Author: TSA Press

Yesterday,
Senator
Adam
Schiff
put
a
hold
on
the
nomination
of
acting
US
Attorney
for
DC
Ed
Martin
to
hold
the
position
personally.
And
the
reason
was
…

allll
the
reasons.

“For
the
past
nine
weeks,
Ed
Martin
has
consistently
undermined
the
independence
and
abused
the
power
of
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
office
in
DC
–
openly
threatening
and
intimidating
political
opponents,
dismissing
charges
against
his
own
clients,
firing
public
servants
for
their
roles
in
legitimate
investigations,
and
using
his
office
as
a
cudgel
to
chill
dissent
and
free
speech,”
Schiff
said
in
a

statement
announcing
the
hold.

Martin,
a
former
“Stop
the
Steal”
protester
who
never
prosecuted
a
case
before
being
tapped
to
lead
the
biggest
prosecutors
shop
in
the
country,
keeps
inventing
new
ways
to
be
bad
at
his
job.
Whether
he’s

menacing
Georgetown
University
for
doing
THE
DEI,
or
sending

harassing
notes
to
congressmen
for

mean
words,
or

vowing
to
protect
Elon
Musk
from
unethical
meanies,
or
getting

laughed
out
of
the
room
by
a
federal
magistrate
for
trying
to
get
a
warrant
without
probable
cause,
he’s
a
maverick
of
batshittery.

In
the
past
month,
he
came
up
with
three
novel
ways
to
abuse
his
office!

First,
he’s
got
a
spiffy
new
plan
to
withhold
police
misconduct
reports
from
courts.

In
a
publicly
posted
letter
to
“Dear
Blue,”
he
announced
that
he
is
“rewriting
our
policy
for
our
Lewis
List”
to
“stand
up
in
court
against
the
‘public
defender
service’
(PDS)
and
anyone
who
maligns
our
officers
for
sport
or
advantage
unfairly.”

As
the
Washington
Post

reported,
this
is
a
reference
to
the
“Lewis
List”
of
cops
who
are
under
investigation
or
have
been
found
liable
for
misconduct.
The
list
is
functionally
a
“Do
Not
Call”
list,
since
the
misconduct
or
allegations
must
be
disclosed
for
impeachment
purposes
under

Brady,
as
well
as
a

1979
DC
Circuit
ruling.
But
Ed
Martin
seems
to
think
that
all
that
disclosure
stuff
is
optional.
(Or
maybe
he’s
never
heard
of
it.)

“USAO
will
no
longer
allow
judges
or
others
to
gratuitously
damage
your
careers
because
of
the
outsized
impact
of
inexact
characterizations,”
he
blustered,
ending
with
a
promise
to
“DEFEND
THE
POLICE.
That’s
what
this
USAO
will
do.”

Then
the
president
put
out
the
all-call
for
some
more
outside
the
box
legal
thinking.

Martin,
who
seems
to
think
that
his
job
is
mostly
about
sending
mean
letters,
hopped
to
it.
According
to
the

New
York
Times,
he’s
been
sending
queries
to
Bidenworld
figures
demanding
details
about
pardons
issued
during
the
presidential
transition
period.
This
is
part
of
a

concerted
effort
to
attack
the
pardons
on
the
theory
that
President
Biden
was
too
checked
out
and/or
signed
them
by
autopen.

And
then
Monday,
he
tweeted
out
a
promise
to
investigate
Rep.
Jasmine
Crockett,
a
firebrand
Democrat
from
Texas,
who
dared
to

push
a
right-wing
reporter’s
phone
out
of
her
face.

What
a
cool
and
fun
way
for
the
acting
US
Attorney
for
DC
to
learn
about
the
Speech
or
Debate
Clause!

Let’s
go
now
to
Senator
Schiff
for
comment:

He
is
unfit
to
serve
as
a
lawyer,
let
alone
one
with
the
resources
–
and
cover
from
the
Senate
–
to
further
twist
the
power
of
the
law
and
law
enforcement
to
go
after
Americans
who
stand
up
for
the
rule
of
law
and
for
our
democracy. 
With
all
of
the
power
I
am
afforded
as
a
United
States
Senator,
I
intend
to
place
a
hold
on
his
nomination
and
block
attempts
to
jam
through
his
appointment
at
every
stage.

