Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Equilar’s
2024 General
Counsel
Pay
Trends report,
by
how
much
has
General
Counsel
compensation
increased
since
2019?

Hint:
The
median
total
compensation
for
General
Counsel
now
sits
at
$3.3
million.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I’ve
been
very
clear—I
think
we
should
eliminate
the
filibuster
for

Roe.
Fifty-one
votes
would
be
what
we
need
to
actually
put
back
in
the
law—the
protections
for
reproductive
freedom
and
for
the
ability
of
every
person
and
every
woman
to
make
decisions
about
their
own
body
and
not
have
their
government
tell
them
what
to
do.

—
Democratic
presidential
candidate

Kamala
Harris,
in
comments
given
during
an

interview
with
Wisconsin
Public
Radio,
on
her
hopes
to
eliminate
the
Senate
filibuster
to
restore
reproductive
freedom
in
the
United
States.
Without
the
filibuster,
the
Senate
would
be
able
to
pass
some
legislation
with
a
majority
vote,
rather
than
having
to
overcome
a
60-vote
threshold.

---

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

In
2015,
tech
twerp
Joshua
Browder
founded
his
company
DoNotPay.com
from
his
dorm
room
at
Stanford.
The
story,
perhaps
apocryphal,
was
that
he
got
so
many
parking
tickets
that
he
invented
a
chatbot
to
scour
local
ordinances
and
interface
with
municipal
authorities.

“I
couldn’t
afford
to
pay
these
tickets
as
a
young
person,
so
I
became
a
legal
expert
about
all
the
reasons
why
people
could
get
out
of
parking
tickets,”

said
the
son
of
hedge
fund
manager
Bill
Browder.

In
short
order,
young
Josh
was
induced
to
drop
out
of
college
and
join
Peter
Thiel’s

brotherhood
of
very
special
boys
to
whom
the
rules
do
not
apply.
Soon
he
was
swimming
in
vats
of
VC
cash
from
the
likes
of

Andreessen
Horowitz
and
Coatue
Management.
The
pressure
was
on
to
come
up
with
the
next
big
thing
and
prove
them
all
right.
And
what
he
came
up
with
was
an
AI
chatbot
that
he
dubbed
“the
world’s
first
robot
lawyer.”

“Lawyers
are
charging
hundreds
of
dollars
an
hour
for
copying
and
pasting
a
few
documents,
and
our
vision
at
DoNotPay
is
to
make
the
law
free,”
the
website
said,
promising
glibly
to
generate
demand
letters,
defamation
C&Ds,
divorce
settlements,
restraining
orders,
trusts,
and
even
lawsuits
in
small
claims
court.
Browder’s
company
DoNotPay
charged
a
monthly
subscription
to
access
his
stable
of
bots,
and,
to
gin
up
publicity,
he
tweeted
that
he’d
pay
an
attorney
to
wear
an
earpiece
and
let
his
bot
argue
a
case
at
the
US
Supreme
Court.

This
was
perhaps
a
strategic
error,
since
it
simultaneously
attracted
the
attention
of
every
lawyer
on
social
media
and
highlighted
Browder’s
complete
lack
of
understanding
of
LAW,
HOW
DOES
IT
GO?
It
also
implied
that
the
young
CEO
was
getting
high
on
his
own
supply,
as
it
were,
and
failing
to
consult
any
actual
lawyers.
(Spoiler
Alert!)

Browder
soon

beat
a
hasty
retreat,
vowing
that
he’d
try
to
refrain
from
practicing
law
without
a
license,
and
congratulating
himself
for
being
so
good
at
this
whole
CEO
thing
that
he
knew
when
to
course
correct.

But
while
the
internet
mostly
got
bored
and
wandered
off,
the
Federal
Trade
Commission
did
not.
And
this
morning
it

announced
a
settlement
with
DoNotPay,
wherein
Browder
agreed
that
his
company
would
cough
up
$193,000
and
promise
to
go
forth
and
sin
no
more.
Looks
like
they
DO
pay
after
all!

As
with
everything
involving
Josh
Browder,
the
FTC complaint
is
hilarious.

