ebooks,
videos,
and
webinars
—
we
are
creating
modules
from
which
clients
can
learn
about
the
issues
most
relevant
to
their
cases. 

Of
course,
we
will
continue
to
be
available
to
communicate
with
our
clients
personally,
but
many
of
our
clients’
most
pressing
questions
can
be
answered
with
the
click
of
a
mouse
24
hours
a
day,
seven
days
a
week.
Win!
Everyone
gets
back
time,
money,
and,
hopefully,
some
sanity.
It’s
no
secret
that
family
law
matters
can
be
stressful
for
everyone
involved
if
we
allow
them
to
be.

Flat
Fees
Redefine
Success

In
contrast
to
hourly
billing
models,
where
every
moment
invested
in
a
case
is
meticulously
recorded
and
judged
for
its
contribution
to
an
arbitrary
billing
quota,
flat
fees
can
redefine
what
success
looks
like
for
attorneys
and,
by
extension,
their
clients. 

Instead
of
being
rewarded
for
accumulating
billable
hours,
a
flat-fee
billing
model
prioritizes
efficiently
resolving
cases
while
meeting
clients’
objectives.
This
shift
aligns
with
the
interests
of
lawyers
and
clients
alike,
encouraging
both
to
work
proactively
to
prevent
issues
from
escalating.
This
approach
maximizes
time
and
fosters
a
life-work
balance
that
prioritizes
the
health
and
well-being
of
all
involved,
especially
those
kiddos
—
young
and
old(er),
children
of
lawyers,
and
children
of
divorce
clients
—
who
just
need
their
moms
to
be
moms.

Final
Thoughts
…

The
advantages
of
flat-fee
billing
in
legal
practice
extend
beyond
mere
cost
transparency.
This
is
particularly
so
for
law
moms
juggling
the
demands
of
raising
children
while
being

fully
present
with
a
spouse
or
partner
or
those
parenting
solo. 

Whatever
the
situation,
flat-fee
billing
can
offer
law
moms
like
you
and
me
the
most
strategic
benefit
of
all:
time.
Time
for
work,
time
for
family,
and,
most
importantly,
time
for
us
to
remember
why
we
chose
the
lives
we
did
—
and
the
opportunity
to
say
without
faltering
that
we’d
choose
them
again.  

---

Stacey
Freeman
contributed
to
the
writing
of
this
article. 

Elise
Buie
is
a
Seattle
divorce
and
family
lawyer
and
founder
of


Elise
Buie
Family
Law
Group,
a
law
firm
devoted
to
divorce
and
family
law
and
estate
planning​.
A
champion
for
maintaining
civility
throughout
the
divorce
process,
Elise
advocates
for
her
clients
and
the
best
interests
of
their
children,
helping
them
move
forward
with
dignity
and
from
a
position
of
strength.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
think
that
the
creation
of
chaos
certainly
seems
intentional.
That
is
making
it
very
hard
for
everyone
to
catch
their
breath
and
figure
out
the
actual
implications
of
any
one
set
of
materials.

Now
is
the
time
for
schools
to
work
with
legal
counsel
and
other
stakeholders
to
make
reasoned
decisions
about
which
programs
are
potentially
violations
of
the
new
policies.
There
is
still
time
to
engage
in
those
conversations
with
legal
counsel
and
make
measured
decisions.

—
 Kayleigh
Baker,
an
attorney
and
senior
consultant
with
TNG
Consulting,
a
member
of
the
advisory
board
for
the
Association
of
Title
IX
Administrators,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com,
on
the
“Dear
Colleague”
letter
issued
by
the
Department
of
Education
that
is
making
institutes
of
higher
education
rush
to
scrub
any
evidence
of
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
(DEI)
programs
and
policies
from
their
websites.


Unfortunately,
many
law
schools
have

already
taken
such
actions.

---

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.

Wannabe
Gestapo
“Eagle”
Ed
Martin
is
making
a
name
for
himself
with
the
DOGE
Führer.