Ooooh,
he’s
going
to
get
such
a
nasty
letter
…

---

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

Donald
Trump’s
been
wielding
his likely
unconstitutional Executive
Orders
aimed
at
Biglaw
firms
like
a
cudgel,
using
the
mere
threat
of
them
to
get
concessions
from
major
firm.
Even
though
the
firms
that
have
chosen
to
fight
the
good
fight
against
the
Trump
administration
have
had slam-dunk
victories
in
court,
there’s
a

growing
list
of
Biglaw
firms
that
prefer
to
bargain
their
way
into
the
good
graces
of
Donald
Trump.
The
latest
firm
to
kiss
Donald
Trump’s
ring
is
Milbank.

Similar
to
the
deals
with

Skadden
and

Willkie
(the
other
two
firms
that
inked
deals
before
they
could
be
targeted
by
Trump),
Milbank
now
owes
the
Trump
administration
$100
million
in
pro
bono
services.
The
deal
includes
a
carveout
that
Milbank
“will
continue
to
grow
its
work
with
the
Milbank
Exoneration
and
Resentencing
Review
Unit
at
the
Perlmutter
Center
for
Legal
Justice
at
Cardozo
Law
School.”

Like
all
the
other
Trumpian
deals,
Milbank
has
also
agreed
to
abandon
its
DEI
efforts.
The
firm
has
also
stipulated
that
attorneys’
political
views
will
not
impact
their
client
intake
“including
in
pro
bono
matters,
and
in
support
of
non-profits.”

Milbank
chair
Scott
Edelman
made
the
following
statement
on
the
deal,
“After
a
constructive
dialogue
with
President
Trump’s
administration,
Milbank
is
pleased
that
we
were
so
quickly
able
to
find
common
ground.
Our
agreement
is
consistent
with
Milbank’s
core
values.
We
are
pleased
to
affirm
a
commitment
to
continue
to
engage
in
significant
pro
bono
services
in
areas
that
are
mutually
supported
by
Milbank
and
the
President.
Milbank
looks
forward
to
continuing
its
working
relationship
with
President
Trump
and
his
administration.”

According
to
Trump’s
statement
on
the
deal,
Milbank
“approached”
him
to
put
an
end
to
the
EO
before
it
even
started.
And
Trump’s
statement
ended
saying,
“The
President
continues
to
build
an
unrivaled
network
of
Lawyers,
who
will
put
a
stop
to
Partisan
Lawfare
in
America,
and
restore
Liberty
and
Justice
FOR
ALL,” signaling
the
president
believes
that
all
the
firms
that
have
bent
the
knee
are
firmly
#teamTrump.

This
is
how
Edelman
announced
the
deal
internally,
minutes
before
the
news
broke.

To
the
Milbank
Community:

As
many
of
you
know,
in
recent
weeks,
the
President
has
raised
a
number
of
issues
about
the
practices
of
big
law
firms.
In
some
cases,
the
President
has
issued
executive
orders
against
particular
firms.

And
many
of
you
surely
read
that,
on
March
17,
2025,
the
Acting
Chair
of
the
EEOC
sent
letters
requesting
information
about
DEI
in
employment
practices
to
twenty
of
the
country’s
largest
law
firms,
including
Milbank.

Late
last
week,
we
were
contacted
by
representatives
of
the
Trump
Administration
with
questions
and
concerns
about
our
approach
to
pro
bono
and
diversity
initiatives.
The
Trump
Administration
suggested
to
us
that
we
enter
into
an
agreement
similar
to
one
recently
agreed
to
by
Skadden.
Having
reviewed
the
Skadden
agreement,
we
concluded
that
it
was
in
the
Firm’s
best
interest
to
agree
with
the
Administration’s
suggestion
and
enter
into
our
own
Skadden-type
agreement.
We
did
so
for
the
following
reasons:

First,
our
review
of
Skadden’s
agreement
convinced
us
that
the
terms
agreed
to
by
Skadden
were
not
unreasonable.
In
reviewing
the
Skadden
agreement,
it
became
apparent
that
our
present
practices
are
consistent
with
the
agreements
that
the
Administration
had
required
of
Skadden.
We
therefore
concluded
that
an
agreement
would
not
entail
any
significant
changes
to
our
current
practices,
and
the
new
commitments
are
things
that
we
are
happy
to
do
anyway.

