Author: TSA Press

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Seeing
that
growth
in
compensation
in
such
a
large
amount,
on
average,
shows
supply
and
demand
forces
in
the
market.
Associates
are
highly
sought
after
especially
in
the
upper
end
of
the
market.

There
have
been
some
really
key
events
that
have
fueled
that
fire,
more
than
we
have
traditionally
seen,
but
time
will
tell
on
the
sustainability
of
it.
It’s
driven
by
firms
pushing
to
remain
competitive
in
the
market.

—
 Nathan
Peart,
executive
director
of
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa’s
associate
practice
group,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
the
steep
rise
in
associate
compensation
over
the
course
of
the
last
few
years,
as
noted
in
the
recruiting
agency’s
latest
report.
In
New
York
City
in
particular,
which
is
described
as
a
“hotbed
for
associate
compensation
and
bonuses,”


average
total
associate
compensation
has
grown
by
nearly
$100,000
in
the
last
five
years.

---

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.

It’s
been
a
whirlwind
week
for
the
SCOTUSblog
co-founder:

arrested
on
Monday,

banished
to
federal
lockup
on
Tuesday,
and
now
free
on
Thursday.

Goldstein,
the
Supreme
Court
litigator
charged
with
a
number
of
tax
and
fraud
claims
stemming
from
an
alleged
second
life
as

a
high-stakes
poker
fiend,
will
resume
his
prior
scheduled
release
with
several
additional
caveats
covering
his
use
of
electronic
devices.
IPPC,
which
is
like
ExamSoft
but
for
proctoring
pretrial
defendants,
will
have
its
software
installed
on
his
devices
to
remotely
monitor
his
computer
activity.
He
will
also
have
to
report
all
cryptocurrency
wallets
he
“owns,
has
access
to,
and/or
controls”
including
“hard
wallets
and
soft
wallets”
(whether
it’s
stored
on
hardware
or
software
for
the
folks
unfamiliar
with
fake
money).

The
focus
on
cryptocurrency
is
the
story
of
Goldstein’s
week,
having
gone
to
jail
after
prosecutors
deemed
him
a
flight
risk
upon
discovering
some $8
million
in
crypto
and
transfers
involving
$6
million
of
it
all
while
he
was
pleading
poverty
as
a
pro
se
in
an
effort
to
convince
the
court
to
let
him
use
his
house
—
which
the
indictment
identifies
as
a
product
of
mortgage
fraud
—
to
hire
lawyers.

Now
represented
by
Munger
Tolles,
Goldstein
argued
that
those
wallets
didn’t
belong
to
him
and
the
government
couldn’t
prove
he
did
anything
but
send
money
to
them
in
the
past.
Emails
like
“tom
need
to
wire
USDC
to
me,
please
give
him
a
address,”
Goldstein
argued
do
not
establish
that
he
owned
the
wallets
involved
in
these
transactions
and,
if
anything,
proved
that
he
didn’t
because
—
basically
—
“If
Mr.
Goldstein
shared
ownership
of
the
wallet,
then
there
would
have
been
no
need
for
the
individual
requesting
the
payment
to
instruct
[REDACTED]
to
‘give’
Mr.
Goldstein
‘a
address’
to
send
the
payment.”

That
proved
enough
for
Chief
Magistrate
Judge
Timothy
Sullivan
to
grant
Goldstein’s
release
with
assurances
that
no
one
would
be
blindsided
by
additional
crypto
transactions.
It
goes
without
saying
that
the
revised
order
includes
an
edict
that
the
defendant
not
“access,
receive,
send,
and/or
transfer
any
cryptocurrencies.”

But,
for
now,
Goldstein
will
have
to
put
off
any
nascent
jailhouse
lawyer
aspirations.

---

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.

The
questionable Department
of
Government
Efficiency
(DOGE)
got
a
ton
of
flack
in
the
early
days
(okay,
it
was
like
a
week
and
a
half
ago,
but
time
is
not
timing
right
now)
for

putting
some

sketchy
kids
in
charge.
But

reporting
from
Pro
Publica
reveals
it’s
not
just
edgelords
at
DOGE,
the
pseudo-agency
has
also
onboarded
some
attorneys
with
a
Biglaw
pedigree.