And
while
the
company
was
making
grandiose
representations
about
the
quality
of
its
product,
DoNotPay
consulted
zero
attorneys
who
could
have
told
it
that
the
documents
its
bots
were
spitting
out
were
drek.

DoNotPay
did
not
test
whether
the
Service’s
law-related
features
operated
like
a
human
lawyer.
DoNotPay
has
developed
the
Service
based
on
technologies
that
included
a
natural
language
processing
model
for
recognizing
statistical
relationships
between
words,
chatbot
software
for
conversing
with
users,
and
an
Application
Programming
Interface
(“API”)
with
OpenAI’s
ChatGPT.
None
of
the
Service’s
technologies
has
been
trained
on
a
comprehensive
and
current
corpus
of
federal
and
state
laws,
regulations,
and
judicial
decisions
or
on
the
application
of
those
laws
to
fact
patterns.
DoNotPay
employees
have
not
tested
the
quality
and
accuracy
of
the
legal
documents
and
advice
generated
by
most
of
the
Service’s
law-related
features.
DoNotPay
has
not
employed
attorneys
and
has
not
retained
attorneys,
let
alone
attorneys
with
the
relevant
legal
expertise,
to
test
the
quality
and
accuracy
of
the
Service’s
law-related
features.

Better
late
than
never,
Browder
opted

not
to
use
a
bot
to
interface
with
the
FTC,
instead
hiring
counsel
from
Wilson
Sonsini,
which
also
represented
him
in
a

recently
settled
consumer
class
action
suit
in
California.

The
FTC
alleges
that
DoNotPay
made
false
claims
and
engaged
in
unfair
or
deceptive
acts
or
practices
in
violation
of
Section
5(a)
of
the
Federal
Trade
Commission
Act.
But
interestingly
FTC
Chair
Lina
Khan
and
Commissioner
Melissa
Holyoak
put
out
a

joint
statement
suggesting
that
Browder’s
real
sin
was
destroying
consumers’
belief
in
the
power
of
AI,
including
with
respect
to
generating
legal
documents.

For
consumers
to
benefit
from
AI
(as
with
any
technology),
they
must
be
able
to
trust
the
claims
that
companies
make
about
its
capabilities.
Importantly,
this
settlement
does
not
suggest
that
consumers
should
use
expensive
professional
services,
or
that
companies
should
avoid
offering
innovative
products
that
reduce
the
need
for
high-priced
lawyers.
The
misdeeds
of
a
few
bad
apples
shouldn’t
dampen
pro-consumer
innovation.
Indeed,
we
are
hopeful
that
AI
will
give
consumers
access
to
many
types
of
services
at
lower
cost
and
with
greater
convenience
than
has
previously
been
available.

As
ATL
editor
Joe
Patrice
has

pointed
out,
no
lawyer
is
going
to
take
a
traffic
court
case,
and
having
a
reliable
AI
tool
that
walks
normal
people
through
the
process
and
points
to
potential
defenses
is
a
net
positive.
Perhaps
Browder’s
sin
was
flying
too
close
to
the
sun.
Or
maybe
he’s
just
a
tech
douchebag
who
got
handed
a
mountain
of
cash
and
told
he
was
smarter
than
everyone
else
so
he
didn’t
need
to
follow
the
rules,
and
he
got
what
was
coming
to
him.

---

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

One
thing
is
certain
about
Biglaw
billable
rates
—
they’re

always
going
up.
Despite
that
maximum,
it’s
still
news
in
the
industry.
It
was

more
than
a
decade
ago
that
partner
billing
rates
first
hit
$1,000/hour,
but
it

wasn’t
much
longer
before
we

hit
the
$2K
mark.
Now,
according
to
data
from
Valeo
Partners,
we’ve
approached
the
$3,000/hr
line.

Thanks
to
the
disclosures
required
in
bankruptcy
fee
filings,

Law.com
was
already
able
to
suss
out
some
of
the
firms
nearing
the
$3K
threshold.

Valeo
Partners
declined
to
name
the
firms.
However,
some
recent
bankruptcy
fee
packages
reveal
some
firms
are
close
to
the
$3,000
mark
already.
Wilson
Sonsini
Goodrich
Rosati
billed
$2,720
an
hour
this
year
for
top
partners
in
the
Rite-Aid
bankruptcy.
McDermott
Will
&
Emery
was
charging
top
partners
out
at
$2,590
hourly
at
the
end
of
2023
in
the
Mountain
Express
Oil
Co.
bankruptcy.