Second,
as
a
large
law
firm
that
does
a
majority
of
its
work
on
transactional
matters,
we
are
dependent
on
our
ability
to
navigate
client
issues
in
all
parts
of
the
Executive
Branch.
We
believed
that
it
was
in
the
best
interests
of
the
Firm
and
its
clients
to
resolve
the
Trump
Administration’s
concerns
in
a
way
that
would
foster
our
working
relationship
and
avoid
what
could
have
been
an
unnecessary
confrontation.

Third,
the
only
commitments
that
we
have
made
to
the
Government
are
those
that
we
are
happy
to
make.
We
are
extremely
comfortable
providing
the
requested
levels
of
pro
bono
activities
to
clients
facing
challenges
that
fall
within
the
wide
range
of
the
agreed-upon
initiatives.

The
only
commitment
that
I
consider
to
be
“new”
is
something
that
we
were
actively
considering
anyway,
and
that
is
to
agree
that
we
would
ensure
that
we
have
lawyers
with
diverse
political
ideologies
on
our
existing
pro
bono
committee
to
ensure
that
pro
bono
matters
are
both
consistent
with
the
objectives
of
the
Firm
and
represent
the
full
political
spectrum.
Again,
we
think
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do.

Milbank
is
a
Firm
that
has
always
attracted
lawyers
with
a
diversity
of
viewpoints.
Two
of
our
partners
served
in
the
Executive
Branch
during
the
first
Trump
Administration.
We
believe
that
those
differences
of
views
and
opinions
are
a
strength
that
makes
Milbank
a
better
and
more
successful
institution.
This
change
to
our
committee
will
formalize
our
consideration
of
those
different
viewpoints
in
making
decisions
about
pro
bono.

With
that
background,
we
made
the
decision
to
provide
the
Administration
with
the
following
commitments
that
the
President
announced
today:

1.
Milbank
will
perform
a
total
of
at
least
$100
million
in
pro
bono
legal
services
during
the
Trump
Administration
and
beyond
on
initiatives
supported
by
both
the
President
and
Milbank,
such
as:
assisting
veterans
and
other
public
servants,
including
members
of
the
military,
law
enforcement,
and
first
responders;
ensuring
fairness
in
our
justice
system;
and
combatting
antisemitism.
In
furtherance
and
as
part
of
these
activities,
Milbank
will
continue
to
grow
its
work
with
the
Milbank
Exoneration
and
Resentencing
Review
Unit
at
the
Perlmutter
Center
for
Legal
Justice
at
Cardozo
Law
School.

2.
Our
pro
bono
committee
will
include
partners
at
the
Firm
with
diverse
political
ideologies
to
ensure
that
pro
bono
matters
are
consistent
with
the
objectives
of
the
Firm,
and
that
our
pro
bono
practices
represent
the
full
political
spectrum,
including
conservative
ideals.

3.
Milbank
will
not
deny
representation
to
clients,
such
as
members
of
politically
disenfranchised
groups
and
government
officials,
employees,
and
advisors,
who
have
not
historically
received
legal
representation
from
major
national
law
firms,
including
in
pro
bono
matters,
and
in
support
of
non-profits,
because
of
the
personal
political
views
of
individual
lawyers.
Milbank
shall
not
deny
representation
to
any
clients
on
the
basis
of
the
political
affiliation
of
the
prospective
client
or
because
of
the
opposition
of
any
government
official.

4.
Milbank
acknowledges
and
affirms
its
commitment
to
merit-based
hiring,
promotion,
and
retention.
Accordingly,
the
Firm
will
not
engage
in
illegal
DEI
discrimination
and
preferences.
Milbank
will
continue
to
give
fair
and
equal
consideration
to
job
candidates
who
have
served
in
both
Republican
and
Democrat
Administrations,
including
the
Trump
Administration.
Milbank
will
continue
to
work
with
independent
outside
counsel
to
advise
the
Firm
to
ensure
employment
practices
are
fully
compliant
with
law,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
anti-discrimination
laws.

We
are
comfortable
with
all
of
these
provisions.
By
reaffirming
our
commitments
on
a
number
of
these
issues,
we
set
a
path
for
the
Firm
to
continue
its
working
relationship
with
the
Executive
Branch
while
at
the
same
time
zealously
representing
our
clients.

