Morning Docket: 01.29.25 – Above the Law

*
Judge
freezes

Trump
spending
freeze
.
[NPR]

*
KPMG’s
application
to
practice
law
in
Arizona
back
on
hold.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Clarence
Thomas
rails
against
judges
ignoring
precedent
because
consistency
is
the
hobgoblin
of
ethical
people.
[Guardian]

*
Lil
Durk’s
lawyer
drawing
a
lot
of
out-of-court
attention.
[Yahoo]

*
Trump
tells
federal
workers
that
he’ll
give
them
a
buyout
if
they
leave
their
jobs
except
he
doesn’t
have
any
funds
to
do
that
and
it’s
illegal
to
offer
a
buyout
that
size.
[CNN]

*
Bob
Menendez
sentencing
slated
for
today.
[Reuters]

*
A
deep
dive
into
the
upcoming
judicial
nomination
calendar
covering
who’s
retiring
and
who’s
going
to
replace
them.
[Balls
and
Strikes
]

Reese Witherspoon, Who ‘Definitely Did Not Go To Law School,’ Selected As Jury Foreman Because Of ‘Legally Blonde’ Role – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Tracy
Bennett/MGM
Pictures)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


Listen,
I
did
not
want
to
do
jury
duty.
But
I
remember
it
was
probably
seven
years
after
‘Legally
Blonde,’
I
got
called
for
jury
duty
and
it
was
in
Beverly
Hills.
I
thought,
‘Surely
they’re
not
gonna
pick
me.’
They
picked
me
for
a
long
trial,
y’all.
It
was
probably
two
weeks.


It
was
two
solid
weeks
every
day
going
in.
And
then
we
went
to
deliberation
and
so
at
the
very
end
they
say,
‘Okay,
well
somebody
in
this
group
has
to
be
the
foreman.’
And
they
all
unanimously
are
like,
‘Her.’


They
were
like,
‘You
went
to
law
school.’
I
was
like,
‘Y’all
this
is
really
upsetting.
I
definitely
did
not
go
to
law
school,
I
didn’t
finish
college.’
I
played
a
lawyer
in
a
movie
once
but
they
fully
made
me
the
foreman
and
I
started
realizing…
people
don’t
know
much
about
the
law.





Reese
Witherspoon
,
star
of
the
“Legally
Blonde”
film
franchise,
in

comments

given
during
an
appearance
on

“The
Graham
Norton
Show,”

where
she
spoke
about
her
experience
serving
as
a
jury
foreperson
with
a
group
who
mistakenly
believed
that
she
was
a
real
lawyer
who
had
attended
law
school
thanks
to
her
acting
roles.


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

And When You’re A President, They Let You Do It — See Also – Above the Law

Grab
‘Em
By
The
Executive
Power:
Here’s
how
Trump
is
circumventing
the
Constitution.
No
Truth
In
Television:
Count
each
time
Alina
Habba
says
something
wrong!
Diversity
Lab
Is
Still
In
Business:
Diversity
is
still
going.
What
Is
It
Like,
Hard?:
You’ll
guess
who
was
selected
as
Jury
Foreman!
Junior
Blues:
Alternative
legal
providers
could
push
juniors
out
of
their
jobs.

Trump’s Budget Freeze Just Constitutional Fan Fiction – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)

The
Trump
administration
continues
pumping
out
executive
action
at
the
pace
rivaling
a
trashy
romance
novel
pulp
house.
And,
like
the
trashiest
of
romance
novels,
each
installment
makes
you
go,
“Oh…
I
don’t
think
you’re
supposed
to
do
it
that
way.”

And
“I’m
pretty
sure
that
would
hurt.”

The
latest
vector
of
government
chaos
came
in
the
form
of
an
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
memo
vaguely
requiring
a

complete
spending
freeze

on
all
federal
public
loans,
grants,
and
other
assistance
by
5
p.m.
tonight.
Acting
Director
Matt
Vaeth’s
memo

which

no
one
seriously
believes
he
wrote


cited
the
more
than
$3
trillion
spent
last
year
on
“Federal
financial
assistance,
such
as
grants
and
loans”
before
instructing
agencies
that
the
administration
wants
spending
limited
to
its
goals
including
“ending
‘wokeness’
and
the
weaponization
of
government,
promoting
efficiency
in
government,
and
Making
America
Healthy
Again.”

And
since
the
last
bit
really
means
“Making
America
Catch
Polio
Again,”
the
memo
instantly

cut
off
Medicaid
in
every
state
.