The
acting
head
of
the
US
Attorney’s
Office
in
DC
has
informed
the
president’s
biggest
donor
that

he
will
hunt
down
anyone
who
behaved
illegally
or
even
unethically
and
“chase
them
to
the
end
of
the
Earth.”

“Noone
is
above
the
law,”
he
preened
in
illiterate
ecstasy.

It’s
a
bizarre
flex
for
a
prosecutor
who
just

dismissed
a
case
against
his
“former”
client
—
although
he’d
failed
to
withdraw
his
appearance.
Presumably
Martin
will
not
be
chasing
himself
to
the
“end
of
the
Earth”
for
ethical
lapses.

But
Martin
isn’t
just
swearing
fealty
to
Musk
“via
X
only.”
He’s
also
threatening
Democratic
politicians
for
speech
he
doesn’t
like.

Here
he
is
shitposting
at
Rep.
Robert
Garcia
because
the
California
Congressman
had
the
temerity
to
say
on
TV
that
Americans
want
Democrats
to
“bring
actual
weapons
to
a
bar
fight.”

“This
sounds
to
some
like
a
threat
to
Mr.
Musk
–
an
appointed
representative
of
President
Donald
Trump
who
you
call
a
‘dick’
–
and
government
staff
who
work
for
him,”
Martin
blustered.
“Their
concerns
have
led
to
this
inquiry.”

(Private
prison
owners
must
be
salivating
at
the
prospect
of
arresting
everyone
who
calls
Elon
Musk
a
dick.)

Martin,
who
attended
the
protest
at
the
Capitol
on
January
6,
has
a
long
history
of

confusion
about
actual
threats.

At
2:57pm
on
January
6,
rioters
were
inside
both
chambers
of
Congress,
the
members
had
all
been
evacuated,
Ashli
Babbit
had
just
been
shot,
Vice
President
Pence
was
in
hiding,
and
the
crowd
was
demanding
that
police
hand
over
then-Speaker
Nancy
Pelosi.

But
Martin
wasn’t
done.
According
to
the
Washington
Post,
he’s
just
launched

Operation
Whirlwind,
so
named
for
an

ill-advised
comment
by
Senate
Minority
Leader
Chuck
Schumer
in
2020
warning
Justices
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
that
“You
have
released
the
whirlwind
and
you
will
pay
the
price.
You
won’t
know
what
hit
you
if
you
go
forward
with
these
awful
decisions.”

Schumer
immediately
apologized
and
insisted
that
he
had
not
been
threatening
the
justices.
And
Trump
says
ten
menacing
things
online
before
breakfast.
Nonetheless,
Martin

sent
a
letter
to
Senator
Schumer
demanding
that
he
explain
himself,
and
then
followed
up
with
a
missive
to
all
staff
promising
to
“protect
DOGE.”

Surely
they’ll
get
right
on
that
after
they
get
through
investigating
their
own
colleagues
for
prosecuting
January
6
rioters.

The
staff
may
be
feeling
extra
anxious
this
week,
since
the
departure
of
Denise
Cheung,
a
24-year
DOJ
veteran
who
until
Tuesday
served
as head
of
the
criminal
division
at
the
DC
US
Attorney’s
Office.
Cheung
quit
rather
than
order
Citibank
to
freeze
$20
billion
of
EPA
funds
disbursed
during
the
Biden
administration
based
on
a
bullshit
demand
from
Emil
Bove
that
she
dummy
up
a
pretextual
criminal
investigation.

The
issue
appears
to
have
something
to
do
with
a

claim
by
EPA
administrator
Lee
Zeldin
that
the
Biden
administration
parked
$20
billion
of
gold
bars
with
a
“Stacey
Abrams’
Connected
Group.”

But
Cheung
was
not
convinced
that
there
was
probable
cause
to
seize
the
funds.

“When
I
explained
that
the
quantum
of
evidence
did
not
support
that
action,
you
stated
that
you
believed
that
there
was
sufficient
evidence,”
she
wrote
in
a
letter
obtained
by

Politico.
“I
still
do
not
believe
that
there
is
sufficient
evidence
to
issue
the
letter
you
described.”