It’s

unsurprising
to
learn
that
a
former
Jones
Day
partner
is
among
those
brought
into
the
DOGE
fold.
Pro
Publica
reports
James
Burnham
is
now
general
counsel
at
DOGE.
Burnham
worked
in
the
White
House
Counsel’s
office
in
the
Trump
I
administration,
brought
there
by
another
former
Jones
Day
partner,

Don
McGahn.
The
University
of
Chicago
Law
alum
also
has
some
prestigious
clerkships
on
his
resume
—
clerking
for Justice
Neil
Gorsuch
and

disgraced
former
Ninth
Circuit
Judge
Alex
Kozinski.
Most

recently,
he
launch
a
litigation
finance
fund
and
a
boutique
law
firm.

Keenan
Kmiec
is
another
attorney
tapped
by
DOGE.
He
has
clerkships
on
his
resume
(for then-Judge
Samuel
Alito
on
the
federal
circuit
court
before
going
on
to
his
own
SCOTUS
clerkship
with
John
Roberts),
as
well
as
a
stint
in
Biglaw
(reportedly
at
Sidley),
before
making
a
tech
bro
turn.

In
2021,
Kmiec
began
working
for
a
Swiss
foundation
that
promotes
a
blockchain
called
Tezos,
according
to
his
LinkedIn.
He
then
served
for
nine
months
as
CEO
of
a now-defunct
startup called
InterPop,
which
described
itself
as
“forging
the
future
of
digital
fandom
with
comic,
game,
and
collectible
NFTs
minted
responsibly
on
the
Tezos
blockchain.”
A
former
staffer
at
InterPop
described
the
company
in
an
interview
as
a
refinement
of
the
Magic:
The
Gathering
card
game.
But
the
former
staffer
added,
“We
ran
out
of
money
and
the
game
failed.”

DOGE’s

penchant
for
employees
unburdened
by
a
ton
of
real
world
experience
also
continues
in
their
attorney
hires.
Jacob
Altik
graduated
from
the
University
of
Michigan
Law
School
in
2021.
He
clerked
for

the
far-right
D.C.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
Judge
Neomi
Rao,
spent
a
year
and
change
at
Weil
Gotshal,
and
is
*supposed*
to
start
his
Supreme
Court
clerkship
with
Neil
Gorsuch
this
summer.
Perhaps
he’ll
tire
of
cutting
essential
government
funding
by
then.

---

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].

William
&
Mary
Law
School
just
made
a
pretty
big
mistake
when
it
comes
to
admissions
for
its
incoming
class
of
law
students.
Earlier
this
week,
more
than
400
people
who
had
applied
to
W&M
received
the
exciting
news
that
they’d
been
accepted
to
the
Top
50
law
school.
Unfortunately
the
excitement
didn’t
last
too
long,
because
all
of
those
acceptance
letters
were
apparently
sent
in
error.

According
to

WTKR
News
3,
incorrect
acceptance
letters
were
sent
to
410
applicants
due
to
a
“technical
issue.”
Thankfully,
the
mistake
was
caught
quickly,
and
according
to

Issa
DiSciullo,
associate
dean
for
J.D.
Admissions
and
Financial
Aid,
those
applicants
were
informed
“within
minutes”
as
to
their
actual
status
with
the
school.

DiSciullo
offered
the
following
statement
on
the
situation,
which
must
have
been
devastating
for
some
who
received
the
erroneous
acceptances:

“William
&
Mary
Law
School
deeply
values
every
applicant
and
understands
the
significant
effort
and
anticipation
that
goes
into
the
admissions
process,”
DiSciullo
said.
“We
recognize
the
emotional
impact
of
such
an
error,
and
we
are
taking
immediate
steps
to
prevent
it
from
happening
again.”

The
law
school
says
that
is
working
to
ensure
“greater
accuracy”
in
all
of
its
communications
to
applicants.

William
&
Mary
Law
may
deeply
regret
this
mistake,
but
that
doesn’t
do
much
for
those
whose
law
school
dreams
were
dashed.
For
those
still
awaiting
law
school
admissions
news,
we
hope
that
all
of
your
acceptances
are


real.

---

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.

Generally
speaking,
“the
kids
are
all
right.”
Older
generations
consistently
bitch
and
moan
about
young
people
making
the
exact
same
mistakes
the
rapidly
fossilizing
pretend
they
never
made,
but
in
the
end,
the
next
crop
turns
out
fine.
Gen
Z
may
actually
be
breaking
that
proud
tradition.
Or
at
least
some
representatives
of
the
latest
generation
to
enter
the
workforce
are
ruining
the
reputation
of
the
whole
cohort.