“The
use
of
Federal
resources
to
advance
Marxist
equity,
transgenderism,
and
green
new
deal
social
engineering
policies
is
a
waste
of
taxpayer
dollars
that
does
not
improve
the
day-to-day
lives
of
those
we
serve,”
seems
like
the
4chan
post
of
a
lunatic,
but
is
instead
an
edict
from
the
federal
organ
overseeing
public
funding.

In
case
you’re
wondering,
the
1974
Impoundment
Control
Act
(ICA),
yet
another
good
governance
statute
rooted
in
America’s
Nixon
hangover,
explicitly
bars
refusing
to
spend
congressional
appropriations
like
this.
But
once
and
future
OMB
General
Counsel
Mark
Paoletta
believes
the
power
of
the
purse
is

more
of
a
suggestion

and
that
presidents
can
take
money
allocated
by
Congress
and
say,
“Nah,
I’m
good.
I’ll
keep
this
one.”

But
Paoletta
is
riding
high
on
America’s
most
powerful
hallucinogen:
the
Unitary
Executive
Theory:

The
power
of
impoundment
is
one
such
executive
power
vested
in
the
President
alone
by
Article
II
of
the
Constitution.
As
discussed
below,
this
power
stems
from
the
President’s
conclusive
and
preclusive
authorities
the
Court
sets
out
in
the Trump
v.
United
States 
opinion. 

Remember
when
John
Roberts
tried
to
play
off

Trump
v.
United
States

as
though
it
wouldn’t
be
read
to
bestow
monarchical
powers?
Good
times!

Paoletta
argues
that
“If
the
President
can
decide
which
laws
to
enforce,
he
can
decide
which
funds
to
spend.”
A
cute
analogy
to
be
sure,
but
it’s
much
more
like
telling
the
landlord
you
don’t
believe
in
rent
because
of
woke.
Sure,
you

can

do
that,
but
the
consequences
are
going
to
catch
up
to
you
fast.

In


A
Primer
on
the
Impoundment
Control
Act
,
Professor
Zachary
Price
blows
up
this
fantasy.
The
ICA
explains
that
if
the
president
tries
to
withhold
funds
altogether,
the
executive
has
to
notify
Congress,
which
then
has
45
days
to
agree.
If
Congress
says
no

or
does
nothing

the
funds
must
be
released.
If
the
executive
branch
is
merely
trying
to
delay
spending

the
excuse
emerging
throughout
the
day

it
must
also
report
to
Congress
first
and
abide
by
some
key
restrictions:

Though
earlier
versions
of
the
statute
allowed
a
broader
range
of
deferrals,
the
ICA
today
allows
deferrals
only
“to
provide
for
contingencies,”
“to
achieve
savings
made
possible
by
or
through
changes
in
requirements
or
greater
efficiency
of
operations,”
or
“as
specifically
provided
by
law.”
The
upshot
is
that,
absent
specific
statutory
authority,
executive
officials
are
not
supposed
to
delay
spending
based
on
disagreement
with
the
policy
underlying
it;
they
can
instead
make
deferrals
only
to
address
practical
obstacles
or
to
employ
funds
more
efficiently.
As
explained
below,
however,
the
scope
of
any
authority
to
delay
spending
for
“programmatic”
rather
than
“policy”
reasons
has
emerged
as
a
recurrent
point
of
controversy.

Of
course,
asking
Trump
to
follow
statutory
procedure
is
like
asking
a
puppy
to
do
your
taxes

a
lot
of
chaos
and
incontinence.

Paoletta’s
batshit
read
that
Article
II
gives
the
President
unilateral
authority
to
ignore
congressional
appropriations
doesn’t
even
make
sense
in
the
context
of
the
president’s
constitutional
role
in
signing
or
vetoing
statutes.
If
Congress
approves
spending
on
a
specific
appropriation,
the
president
vetoes
it,
and
Congress
overrides
that
veto,
Paoletta
would
say
the
president
could
just
ignore
it
anyway.

In
fact,
presidents
tried
to
assert
a
power
to
halt
specific
projects
while
giving
Congress
the
power
to
override
that
veto

a
concession
Paoletta
isn’t
making

and
the
Supreme
Court

laughed
and
laughed
.

It
is
also
worth
noting
that
Congress
attempted
to
establish
an
additional
form
of
impoundment
authority
in
the Line
Item
Veto
Act
of
1996
.
That
statute
allowed
presidents
to
cancel
certain
spending
items
within
five
days
of
an
appropriation’s
enactment,
subject
to
a
congressional
override
through
expedited
new
legislation.
The
Supreme
Court,
however,
held
in Clinton
v.
New
York
 that
this
cancellation
power
amounted
to
an
unconstitutional
line-item
veto
(meaning
a
power
to
veto
particular
clauses
in
a
law
rather
than
the
bill
as
a
whole).
Although
the
Court
acknowledged
the
president’s
“traditional
authority
to
decline
to
spend
appropriated
funds,”
it
rejected
the
government’s
argument
that
this
practice
supported
the
Line
Item
Veto
Act’s
cancellation
power.
Unlike
all
prior
statutes
invoked
by
the
government,
this
one,
the
majority
reasoned,
gave
“the
President
the
unilateral
power
to
change
the
text
of
duly
enacted
statutes.”