Overall,
Valeo
Partners
estimates
that,
for
the
Am
Law
50,
senior
partners
billing
rates
will
average
$2,100
in
2024,
with
partners
averaging
$1,900/hour.

However,
sky-high
rates
for
the
tippy
top
of
the
Biglaw
food
chain
are
pretty
understandable.
But
that
isn’t
the
only
place
Biglaw
is
increasing
rates.
Third-year
associates…
yup,
those
only
three
years
removed
from
law
school…
are
being
billed
out
at
a
bunch
of
firms
at
over
a
cool
grand.

For
associates,
rate
increases
will
be
more
notable
among
third-years.
Currently,
16
of
the
Am
Law
50
firms
have
third-year
associates
with
rates
over
$1,000,
but
Valeo
projects
around
half
of
the
Am
Law
50
to
have
rates
of
over
$1,000
amongst
this
group
by
2025.

Billing
rates
for
first-year
associates
are
approaching
$1,000
at
a
handful
of
firms,
with
Paul,
Weiss,
Rifkind,
Wharton
&
Garrison
charging
a
minimum
of
$895
for
associates
in
2024,
bankruptcy
records
show.
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
charges
nearly
as
much—$850
hourly—for
first-years.

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
and
Paul
Weiss
also
have
among
the
top
rates
for
senior
associates,
with
associates
maxing
out
at
$1,575
at
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
and
$1,560
at
Paul
Weiss.

And
while
that
may
give
some
sticker
shock,
once

senior
associates
crossed
into
the
four-figure
billing
rates,
it
was
only
a
matter
of
time
for
junior
rates
to
hit
that
benchmark.
This
will,

seemingly
inevitably,
trigger
the
latest
round
of

complaints
over
the
high
cost
of
top-notch
legal
talent.
Of
course,
that
might
just
be
a
ruse
for
markdown,
since
in-house
counsels’
tolerance
for
big
bills
(from
the
right
lawyer)
only
seems
to
be
growing.

---

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].

Earlier
this
year,
a
disciplinary
committee
concluded
that
former
Trump
DOJ
flunky

Jeff
Clark
violated
ethics
rules,
bolstering
the
DC
Disciplinary
Counsel’s
effort
to
disbar
Clark
for
good.
Clark,
a
DOJ
environmental
lawyer,
tried
to
convince
Trump
to
appoint
him
Acting
Attorney
General
so
he
could
shoot
out
a
bunch
of
phony
voter
fraud
claims
under
official
letterhead
and
give
state
legislatures
cover
to
toss
their
election
results
and
bless
Trump
elector
slates.

This
effort
ran
aground
when
ACTUAL
GROWN
UP
LAWYER
Deputy
Attorney
General
Richard
Donoghue
infamously
told
Clark,
“You’re
an
environmental
lawyer.
How
about
you
go
back
to
your
office,
and
we’ll
call
you
when
there’s
an
oil
spill.”

Unsurprisingly,
his
actions
sparked
an
ethics
inquiry
that
he
tried
to
circumvent
by
claiming
that
DC
ethics
rules
just
don’t
apply
to
him.

The
court
was
not
sympathetic.

In
any
event,
Clark
is
using
this
liminal
zone
as
he
awaits
the
other
shoe
falling
in
his
disciplinary
case
to
offer
his
“expert”
opinion
about
Kamala
Harris’s
legal
career.

So
the
California
Attorney
General
and
the
California
Solicitor
General
are
two
different
jobs?
Checkmate
libs!

There
is
a
hint
of
personal
beef
driving
this
incredibly
stupid
mission:

I
note
that
I
find
it
an
insult
that
she
sat
in
judgment
on
the
second
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
vote
on
my
nomination
to
join
the
leadership
of
the
Justice
Department
in
early
2018
(she
voted
against
me,
but
I
still
got
out
of
Committee).

Chuck
Grassley
chaired
that
committee
and
didn’t
even
go
to
law
school
which
both
seems
like
much
more
of
a
professional
insult
and
helps
explain
why
he
voted
for
Clark’s
nomination.