Consider
this
Reddit
post
over
at
r/Biglaw
that
takes
insubordination
to
a
level
that
would
make
Eric
Cartman
seem
like
a
model
employee.

What
in
the
Bartleby
is
this
nonsense?
That’s
not
even
defiance.
That’s
performance
art.

Like
a
splinter
in
your
brain,
you
will
never
know
rest
as
you
forever
contemplate
what
this
junior
thinks
their
job
actually
entails.
Inserting
edits
is
the
junior
associate
job
description

par
excellence.
It’s
the
only
thing
standing
between
a
first-year
and
total
obsolescence.
Can
we
get
a
look
at
these
timesheets?
How
is
this
lawyer
spending
the
day?

6.4
—
Nothing
but
stand
at
window
in
dead-wall
revery.

1.5
—
Workshop
memo
declining
next
assignment.

0.3
—
Click
“Mark
as
Unread”
on
email
that
requested
work.

How
did
we
get
here?
The
pandemic
robbed
these
young
lawyers
of
formative
years
of
professional
socialization.
Not
just
because
they
spent
some
of
college
Zooming
from
their
couches,
but
even
after
the
lockdown,
getting
firm
lawyers
to
physically
go
out
and
meet
students
almost
certainly
suffered.

Current
midlevels
and
seniors
might
have
lost
key
delegation
instincts
during
that
era,
choosing
to
do
simple
tasks
themselves
rather
than
hassle
with
distributing
work
over
teleconference.
This
first-year
might
—

might
—
simply
not
understand
the
concept
of
edits
being
handled
by
anyone
but
a
midlevel.

Or
they
might
just
be
tragically
spoiled
from
a
helicopter
upbringing.

Whatever
the
issue
in
this
situation,
this
story
seems
like
an
extreme
manifestation
of
a
trend
firms
have
shared
a
lot
lately:
young
lawyers
are
simply
behind
where
they
need
to
be
professionally.

As
one
might
imagine,
the
replies
have
thoughts:

If
it’s
transactional
work,
let’s
not
sleep
on
“Chief
counsel
for
DUBIOUSCOIN
($PONZI).”

The
AI
conversation
involves
a
lot
of
hype,
but
between
AI
and
AI-enabled
ALSPs,
the
rote,
brute
force
work
that
fills
the
day
of
a
junior
associate
is

disappearing
fast.
The
number
one
priority
of
a
junior
associate
in
2025
has
to
be
demonstrating
indispensability.
Everyone
with
authority
over
your
job
—
or,
even
more
importantly,
with
input
valued
by
those
with
authority
—
needs
to
be
impressed
at
all
times.
Biglaw
as
an
industry
has
operated
as
a
pyramid
scheme
since
it
was
a
twinkle
in
Paul
Cravath’s
eye,
but
attrition
becomes
a
lot
more
professionally
existential
when
junior
lawyer
classes
shrink.

As
for
the
midlevel,
seeking
guidance
among
the
wisdom
of
crowds
is
a
good
start,
but
the
original
post
probably
should’ve
been
dumped
into
an
email
“To:
Senior
Partner,
Re:
Get
A
Load
Of
This.”

Channeling
Barack
Obama:
yes
you
can!
“Do
it
or
you
won’t
last
long”
might
be
too
harsh,
but
as
a
supervisor
you
definitely
have
the
right
if
not
the
obligation
to
say,
“hey,
yeah,
this
is
not
a
request
and
you
probably
should
exorcise
‘you
do
that’
from
your
‘asshole-to-senior’
vocabulary.”

Honestly,
this
is
the
FIRST
thing
that
came
into
my
mind
when
I
read
the
post:

Thankfully,
some
more
conscientious
Redditors
offered
a
more
human
resources
appropriate
response
for
this
junior
who
has
dishonored
their
ancestors.

While
a
substantial
driver
of
the
return-to-office
push
is
just
a
bunch
of
partners
who
miss
being
surrounded
by
sycophantic
juniors
all
day,
there’s
definitely
something
to
be
said
for
soft
learning.
All
the
formal
training
in
the
world
can’t
replace
the
sheer,
soul-crushing
power
of
seeing
a
room
full
of
colleagues
giving
you

that
look
after
doing
something
uniquely
stupid.