Freezing
federal
disbursements
hurts
real
people

states,
businesses,
and
individuals
waiting
on
grants
and
loans.
These
delays
ripple
through
the
economy,
affecting
everything
from
infrastructure
projects
to
education
funding.
“And
while
Paoletta
couldn’t
care
less
about
the
human
fallout,
Congress

well,
at
least
the
members
who
occasionally
remember
they
represent
real
people

might.”


A
Primer
on
the
Impoundment
Control
Act

[Lawfare]




HeadshotJoe
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
.

Help Chart the Future of Legal Tech: Vote for Your Favorite Startup Alley Finalists Before the Time Is Up

Less
than
two
weeks
remain
to
cast
your
vote
to
help
pick
the
15
legal
tech
startups
that
will
get
to
compete
at
the
ninth-annual
Startup
Alley
at ABA
TECHSHOW
,
April
2-5, 2025,
in
Chicago.

Your
votes
determine
the
15
companies
that
will
be
selected
to
face
off
in
a
live
pitch
competition
on
the
opening-night
of
this
year’s
TECHSHOW.
They
also
get
to
exhibit
in
a
special
Startup
Alley
portion
of
the
exhibit
hall.

Here
is
everything
you
need
to
vote:


DEADLINE
FOR
VOTING
IS
FRIDAY,
FEB.
7,
AT
11:45
P.M.
ET.

AI And Environmental Sustainability: Insights From Pamela Isom – Above the Law


AI
and
environmental
sustainability
might
not
seem
like
the
most
obvious
pairing,
but
Pamela
Isom
is
here
to
prove
otherwise.
As
the
founder
and
CEO
of
Izabayte
Consulting,
Pamela
has
spent
her
career
at
the
intersection
of
technology,
governance,
and
safe
digital
transformation.
She
joined
me
for
a
conversation
that
opened
my
eyes
to
the
powerful
ways
AI
can
drive
sustainability

and
the
work
it
takes
to
make
AI
itself
more
sustainable.


Let’s
dive
into
the
insights
from
our
discussion.
Spoiler
alert:
AI
has
a
lot
more
to
offer
than
you
might
think,
but
it
also
comes
with
a
carbon
footprint
that
can’t
be
ignored.


Watch
the
full
conversation
here:



AI
and
Environmental
Sustainability


What
Does
Sustainability
Have
to
Do
With
AI?


Pamela
broke
it
down
simply:


  1. Advancing
    Sustainability
    Goals:


    AI
    can
    be
    a
    powerful
    tool
    for
    meeting
    an
    organization’s
    environmental
    and
    social
    objectives.
    Whether
    it’s
    improving
    climate
    predictions
    or
    optimizing
    energy
    use,
    AI
    is
    already
    making
    a
    difference.

  2. Making
    AI
    Itself
    Sustainable:


    AI,
    especially
    large
    language
    models,
    is
    energy-intensive.
    From
    data
    center
    power
    usage
    to
    computing
    demands,
    we
    need
    to
    ensure
    the
    tools
    helping
    us
    don’t
    create
    their
    own
    environmental
    challenges.


As
Pamela
put
it,
“Every
organization
should
have
sustainability
goals,
and
AI
can
either
help
meet
those
goals
or,
if
used
poorly,
work
against
them.”


How
AI
Is
Saving
the
Planet
(Or
At
Least
Trying)


Pamela
shared
some
fascinating
examples
of
AI
in
action,
proving
that
it’s
already
an
unsung
hero
in
the
sustainability
space:


  • Real-Time
    Environmental
    Monitoring:


    AI-powered
    models
    are
    helping
    predict
    weather
    patterns,
    track
    climate
    shifts,
    and
    even
    detect
    pollutants
    in
    the
    air
    and
    water.

  • Search
    And
    Rescue
    Missions:


    Thermal-imaging
    drones
    equipped
    with
    AI
    have
    been
    used
    to
    locate
    missing
    individuals
    in
    challenging
    terrains,
    saving
    lives
    in
    the
    process.