Our
pro
bono
activities
have
always
represented
a
broad
spectrum
of
clients
and
causes.

Of
note,
in
2024,
we
proudly
announced
our
new
partnership
with
the
Perlmutter
Center
for
Legal
Justice
at
Cardozo
Law,
championed
and
sponsored
by
Laurie
and
Ike
Perlmutter,
to
combat
historical
wrongs
in
the
US
criminal
justice
system
with
a
focus
on
wrongful
conviction,
excessive
sentencing
and
clemency.
We
established
the
Milbank
Exoneration
and
Resentencing
Review
Unit
at
the
Perlmutter
Center,
which
has
enabled
the
Center
to
grow
its
staff
and
expand
its
ability
to
review
the
high
volume
of
requests
it
receives.
As
part
of
this
commitment,
we
also
pledged
to
provide
pro
bono
legal
services
as
a
close
partner
with
the
Perlmutter
Center
at
every
stage
of
its
work,
from
screening
clients
and
writing
case
recommendation
memos
to
litigating
cases.
The
agreement
we
entered
into
with
the
Administration
specifies
that
our
work
at
the
Perlmutter
Center
is
one
example
of
work
that
we
are
committing
to
do
as
part
of
our
overall
pro
bono
commitment.

There
is
nothing
in
our
agreement
that
gives
the
Administration
the
right
to
dictate
or
approve
the
matters
we
take
on.
Nor
have
we
restricted
our
pro
bono
activities
or
limited
positions
we
could
take
on
behalf
of
our
clients.
And,
of
course,
no
Milbank
lawyer
will
be
required
to
work
on
any
pro
bono
matter
that
they
do
not
support.
That
goes
for
more
conservative
lawyers
and
liberal
causes,
just
as
it
goes
for
more
liberal
lawyers
and
conservative
causes.

We
believe
that
our
agreement
is
very
much
in
Milbank’s
interest.
The
Administration’s
expressed
concerns
about
big
law
firms,
and
in
some
cases
its
entry
of
Executive
Orders
against
particular
firms,
have
created
uncertainty
for
law
firms
like
ours.
With
this
agreement,
we
believe
we
have
gone
a
long
way
to
putting
these
issues
behind
us.
But
we
have
done
so
in
a
way
that
allows
us
to
continue
to
focus
on
the
Firm’s
values
and
missions,
including
with
respect
to
pro
bono
and
our
hope
to
foster
an
inclusive,
non-discriminatory
community
where
all
of
our
members
have
an
equal
opportunity
to
succeed.
Having
now
reached
an
agreement
with
the
Administration,
we
can
continue
to
do
what
we
do
best—focus
on
providing
the
best
possible
advice,
counseling
and
service
to
our
clients.

As
I
often
end
my
talks
to
you,
I
want
to
end
by
expressing
my
gratitude
to
all
of
you.
Milbank
continues
to
accomplish
so
much
as
a
Firm
and
for
its
clients.
All
of
those
accomplishments
are
a
reflection
of
you,
our
people.
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
everything
that
you
do
for
the
Firm.
And
I
also
want
to
thank
you
for
what
I
am
sure
will
be
our
shared
commitment
to
fostering
an
environment
that
continues
to
allow
and
encourage
inclusion
of
diverse
viewpoints
among
all
the
members
of
our
community.

Respectfully,

Scott

Milbank
attorneys
and
other
employees,
how
do
you
feel
about
the
firm’s
decision?
Feel
free
to
sound
off

by
email,
by
text
message
(646-820-8477),
or
by
tweet
(@ATLblog).
An
insightful
response
—
we’ll
keep
you
anonymous
—
could
find
its
way
into
an
update
to
this
story.

---

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].

Dating
a
lawyer
can
be
rough.
Long
hours,
unnecessary
Latin
injected
into
conversations,
complaints
about
the
rule
of
law
being
in
crisis
when
you
really
just
want
to
re-watch
Chelsea
Handler’s
“The
Feeling”
—
the
list
goes
on.
But
one
thing
that
isn’t
mentioned
enough
is
that
sometimes,
they’re
just
outright
frauds.
And
as
bad
as
it
is
for
a
lawyer
to
fraud
their
clients,
Leonard
Samuel
DeFranco
also
committed
the
big
no-no
of
bringing
his
(fraudulent)
work
home.
After
ripping
off
his
clients,
he
“borrowed”
his
girlfriend’s
personal
information
to
take
out
in
thousands
in
bank
loans.
After
he
got
caught,
his
endeavors
earned
him
an
extended
prison
stay.