But
midlevels
and
seniors
(and
partners)
also
need
in-person
interaction
to
learn
basic
management
skills.
While
Biglaw
firms
function
like
high-end
corporations,
the
workflow
is
managed
by
people
who
never
learn
to
manage.
Companies
elevate
employees
to
management
and
send
them
to
seminars
to
learn
how
to
effectively
lead
people.
Or
at
least
to
learn
corporate
buzzwords
that
simulate
leadership.
Lawyers
are
elevated
based
on
their
ability
as
lawyers
which
is
not
the
same
and
may
well
be
counterproductive
to
management.
Being
able
to
look
folks
in
the
eye
matters
because
exclusively
working
with
faceless
cogs
over
the
internet
doesn’t
build
teams.

In
the
meantime,
Gen
Z,
come
collect
your
stray.
We’d
send
them
back
ourselves,
but
apparently,
they

prefer
not
to
move.

---

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.

Let’s
face
it.
It
probably
does.
Control
is
an
illusion.
For
in-house
lawyers,
the
legal
landscape
has
always
been
unpredictable.
But
today,
that
unpredictability
feels
more
like
a
wildfire
—
spreading
rapidly,
jumping
across
boundaries,
and
consuming
everything
in
its
path.

Regulations
are
pulled,
economic
conditions
change,
and
business
expectations
shift
overnight.
It’s
easy
to
feel
overwhelmed. Yet,
here’s
the
truth:
there
is
absolutely
nothing
in
this
environment
we
can
control.
The
sooner
we
accept
that,
the
better
we
can
function
in
this
ever-changing
world.

Embrace
Uncertainty

In-house
lawyers
learned
to
embrace
uncertainty
the
hard
way
during
the
pandemic.
The
world
seemed
to
change
overnight
forcing
legal
teams
to
interpret
emergency
regulations
on
remote
work,
draft
workplace
safety
policies,
and
revise
existing
contracts
to
deal
with
supply
chain
disruptions.
What
was
acceptable
one
day
became
noncompliant
the
next. Now,
we
must
do
it
again.
And
again.
And
again.

The
key
is
not
to
fight
the
chaos,
but
to
learn
how
to
move
within
it.
When
you
embrace
the
reality
that
control
is
an
illusion,
you
stop
wasting
time
trying
to
manage
the
unmanageable.
Instead,
you
focus
on
what
really
matters:

• Guiding
  leadership
  through
  legal
  uncertainty with
  strategic
  thinking,
  rather
  than
  reactive
  decisions.
• Focusing
  on
  adaptability rather
  than
  rigid
  compliance
  measures
  that
  may
  soon
  be
  outdated.
• Building
  resilience by
  anticipating
  change
  instead
  of
  fearing
  it.

Pause,
Assess,
And
Act

When
chaos
erupts,
the
instinctive
response
is
often
emotional
and
reactive.
That
is
the
worst
thing
an
in-house
lawyer
can
do.
Instead,
take
a
breath.
Observe.
Listen.
Trust
—
but
verify.

During
the
pandemic,
many
companies
rushed
to
implement
emergency
policies
without
fully
considering
long-term
implications.
Those
who
paused
to
assess
the
full
legal
landscape
were
able
to:

• Gather
  critical
  information before
  making
  high-stakes
  decisions.
• Coordinate
  across
  departments to
  ensure
  alignment
  on
  legal,
  operational,
  and
  personnel
  considerations.
• Evaluate
  risk
  exposure rather
  than
  responding
  with
  short-term
  fixes.
• Communicate
  effectively so
  employees
  and
  leadership
  understood
  the
  reasoning
  behind
  decisions.

This
isn’t
about
being
passive.
It’s
about
being
intentional.
The
best
in-house
lawyers
know
when
to
act
decisively
and
when
to
wait.

Strategy
Over
Panic

Helping
your
company
build
a
strategy
in
an
uncertain
legal
environment
is
one
of
the
most
valuable
things
you
can
do.
That
means:

• Assessing
  risks as
  they
  evolve,
  rather
  than
  reacting
  to
  headlines.
• Understanding
  regulatory
  shifts and
  their
  impact
  on
  business
  objectives.
• Communicating
  legal
  realities in
  a
  way
  that
  decision-makers
  understand.
• Providing
  stability when
  leadership
  is
  overwhelmed
  by
  uncertainty.

It
also
means
making
the
tough
calls
when
necessary.
The
decisions
you
help
your
company
make
will
have
consequences
—
some
positive,
some
negative.
That’s
the
reality
of
business.