  • Energy
    Optimization:


    AI
    aids
    in
    identifying
    renewable
    energy
    sources
    and
    even
    simulating
    weather
    events
    to
    evaluate
    their
    impact
    on
    energy
    grids.
    For
    example,
    simulating
    a
    hurricane’s
    effects
    helps
    communities
    prepare
    for
    and
    mitigate
    infrastructure
    damage.


She’s
also
excited
about
using
AI
to
sort
through
complex
research
data,
identifying
actionable
insights
in
areas
like
renewable
energy
faster
than
any
human
team
ever
could.
“AI
lets
us
cut
through
the
noise
and
get
to
the
data
that
matters,”
Pamela
explained.


The
Roadblocks
To
AI
In
Sustainability


Despite
these
incredible
possibilities,
Pamela
acknowledged
that
not
everyone
is
on
board.
Here’s
what’s
holding
organizations
back:


  • Lack
    Of
    Awareness:


    Many
    leaders
    don’t
    see
    how
    AI
    fits
    into
    their
    sustainability
    strategy.

  • Trust
    Issues:


    Generative
    AI’s
    reputation
    for
    “hallucinating”
    (aka
    making
    things
    up)
    has
    some
    decision-makers
    doubting
    its
    reliability.

  • Resource
    Challenges:


    Implementing
    AI
    solutions
    takes
    time,
    money,
    and
    expertise

    luxuries
    not
    every
    organization
    has.


But
Pamela
is
a
problem-solver.
“Start
with
education,”
she
advises.
“Help
your
team
understand
why
sustainability
matters
to
them
personally.
When
people
see
the
value
for
themselves,
they’ll
support
the
broader
mission.”


What
About
AI’s
Carbon
Footprint?


We
can’t
talk
about
sustainability
without
addressing
AI’s
own
impact
on
the
environment.
Pamela
didn’t
shy
away
from
the
uncomfortable
truth:
AI
consumes
a
ton
of
energy.
Training
large
language
models
can
use
as
much
energy
as
hundreds
of
homes
over
a
year.
That’s

a
lot.


But
there
are
ways
to
do
better:


  • Build
    Smaller
    Models:


    Pamela’s
    AI
    agents
    are
    designed
    to
    handle
    specific,
    targeted
    tasks,
    reducing
    energy
    use
    without
    sacrificing
    utility.

  • Optimize
    Prompts:


    Long
    prompts
    eat
    up
    more
    computing
    resources.
    Keep
    it
    concise
    and
    focused
    for
    a
    more
    sustainable
    interaction.

  • Smarter
    Data
    Centers:


    Transition
    to
    renewable
    energy
    sources
    and
    distribute
    workloads
    to
    off-peak
    times.


As
she
explained,
“Even
small
adjustments

like
writing
efficient
prompts

can
make
a
big
difference.”


Innovations
That
Inspire
Hope


Despite
the
challenges,
Pamela
remains
optimistic
about
the
future
of
AI
and
sustainability.
Some
of
the
innovations
she’s
most
excited
about
include:


  • Climate
    Resilience
    Tools:


    AI
    is
    being
    used
    to
    model
    how
    extreme
    weather
    events
    like
    hurricanes
    and
    wildfires
    impact
    energy
    grids,
    helping
    communities
    prepare
    and
    respond.

  • Accessible
    Solutions:


    AI-driven
    tools
    like
    text-to-audio
    and
    personalized
    learning
    platforms
    are
    making
    sustainable
    practices
    more
    inclusive
    and
    actionable
    for
    everyone.


“These
are
the
kinds
of
advancements
that
make
me
excited
to
get
up
in
the
morning,”
Pamela
said
with
a
smile.


What
Leaders
Can
Do
Today


For
nontechnical
leaders
wondering
how
to
make
an
impact,
Pamela
has
some
simple
but
effective
advice:


  • Ask
    The
    Right
    Questions:


    When
    working
    with
    vendors,
    ask
    how
    they’re
    incorporating
    AI
    responsibly
    and
    sustainably.

  • Educate
    Yourself
    And
    Your
    Team:


    Sustainability
    starts
    with
    awareness.
    Invest
    in
    understanding
    how
    AI
    can
    fit
    into
    your
    goals.

  • Experiment
    With
    Sustainability
    Prompts:


    Tools
    like
    ChatGPT
    can
    help
    you
    brainstorm
    ways
    to
    meet
    sustainability
    goals

    just
    don’t
    forget
    to
    keep
    those
    prompts
    efficient!


Pamela’s
parting
words
were
simple
but
powerful:
“Pick
one
goal
from
the
UN’s
17
Sustainable
Development
Goals.
Just
one.
Then
ask:
How
can
AI
help
me
achieve
this?”