ABA
Journal
has
coverage
on
his
shenanigans:

A
disbarred
Illinois
lawyer
has
been
sentenced
to
six
years
in
prison
for
using
his
then-girlfriend’s
identifying
information
to
obtain
four
bank
loans
totaling
$82,700.
…
The
review
board
affirmed
findings
that
DeFranco
misappropriated
$161,608
in
client
funds
from
the
sale
of
a
business…DeFranco
then
obtained
a
$180,000
loan
from
a
client
to
repay
the
client
money
without
complying
with
required
safeguards,
the
review
board
said.

A
lawyer
in
Illinois
committing
fraud?
Come
on,
man,
Chicago
is
right
there!
There
has
to
be
some
decent
legal
work
when
you’re
within
driving
distance
from
one
of
the
largest
legal
hubs
in
the
country.
Fraud
might
make
for
short-term
gains,
but
the
returns
over
time
go
to
the
dumps
quick
if
and
when
you
get
caught.
Either
way,
the
legal
door
was
shut
on
DeFranco.
Referring
to
the
decision
to
disbar
him,
they
said
that
“the
record
contains
almost
no
evidence
demonstrating
that
[DeFranco]
is
likely
to
practice
law
in
an
ethical
manner
in
the
future.”

Disbarred
lawyer
Sentenced
For
Using
Then-Girlfriend’s
Identity
To
Take
Out
Over
$82K
In
Loans
[ABA
Journal]

---

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.

Ever
since
the
2024
election
and
the
legal
turmoil
that
began
shortly
after
President
Donald
Trump’s
reelection
(and
has
continued
to
this
day),
thousands
of
college
graduates
have
been
inspired
to
go
to
law
school. According
to
LSAC
data,
the
number
of
law
school
applicants
is
up
by
more
than
20%
from
last
year.
What
could
be
the
cause?

According
to
college
and
law
school
admissions
consultant
Anna
Ivey,
the
last
time
we
saw
such
a
spike
in
law
school
applicants
was
during
Trump’s
first
term.
“We
called
that
the
‘Trump
bump,’”
she
told

ABC
News.
“There
were
a
lot
of
people
who
thought
it
was
a
good
time
to
flock
to
law
school.
Anecdotally,
I
can
say
there
were
certainly
some
portion
of
law
school
applicants
who
were
motivated
because
of
what
they
were
perceiving
happening
in
the
administration.”
Here
are
some
additional
thoughts
she
shared
on
the
topic:

“I
suspect
we’re
having
another
‘Trump
bump.’
Now
that
he’s
back
in
office,
I
would
not
be
surprised
if
that’s
happening
at
scale.”

Ivey
said
the
mass
layoffs
at
federal
government
agencies
may
have
prompted
many
of
the
fired
workers
to
go
to
law
school.

“This
administration
is
perhaps
contributing
more
than
the
previous
Trump
administration
because
of
all
of
those
mass
layoffs
in
the
greater
D.C.
area
—
all
those
mass
layoffs
of
very
capable
civil
servants,”
Ivey
said.

Unfortunately,
thanks
to
Trump’s
decision
to
dismantle
the
Department
of
Education,
the
loan
programs
incoming
students
rely
upon
could
be
imperiled,
leading
to
a
variety
of
financial
risks.

Reuters
has
the
details:

More
than
three-quarters
of
law
students
(76%)
take
out
loans
to
cover
their
tuition
and
living
expenses,
Education
Department
data
show.
Public
and
private
law
schools
use
that
tuition
money
to
fund
their
operations,
and
students’
financing
must
be
in
place
when
the
school
year
starts
in
August
or
September.

Should
federal
loan
disbursements
be
delayed,
law
schools
would
likely
have
to
scramble
to
extend
their
financing
deadlines,
said
Utah’s
Warner.

Delays
could
force
students
to
seek
out
private
loans,
which
tend
to
come
with
higher
interest
rates
and
may
not
be
available
to
lower-income
students,
Warner
said.
Any
disruption
in
student
loans
could
also
push
law
students
toward
schools
with
lower
tuition,
Warner
added,
and
some
may
decide
not
to
attend
at
all
if
their
loan
repayment
costs
are
higher
than
expected.