During
the
pandemic,
in-house
counsel
played
a
crucial
role
in:

• Balancing
  legal
  risk
  with
  business
  survival by
  guiding
  leadership
  on
  government
  relief
  programs,
  employee
  policies,
  and
  contractual
  obligations.
• Navigating
  liability
  concerns when
  reopening
  offices,
  ensuring
  compliance
  with
  evolving
  safety
  mandates.
• Mitigating
  workforce
  challenges by
  addressing
  furloughs,
  layoffs,
  and
  rehiring
  strategies
  in
  a
  legally
  sound
  way.

When
those
consequences
reveal
themselves,
your
role
isn’t
just
to
defend
the
decision
but
to
help
the
company
navigate
the
aftermath,
whether
that
means
mitigating
risks
or
leveraging
new
opportunities.

The
Mindset
Shift
That
Changes
Everything

Instead
of
seeing
uncertainty
as
a
threat,
think
of
it
as
an
opportunity. Companies
that
were
able
to
pivot
quickly
during
the
pandemic
—
whether
by
shifting
business
models,
restructuring
operations,
or
adapting
to
remote
work
—
were
the
ones
that
emerged
stronger.
The
same
applies
to
legal
teams.
Those
who
embraced
uncertainty
became
indispensable
to
their
organizations. To
cultivate
this
mindset:

• 
  Adopt
  a
  growth
  perspective.
  View
  uncertainty
  as
  a
  challenge
  to
  navigate,
  not
  a
  crisis
  to
  survive.
• 
  Stay
  informed,
  stay
  agile.
  Monitor
  regulatory
  trends
  and
  be
  ready
  to
  adjust
  as
  needed.
• 
  Strengthen
  internal
  relationships.
  Work
  closely
  with
  leadership,
  finance,
  HR,
  and
  operations
  to
  anticipate
  challenges
  before
  they
  become
  legal
  problems.

Why
You
Matter
Now
More
Than
Ever

In
moments
of
uncertainty,
companies
remember
why
they
have
in-house
counsel.
The
ability
to
provide
clarity
in
chaos,
strategy
in
uncertainty,
and
solutions
when
no
obvious
answers
exist
is
what
sets
great
in-house
lawyers
apart. This
is
what
we
do
every
day.
When
the
fire
feels
most
out
of
control,
the
in-house
lawyer
role
becomes
even
more
essential.

So,
if
your
professional
life
feels
like
a
raging
wildfire
—
let
it
burn.
You
don’t
have
to
control
it.
You
just
have
to
find
your
way
through
it.

---

Lisa
Lang
is
an
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
who
is
passionate
about
all
things
in-house. 
She
has
recently
launched
a
website
and
blog
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com
)
to
serve
as
a
resource
for
in-house
lawyers. 
You
can
e-mail
her
at




[email protected]


,
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn 
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/)
or
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@lang_lawyer).

As
Gibbons
approaches
its
100th
anniversary,
the
firm
stands
out
for
its
forward-thinking
and
intentional
approach
to
technology
and
innovation.

This
strategic
approach
to
technology
and
innovation
has
allowed
Gibbons
to
not
only
enhance
its
own
operations
but
also
deliver
exceptional
value
to
clients,
anticipating
their
needs
in
this
rapidly
evolving
legal
landscape.

In
this
white
paper,
our
friends
at
LexisNexis
share
the
firm’s
path
to
being
a
legal
leader
in
adopting
technology
in
service
of
its
clients,
along
with
the
results
it’s
seeing
from
these
efforts.

Welcome
back
again,
professor!
As
ridiculous
as
this
law
school
professor
censorship
saga
has
been,
it
is
a
much
better
beat
that
following
up
on
every
time
Amy
Wax
gets
in
trouble
for
saying
stuff
in
class
that
could
be
mistaken
for
Kanye
Twitter
rants.
But
even
good
things
must
come
to
an
end
—
another
judge
ordered
Prof.
Ken
Levy
of
LSU
Law
back
in
class.
Hopefully
this
will
be
the
last
time.

The
Advocate
has
coverage:

LSU
must
immediately
allow
law
professor
Ken
Levy
to
return
to
teaching,
and
it’s
barred
from
interfering
with
the
professor’s
employment
and
from
violating
his
free
speech
and
due
process
rights,
East
Baton
Rouge
Parish
District
Judge
Tarvald
Smith
ruled
Tuesday
night.
…
“Your
client
should
get
back
to
the
business
of
training
lawyers
and
let
professors
teach,
especially
those
that
are
tenured,”
Smith
told
LSU’s
attorneys
from
the
bench.