All
of
this
may
look
to
an
outside
observer
like
an
office
careening
into
chaos
under
a
lawyer
with
all
the
understanding
of
the
First
Amendment
as
a
member
of
the
Schutzstaffel.
But
apparently
it’s
exactly
what
the
president
ordered,
since
he’s
now
nominated
Martin
to
head
the
office
permanently.

Earlier: Turning
Over
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
To
Conspiracy
Theorist
Working
Out
As
Expected

---

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

While
law
firms
struggle
to

keep
a
lid
on
AI
security
threats
and
otherwise

control
lawyers
using
AI
out
of
turn,
Linklaters
has
a
forward-thinking
solution
that
more
firms
should
embrace.

As
RollOnFriday
notes,
Linklaters
puts
its
prospective
robot
lawyers
through
a
UK
law
exam
of
their
own
design,
crafting
50
questions
from
10
different
practice
areas
geared
toward
a
“competent
mid-level
lawyer
specialised
in
that
practice
area”
and
asked
the
AI
to
hash
it
out.

It’s
the
Baby
Bar
for
robots.
So,
like,
a
Nano
Bar?
Whatever
it
is,
it’s

working
better
than
the
California
Bar.

It’s
not
like
Linklaters
is
alone
on
this.
Tech
professionals
across
Biglaw
perform
tests
like
these
all
the
time.
The
distinction
is
that
Linklaters
is
doing
this
out
in
the
open.
And
senior
lawyers
graded
the
responses
for
substance,
introducing
important
stakeholders
to
the
AI
evaluation
process
that
can
get
overlooked
when
tools
are
considered
exclusively
by
IT
teams
and
firm
tech
committees.
Which
isn’t
a
knock
on
the
conscientious
approach
firm
staff
and
tech-savvy
attorneys
bring
to
these
decisions
but…
sometimes
you
need
to
take
these
issues
outside
the
nerd
circle.

The
good
news
for
firms
is
that
AI
is
getting
better:

Linklaters
noted
there
was
a
“significant
improvement”
in
the
results
when
compared
with
tests
it
ran
in
October
2023.
The
firm
said
that
the
AI
models
are
starting
to
perform
at
a
level
where
they
should
be
able
to
assist
in
legal
research,
such
as
providing
a
first
draft
or
“as
a
cross-check
on
an
existing
answer,”
and
could
also
be
useful
“for
tasks
that
involve
summarising
relatively
well-known
areas
of
law”.
 

OpenAI
delivered
the
best-performing
AI
model
on
the
Linklaters
test.
That
said,
the
tool
only
scored
6.4
out
of
10
and
bet-the-company
lawyering
doesn’t
grade
on
a
curve.
The
report
doesn’t
provide
Grok’s
score,
but
based
on

its
stated
approach
to
legal
reasoning,
we’re
guessing
it
made
OpenAI
look
like
William
Blackstone
crawled
out
of
the
grave
for
a
spot
of
tea
and
a
run
at
some
contracts.

But
putting
AI
through
the
wringer
in
such
a
public
way
signals
to
lawyers
that
the
firm
both
sees
potential
in
AI
while
still
making
the
clear
case
to
everyone
that
AI
isn’t
ready
for
prime
time.

This
approach
should
push
back
against
the
“shadow
AI
economy”
problem
Hill
Dickinson
recently
addressed.
When
firms
downplay
or
outright
shun
AI,
unruly
lawyers
are
going
to
start
experimenting
with
AI
tools
on
their
own.
And
that’s
how
you
end
up
with
confidential
client
data
being
uploaded
to
random
servers
in
hostile
countries.
Transparency
keeps
everyone
on
the
same
page
when
it
comes
to
when
and
where
AI
fits
into
a
modern
legal
practice.

Linklaters
makes
AI
sit
law
exams
[RollOnFriday]

---

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.