Policy
changes
made
by
the
Trump
administration
have
prompted
college
graduates
to
consider
legal
careers,
and
with
about
four
more
years
of
this
presidency
to
go,
we
may
well
see
additional
application
increases
in
the
future.
Whether
those
students
will
be
able
to
reliably
finance
their
degrees
through
the
federal
student
loan
program
remains
up
in
the
air
at
this
point.

Students
who
want
positive
changes
to
be
made
in
America
are
heading
to
law
school.
Debt
loads
aside,
there’s
no
real
way
to
see
this
as
a
bad
thing.
Nice
work,
everyone!
All
it
took
was
a
perversion
of
the
rule
of
law
to
inspire
more
people
to
go
to
law
school.
Yay…

‘Trump
bump,’
iffy
economy
cited
for
huge
law
school
application
spike:
Experts
[ABC
News]

US
Education
Department
closure
imperils
law
school
finances,
deans
say
[Reuters]

---

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.

They
say
time
is
money—for
law
firms,
every
billable
minute
counts
toward
profitability.
Yet
many
firms
struggle
to
capture
the
full
value
of
their
work.
Manual
time
tracking
often
leads
to
missed
billable
hours,
inaccurate
invoicing,
and
lost
revenue.
The
solution?
Automating
time
tracking
through
technology.

In
this
post,
we’ll
explore
how
passive
time
tracking
is
helping
law
firms
maximize
revenue,
increase
operational
efficiency,
and
reduce
administrative
burdens.
We’ll
also
share
key
insights
from
the

2025
MyCase
Legal
Industry
Report
to
show
how
firms
are
benefiting
from
this
technology.

Why
Time
Tracking
Is
Critical
for
Law
Firm
Profitability

Accurate
time
tracking
is
the
foundation
of
law
firm
profitability.
The
more
billable
hours
a
firm
can
capture,
the
more
revenue
it
generates.
However,
tracking
time
manually
presents
some
major
challenges,
such
as:

• 
  Missed
  billable
  time:
  When
  lawyers
  are
  focused
  on
  client
  work,
  it’s
  easy
  to
  forget
  to
  record
  time
  for
  quick
  tasks
  like
  responding
  to
  emails
  or
  reviewing
  case
  files.
• 
  Inaccurate
  invoicing:
  Without
  a
  precise
  record
  of
  time,
  firms
  may
  underbill—or
  overbill—leading
  to
  disputes
  and
  delayed
  payments.
• 
  Lost
  revenue:
  Even
  small
  amounts
  of
  billable
  time
  missed
  every
  day
  add
  up
  over
  the
  course
  of
  a
  year.

According
to
the
2025
Legal
Industry
Report,

55%
of
law
firms
cited
time
tracking
as
a
significant
or
moderate
challenge,
highlighting
the
widespread
difficulty
firms
face
in
accurately
capturing
billable
hours.

For
example,
if
a
lawyer
bills
$300
per
hour
and
misses
just
15
minutes
of
billable
time
per
day,
that’s
$18,750
in
lost
revenue
per
year
(based
on
250
workdays).
In
a
firm
with
10
lawyers,
that
adds
up
to
$187,500
annually.

What
Is
Passive
Time
Tracking
and
How
Does
It
Work?

Passive
time
tracking
takes
the
guesswork
out
of
billing
by
automatically
capturing
billable
hours
in
the
background
while
lawyers
can
focus
on
getting
work
done.
Unlike
traditional
time
tracking,
which
requires
manual
entry,
passive

tracking
software
monitors
activity
across
programs
and
devices
to
record
billable
tasks
automatically,
like:

• Drafting
  emails
  and
  documents
• Client
  communications
• Legal
  research
• Messaging
  and
  case
  updates
• Integrates
  with
  legal
  practice
  management
  software
• Organizes
  tracked
  time
  by
  client
  and
  matter
• Generates
  accurate
  invoices
  automatically

This
automation
eliminates
human
error
and
ensures
that
no
billable
time
is
overlooked.
According
to
the
2025
Legal
Industry
Report,

24%
of
law
firms
are
currently
using
passive
time-tracking
tools,
and
the
firms
that
have
adopted
them
report
substantial
time
savings
and
increased
billing
accuracy.