By
the
way,
if
you’re
looking
for
a
free
lesson
in
bad
legal
research,
Clark
shows
his
work!

Eh?
A
transcript

might
have
been
entered
into
PACER.
Crackerjack
work.

There
aren’t
habeas
cases
that
go
into
blasting
the
trial
prosecutor
by
name?
That’s…
not
actually
weird.
If
anything,
it
speaks
well
of
how
she
handled
the
trial
phase
of
cases.

Someone
with
basic
legal
competence
pointed
out
how
completely
stupid
this
inquiry
was
and
Clark,
true
to
form,
doubled
down:

What
an
absolute
frigging
ding
dong.

Bailey
and
Kobach
argue

nonsensical
and

embarrassing
positions
that
even
this
Supreme
Court
routinely
kick
to
the
curb.
Maybe
not
the
best
models
for
this
effort.

And
DA
offices
certainly
argue
appeals,
but
they
have
whole
departments
dedicated
to
appeals.
Perhaps
this
is
why
Harris,
the
head
of
the
office,
wouldn’t
be
the
one
going
to
the
courthouse
for
oral
argument.

Now,
one
of
our
two
major
parties
has
nominated
Kamala
to
be
President.
She
wasn’t
qualified
to
sit
on
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
let
alone
be
Commander
in
Chief
or
Magistrate
in
Chief,
or
to
select
future
Supreme
Court
Justices
—
which
she
will
select
an
awful
lot
of
if
she
gets
elected
and
then
packs
the
Supreme
Court,
as
she
has
said
she
plans
to
do.

But,
like,
magistrate
in
chief
isn’t
a
job.
Notably
Donald
Trump
hasn’t
argued
an
appeal
either
—
though
he
has

given
an
ersatz
closing
argument
at
trial
—
so
I’m
curious
how
he
passes
Clark’s
imaginary
magistrate
in
chief
bar.

This
doesn’t
even
make
sense
as
some
sort
of
resume
GOTCHA
since
Harris
isn’t
campaigning
on
winning
appeals,
she’s
campaigning
on
running
successful
prosecutorial
offices.
Nothing
about
Clark’s
“Wikipedia
Brown
Junior
Detective”
nonsense
undermines
that.

So
she
didn’t
micromanage
one
of
the
biggest
legal
offices
in
the
country?
Cool
story.

Oh…
one
more
thing!

In
retrospect,
maybe
we
shouldn’t
call
this
guy
when
there’s
an
oil
spill
either.
How
about
you
go
back
to
your
office,
and
we’ll
call
you
when
there’s
a
final
sanction
decision
on
your
disciplinary
case.

---

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.

Last
week,
baseball
phenom
Shohei
Ohtani
became
the
first
major
league
player
to
start
the
“50-50
club”
by
hitting
50
home
runs
and
stealing
50
bases
in
a
single
season.
With
six
games
left
in
the
season,
he
is
likely
to
reach
55-55
and
maybe
even
60-60.

One
lucky
fan
in
Miami
caught
the
50th
home
run
ball
and
walked
away
with
it
even
though
he
had
the
opportunity
to
give
it
to
the
Dodgers.
No
one
yet
knows
whether
the
lucky
fan
will
keep
the
ball
or
sell
it.
It
could
be
worth
hundreds
of
thousands,
or
even
more
than
a
million
dollars.
With
these
numbers,
the
fan
will
need
to
see
a
tax
professional
because
that
ball
could
come
with
a
huge
tax
bill.

The
value
of
the
ball
will
have
to
be
reported
as
income
for
tax
purposes.
And
if
this
results
in
a
large
tax
bill,
the
fan
might
have
to
sell
the
ball
to
pay
the
taxes.
Also,
if
the
fan
lives
in
California,
he
will
have
to
pay
California
income
taxes
as
well.

The
IRS
is
likely
to
treat
the
ball
as
a
“collectible,”
meaning
that
it
will
be
taxed
at
a
flat
28%
rate.
The
tax
law
doesn’t
define
what
makes
an
item
collectible
but
it
lists
certain
items
such
as
a
work
of
art,
a
rug
or
antique,
any
metal
or
gem,
any
stamp
or
coin,
or
any
alcoholic
beverage.
But
the
law
allows
the
IRS
to
designate
any
tangible
property
as
a
collectible,
so
it
could
do
that
with
Ohtani’s
50-50
home
run
ball.