While
the
admonition
was
directed
at
LSU’s
attorneys,
LSU’s
president
William
Tate
IV
ought
heed
it
too.
As
it
turns
out,
he
was
the
one
who
ordered
the
suspension!
Getting
into
the
weeds
of
the
dispute
revealed
an
issue
that
turned
on
whether
Levy
was
forthright
with
Tate
on
what
he
said
in
class
and
if
that
specific
conversation
was
clearly
established
as
investigative.
If
Levy
gave
the
gist
of
what
he
said
during
what
he
thought
was
a
casual
conversation
whereas
Tate
wanted
a
verbatim
retelling
so
that
he
could
make
a
comparison
with
a
classroom
transcript,
the
two
were
having
radically
different
conversations
without
knowing
it.
If
that’s
really
what
happened,
this
sounds
like
more
of
an
administrative
squabble
than
the
“suspended
for
political
speech”
conflict
this
was
marketed
as,
but
I
have
a
possible
solution
that
could
clarify
the
problem
for
everyone
involved.

On
the
first
day
that
Levy
is
back
in
his
Administration
of
Criminal
Justice
course,
all
he
has
to
do
is
pose
a
hypothetical.
“Would
Trump
be
able
to
delegate
his
pardon
power
to
Elon
Musk?
Trump
might
have
four
more
years
left
in
his
term
but
we
all
know
that
he’s
really
a
sitting
duck
—
Elon
Musk
is
the
one
who’s
really
at
the
helm.
If
not,
who
would
be
there
to
stop
Trump
from
doing
it?
If
JD
Vance
and
company’s
attacks
on
judicial
review
pick
up
steam,
there
will
be
no
real
limits
on
how
expanding
Executive
authority
could
impact
criminal
justice
as
we
know
it.
Oh,
and
fuck
not
respecting
the
separation
of
powers
for
“criminal
justice’s
sake.”
There
you
have
it
—
a
political
question
for
his
students
that
is
pertinent
to
the
course
and
the
times,
a
question
framed
in
a
way
that
would
likely
piss
off
Republican
gunners
in
his
class
so
much
that
they
go
tattle,
a
script
to
make
sure
that
there’s
no
ambiguity
between
Levy
repeating
what
he
said
and
what
the
class
transcript
says,
and
a
little
F
bomb
to
boot!
If
he
gets
in
trouble

again
after
all
of
that,
then
we
can
squarely
say
that
backlash
was
over
his
political
statements.
Your
move,
Levy.

Judge
Orders
LSU
Professor
Back
Into
Classroom;
School
President
Says
He
Ordered
Suspension
[The
Advocate]

---

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
is
learning
to
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.

In
a
significant
ruling
for
legal
publishing
and
AI
development,
a
federal
judge
has
granted
partial
summary
judgment
to
Thomson
Reuters
in
its
long-running
copyright
infringement
lawsuit
against
ROSS
Intelligence,
finding
that
ROSS
infringed
on
Westlaw’s
copyrighted
headnotes
and
rejecting
ROSS’s
fair
use
defense.

The
ruling,
issued
today
by

3rd
U.S.
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals Judge
Stephanos
Bibas,
sitting
by
designation
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
in
Delaware,
found
that
ROSS
infringed
Thomson
Reuters’
copyrights
in
2,243
Westlaw
headnotes
when
it
used
them
to
train
its
AI-powered
legal
research
platform.

The
court
specifically
rejected
ROSS’s
argument
that
its
use
of
the
headnotes
constituted
fair
use
under
copyright
law.

Read
the
full
memorandum
opinion.

“Ross
was
using
Thomson
Reuters’s
headnotes
as
AI
data
to
create
a
legal
research
tool
to
compete
with
Westlaw,”
Judge
Bibas
wrote.

The
decision
revises

Judge
Bibas’s
2023
summary
judgment
opinion
in
the
case,
which
had
largely
denied
Thomson
Reuters’s
motions.

In
explaining
his
change
of
position,
Judge
Bibas
opened
his
opinion
with
a
stark
admission:
“A
smart
man
knows
when
he
is
right;
a
wise
man
knows
when
he
is
wrong.
Wisdom
does
not
always
find
me,
so
I
try
to
embrace
it
when
it
does
—
even
if
it
comes
late,
as
it
did
here.”