The
Financial
Impact
of
Passive
Time
Tracking

The
benefits
of
passive
tracking
go
beyond
convenience—it
directly
increases
profitability.
Firms
that
automate
time
tracking
report
higher
revenue,
faster
payments,
and
fewer
billing
disputes.

Time
Savings
and
Increased
Revenue

The
2025
Legal
Industry
Report
shows
that
firms
using
passive
time-tracking
tools
are
saving
significant
amounts
of
time
each
month:

• 31%
  saved
  between
  1
  and
  5
  hours
  per
  month
• 14%
  saved
  between
  6
  and
  10
  hours
• 7%
  saved
  between
  11
  and
  15
  hours
• 4%
  saved
  over
  15
  hours

This
translates
into
more
accurate
invoices
and
higher
total
billing
amounts.
If
a
firm
can
capture
just
one
extra
billable
hour
per
lawyer
per
week
using
passive
tracking,
that’s
an
additional
$15,600
in
annual
revenue
for
a
firm
billing
$300
per
hour.

Reduced
Billing
Disputes
and
Faster
Payments

Clients
are
more
likely
to
pay
promptly
when
they
receive
detailed,
accurate
invoices
that
clearly
show
the
work
performed.
According
to
the
2025
Legal
Industry
Report,
28%
of
firms
using
automated
billing
tools
reported
a
significant
increase
in
revenue
from
faster
collections.

Operational
Efficiency
and
Reduced
Administrative
Burden

Beyond
increased
revenue,
passive
time
tracking
improves
overall
operational
efficiency.
Lawyers
and
staff
spend
less
time
manually
tracking
hours
and
more
time
on
billable
work.

How
Automation
Reduces
Workload:

• Fewer
  manual
  errors
  →
  fewer
  corrections
• Faster
  invoicing
  →
  quicker
  payments
• Greater
  transparency
  →
  fewer
  client
  disputes

According
to
the
report,

firms
using
passive
time-tracking
tools
save
an
average
of
1–5
hours
per
month
on
administrative
tasks
alone.
This
translates
into
increased
billable
time
and
more
productive
workdays.

As
one
attorney
noted
in
the
report:
“I’m
a
better
lawyer
than
a
business
person.
The
thing
that
AI
and
automation
would
help
with
most
is
on
the
business
side
because
I
might
not
even
think
of
some
of
the
things
it
can
do.”

How
to
Implement
Passive
Time
Tracking
at
Your
Firm

Adopting
passive
time
tracking
doesn’t
have
to
be
complicated.
Your
firm
can
get
started
by
following
just
a
few
simple
steps:

1.
Evaluate
your
current
time-tracking
process:
Assess
your
existing
time-tracking
methods
to
identify
gaps
and
inconsistencies.
This
will
help
you
pinpoint
where
billable
time
is
being
lost
and
uncover
opportunities
to
improve
accuracy.

2.
Choose
the
right
tool:
Look
for
passive
time-tracking
software
that
integrates
with
your
existing
practice
management
and
billing
platforms.
Ensure
the
tool
can
capture
work
across
devices
and
programs.

3.
Train
your
team:
Provide
clear,
step-by-step
guidance
on
how
to
use
the
tool
effectively.
Encourage
your
team
to
use
it
consistently
to
ensure
accurate
time
tracking
and
maximize
revenue
capture.

4.
Monitor
and
adjust:
Regularly
review
the
data
on
revenue
and
time
savings
to
identify
trends
and
areas
for
improvement.
Fine-tune
the
settings
and
tracking
categories
to
ensure
the
tool
is
capturing
all
billable
time
accurately.

The
Bottom
Line:
Time
Tracking
=
Higher
Profitability

Automating
time
tracking
is
no
longer
optional—it’s
essential
for
maximizing
profitability
in
a
competitive
legal
market.
Firms
that
switch
to
passive
tracking
tools
see
increased
revenue,
more
accurate
billing,
and
greater
operational
efficiency.

• Increased
  billable
  hours
  =
  Higher
  revenue
• Faster
  invoicing
  =
  Better
  cash
  flow
• Reduced
  disputes
  =
  Stronger
  client
  relationships

Want
to
see
how
law
firms
are
using
time
tracking
tools
to
increase
profitability?

Download
the
2025
Legal
Industry
Report
for
key
insights
and
trends.