But
the
real
question
is
what
the
ball’s
value
is.
A
conservative
value
would
be
in
the
mid-six
figures.

Historic
home
run
balls
have
a
precedent
for
selling
for
huge
amounts
of
money.
Mark
McGwire’s
70th
home
run
ball
was

purchased
for
$3.2
million.
Aaron
Judge’s
62nd
home
run
ball
sold
at
auction
for

$1.25
million
although
the
owner
reportedly
turned
down
a
$3
million
offer.

But
Barry
Bonds’s
73rd
home
run
ball
sold
for
only
$450,000,
($517,500
with
commissions)
in
2003.
For
lawyers,
this
is
notable
because
two
people
who
claimed
to
have
caught
the
ball
took
the
matter
to
court.
The
judge
in
the
case
considered
arguments
from
older
property
cases
including
“precedent-setting
fox
hunting
cases”
(likely

Pierson
v.
Post).
The
judge
ultimately
ordered
the
parties
to
sell
the
ball
and
split
the
proceeds.

On
that
note,
it
would
be
hard
to
estimate
a
value.
The
50-50
accomplishment
gained
a
lot
of
attention
and
baseball
pundits
believe
that
this
accomplishment
may
not
be
repeated.
Also,
wealthy
baseball
fans
in
Japan
may
also
want
to
purchase
the
ball,
which
could
make
bidding
more
competitive.
But
as
of
September
25,
2024,
he
has
53
home
runs
and
55
stolen
bases.
Would
the
subsequent
home
run
balls
dilute
the
value
of
the
50-50
ball,
especially
if
Ohtani
gets
his
55th
home
run?

But
there
is
a
hard
number.
A

report
claiming
that
the
Dodgers
offered
the
fan
$300,000
for
the
home
run
ball.
While
many
online
claimed
that
this
number
is
a
lowball,
there
is
no
other
serious
offer.
So
this
could
represent
fair
market
value
and
this
amount
could
be
reported
for
income
tax
purposes.

The
IRS
has
not
issued
guidance
on
how
historic
home
run
balls
will
be
taxed.
The
closest
guidance
was
issued
through
a

nonbinding
notice
in
1998
where
the
agency
explained
the
tax
ramifications
for
home
run
balls
caught
and
then
immediately
returned.
It
stated
that
the
fan
in
these
circumstances
would
not
have
taxable
income
or
gift
tax
liability
because
it
is
equivalent
to
immediately
declining
the
prize
or
returning
unsolicited
merchandise.
The
tax
results
may
be
different
if
the
fan
decided
to
sell
the
ball.
The
IRS
commissioner
said
that
sometimes
the
tax
code
can
be
as
hard
to
understand
as
the
infield
fly
rule
and
that
the
fan
who
gives
back
the
home
run
ball
deserves
a
round
of
applause
and
not
a
big
tax
bill.

The
IRS
might
prefer
to
stay
silent
as
unfair
or
confusing
guidance
on
this
issue
can
draw
the
ire
of
legislators,
some
of
whom
would
love
another
reason
to
reduce
the
Internal
Revenue
Service’s
funding.
When
confronted
with
the
story
of
the
fan
facing
tax
bills
after
returning
Mark
McGwire’s
home
run
ball,
former
Senate
Finance
Committee
chairman
Bill
Roth
(R‑Del.)

complained
that
“the
fact
that
there
was
ever
even
the
possibility
of
Mark
McGwire’s
62nd
home
run
being
taxed
is
a
prime
example
of
what’s
wrong
with
our
tax
system.”
Also,
former
House
Minority
Leader
Dick
Gephardt

said
that
the
IRS
could
turn
a
once
in
a
lifetime
catch
into
a
once
in
a
lifetime
Catch-22.

The
value
of
the
50-50
home
run
ball
is
uncertain
until
the
end
of
the
regular
baseball
season.
But
it
might
be
large
enough
to
warrant
a
significant
tax
bill
for
the
lucky
fan
who
caught
it.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.