See
all
stories
about
this
lawsuit.

While
the
ruling
is
significant,
it
does
not
yet
put
this
case
to
rest.
Multiple
issues
remain
to
be
decided
at
trial,
including
whether
some
of
Thomson
Reuters’s
copyrights
have
expired
or
were
untimely
created,
and
whether
ROSS
in
fact
copied
Westlaw’s
Key
Number
System,
as
Thomson
Reuters
alleges.

Focus
on
Fair
Use

The
ruling
focused
heavily
on
the
fair
use
analysis,
examining
the
four
statutory
factors.
While
two
of
the
factors
favored
ROSS,
the
court
found,
the
two
most
important
factors
–
the
purpose
and
character
of
the
use
and
the
effect
on
the
potential
market
–
favored
Thomson
Reuters.

The
judge
specifically
distinguished
this
case
from
the
Supreme
Court’s

Google
v.
Oracle
decision,
noting
that
unlike
the
API
at
issue
in
that
case,
“There
is
nothing
that
Thomson
Reuters
created
that
Ross
could
not
have
created
for
itself
or
hired
LegalEase
to
create
for
it
without
infringing
Thomson
Reuters’s
copyrights.”

The
judge
also
found
that
Westlaw’s
headnotes
met
the
threshold
for
originality
required
for
copyright
protection,
contrary
to
his
prior
opinion
where
he
said
that
was
a
factual
question
for
a
jury
to
decide.

“[A]
headnote
can
introduce
creativity
by
distilling,
synthesizing,
or
explaining
part
of
an
opinion,
and
thus
be
copyrightable,”
he
wrote.
“That
is
why
I
have
changed
my
mind.”

The
court
also
rejected
all
of
ROSS’s
other
defenses,
including
innocent
infringement,
copyright
misuse,
merger,
and
scenes
à
faire.
However,
Judge
Bibas
left
one
significant
copyright
issue
for
trial:
whether
some
of
the
copyrights
at
issue
have
expired
or
were
untimely
created.

Long-Running
Litigation

The
case
began
in
2020
when
Thomson
Reuters
sued
ROSS,
alleging
that
it
had
copied
Westlaw
content
to
train
its
competing
AI
legal
research
platform.
According
to
the
complaint,
after
Thomson
Reuters
refused
to
license
its
content
to
ROSS,
ROSS
contracted
with
legal
research
company
LegalEase
to
obtain
the
content
indirectly
through
bulk
memos
that
were
created
using
Westlaw
headnotes.

The
case
had
been
scheduled
to
go
to
trial
last
August,
but
was
mysteriously
continued
on
the
eve
of
starting.
In
the
opinion
issued
today,
Judge
Bibas
explained
that,
as
he
studied
the
case
materials
in
more
depth
in
the
run-up
to
the
trial,
he
“realized
that
my
prior
summary-judgment
ruling
had
not
gone
far
enough.”
He
thus
ordered
the
continuance
and
invited
the
parties
to
renew
their
summary
judgment
briefing.

While
this
ruling
resolves
key
aspects
of
the
case,
several
issues
remain
for
trial.
In
addition
to
the
copyright
issue
mentioned
above,

Judge
Bibas’s
prior
opinion
had
left
several
issues
for
trial.
These
include
factual
questions
of
whether
ROSS
copied
the
Key
Number
System
and
certain
court
opinions
containing
Thomson
Reuters’s
editorial
decisions,
and
various
questions
about
contributory
liability,
vicarious
liability,
and
tortious
interference
with
contract.

“I
leave
undisturbed
the
parts
of
my
prior
opinion
not
addressed
in
this
one,
such
as
my
rulings
on
contributory
liability,
vicarious
liability,
and
tortious
interference
with
contract,”
he
wrote
today.

ROSS
ceased
operations
in
January
2021,
citing
the
cost
of
defending
this
litigation,
but
the
case
has
continued
as
Thomson
Reuters
seeks
damages
for
the
alleged
infringement.

The
ruling
could
have
significant
implications
for
AI
companies
—
and
particularly
legal
AI
companies
—
that
seek
to
train
their
systems
using
copyrighted
materials,
particularly
in
cases
where
the
AI
product
would
compete
directly
with
the
copyright
holder’s
business.

House
Republicans
introduced
a

budget
plan
Wednesday
that
seeks
to
cut
Medicaid
spending
by
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars.
Leaders
in
the
hospital
world
are
sounding
the
alarm,
highlighting
that
the
plan
would
result
in
millions
of
vulnerable
Americans
losing
healthcare
coverage,
as
well
as
a
surge
in
uncompensated
care
for
providers.

The
plan
orders
various
congressional
committees
to
find
at
least
$1.5
trillion
in
spending
cuts
over
the
next
decade.
It
directs
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee,
which
oversees
Medicare
and
Medicaid,
to
reduce
its
spending
by
$880
billion
over
10
years.

The
GOP’s
budget
blueprint
doesn’t
outline
how
the
committee
would
achieve
this
target,
but
it’s
clear
that
doing
so
would
involve
significant
cuts
to
Medicaid.
The
nation’s
Medicaid
program,
which
provides
health
coverage
for
about
72
million
Americans,
accounts
for

one-sixth
of
all
healthcare
expenditures
and
is
one
of
the
largest
programs
under
the
Energy
and
Commerce
Committee’s
oversight.

One
federal
budget
expert
—
Bobby
Kogan,
senior
director
of
Federal
Budget
Policy
at

Center
for
American
Progress
and
former
adviser
to
the
director
of
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
under
the
previous
presidential
administration
—

wrote
on
X
that
this
plan
would
undoubtedly
require
major
cuts
to
Medicaid.

“For
Energy
and
Commerce,
it’s
mathematically
impossible
to
achieve
$880
billion
in
savings
if
you
don’t
cut
Medicaid
or
Medicare.
There’s
not
enough
money
they
have
jurisdiction
over.
Republicans
say
they’re
not
cutting
Medicare,
so
that
means
they’re
cutting
Medicaid,”
he
wrote.

The
House
Budget
Committee
is
set
to
approve
the
plan
on
Thursday.
After
that,
the
full
House
needs
to
advance
the
proposal
in
order
for
it
to
move
on
to
Senate
consideration
and
potential
presidential
approval.

It’s
uncertain
whether
the
budget
plan
will
stay
alive
—
House
Energy
and
Commerce
Chair
Brett
Guthrie

told

Politico
that
he
isn’t
sure
he
will
be
successful
in
his
efforts
to
build
his
member’s
enthusiasm
for
Medicaid
cuts.

Guthrie
noted
that
it
will
be
difficult
to
cultivate
support
for
per-capita
caps
—
a
major
cost
cutting
measure
that
would
likely
be
necessary
to
achieve
the
savings
goal
proposed
by
the
GOP
plan. 

Medicaid
per-capita
caps
seek
to
limit
federal
funding
to
states
by
providing
a
fixed
amount
per
enrollee
—
differing
from
the
current
system,
where
the
federal
government
matches
a
percentage
of
each
state’s
Medicaid
spending.
This
change
could
reduce
federal
costs
by
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars,
but
it
would
force
states
to
restrict
eligibility,
make
sweeping
cuts
to
services,
and
potentially
increase
state
spending
to
cover
shortfalls.

“I’d
personally
love
per-capita
allotments
for
Medicaid,”
Guthrie
told

Politico.
“I’m
not
sure
we’re
going
to
be
able
to
get
218
votes
for
that.”

Though
the
budget
proposal’s
future
is
still
unsure,
healthcare
leaders
are
worried
about
it.

“To
put
the
$880
billion
in
Medicaid
cuts
Republicans
are
considering
in
perspective,
consider
these
[Congressional
Budget
Office]
estimates:
A
Medicaid
work
requirement
saves
$109
billion.
Eliminating
enhanced
federal
matching
payments
for
the
ACA
Medicaid
expansion
saves
$604
billion,”
Larry
Levitt,

KFF
executive
vice
president
for
health
policy,

wrote
on
X.

Hours
after
the
proposal
was
introduced,
the

American
Hospital
Association
issued
a
statement
urging
Congress
to
“take
seriously”
the
impact
of
Medicaid
spending
cuts.

“While
some
have
suggested
dramatic
reductions
in
the
Medicaid
program
as
part
of
a
reconciliation
vehicle,
we
would
urge
Congress
to
reject
that
approach.
Medicaid
provides
healthcare
to
many
of
our
most
vulnerable
populations,
including
pregnant
women,
children,
the
elderly,
disabled
and
many
of
our
working
class,”
”
stated
CEO
and
President
Rick
Pollack.

Photo:
TimAbramowitz,
Getty
Images