It’s
a
great
reminder
that
the
intersection
of
AI
and
sustainability
isn’t
just
for
tech
wizards
or
environmental
activists.
It’s
a
space
where
every
leader

and
every
organization

can
make
a
difference.


Watch
the
full
conversation
here:



AI
and
Environmental
Sustainability


So,
what
goal
will
you
tackle?
The
future
of
AI
and
our
planet
might
just
depend
on
it.




Olga MackOlga
V.
Mack



is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored 
Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat
Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security
,
and  
Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities
. She
is
working
on
three
books:



Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on




LinkedIn



and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Diversity Lab Remains Focused On Diversity, Despite Trump Administration’s Gambit To Do Away With DEI – Above the Law

With
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
initiatives
under
attack
in
America
writ
large
thanks
to
the
Trump
administration,
the
Diversity
Lab
has
changed
some
of
the
language
included
on
its
Mansfield
Certification
website.
The

American
Lawyer

has
noted
several
of
these
changes,
including
the
removal
of
language
referring
to
candidate
pool
quotas,
as
well
as
the
removal
of
words
within
the
DEI
acronym,
which
have
since
been
replaced
with
words
like
“equal”
and
“fairness.”
Here
are
just
a
handful
of
the
other
changes
that
have
been
made,
per
Am
Law:

While
a
section
of
the
Mansfield
Certification
page
saved
on
Jan.
12
by
Internet
Archive
stated
that
the
“Mansfield
Difference”
helped
boost
“inclusivity,
access
and
diversity”
in
leadership
roles
at
participating
firms,
the
Jan.
27
version
of
the
page
stated
the
certification
boosted
“inclusivity,
equal
access
and
transparency
in
advancement
processes
and
leadership
roles.”

The
word
“equitable”
was
removed
from
the
“Purpose”
section
of
the
Mansfield
Certification
page
during
the
same
time
period,
and
“diversity”
was
removed
from
“leadership
diversity”
in
a
section
detailing
the
expansion
of
talent
pools
at
law
firms.

Diversity
Lab’s homepage also
changed
since
a
Jan.
22 snapshot from
Internet
Archive.
The
first
paragraph
now
omits
an
entire
sentence
that
previously
stated,
“The
more
diverse
the
leadership,
the
more
inclusive
their
decisions
for
the
benefit
of
their
workforces
and
communities.”
The
closing
line
of
the
same
paragraph
now
reads,
“Our
north
star
is
fairness.”

Although
this
looks
like
it
was
perhaps
an
effort
to
de-emphasize
the
“divisiveness”
of
DEI,
Diversity
Lab
founder
and
CEO
Caren
Ulrich
Stacy
chalked
the
changes
up
to
“normal
website
refinements.”
Stacy
continued,
saying
that
prior
to
Trump’s
Executive
Orders
concerning
“illegal”
DEI
programming,
the
site
“changed
almost
every
day,”
and
that
even
now,
the
site
will
“continue
to
change
almost
every
day.”

What
hasn’t
changed
and
won’t
change
is
the
Diversity
Lab’s
bottom
line:
Stacy
notes
that
our
work
remains
the
same:
we
are
focused
on
equal
access,
equal
treatment,
and
equal
opportunities.
We
are
also
keenly
aware
of
the
scrutiny
on
language
right
now
at
a
national
level,
and
we
want
to
be
as
clear
as
possible
on
our
focus
so
there
are
no
misconceptions—with
greater
inclusion,
comes
greater
diversity.”


Diversity
Lab
Alters
DEI-Centered
Verbiage
on
Mansfield
Certification
Website

[American
Lawyer]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

5 Cost Control Strategies to Manage Law Firm Spend


Reducing
your
law
firm
overhead
goes
hand
in
hand
with
better
serving
your
clients.
After
all,
with
more
consistent
cash
flow,
you
can
spend
more
on
the
critical
resources,
tools,
and
staff
that
make
or
break
your
reputation.


Even
with
a
steady
influx
of
clients
and
cases,
many
law
firms
struggle
to
maintain
steady
revenue.
Over
time,
even
small
leaks
can
lead
to
missed
opportunities
and
unsatisfied
clients.


Effective
law
firm
cost
control
management
is
crucial
for
improving
your
firm’s
cash
flow
and
client
experiences
it
also
sets
your
firm
up
to
scale
growth.


You
may
be
wondering:
How
can
law
firms
save
money?
Where’s
the
best
place
to
start
with



reducing
your
expenses


In
this
article,
we’ll
give
an
overview
of
the
unique
challenges
of
managing
law
firm
cash
flow,
why
cost
control
strategies
are
important
for
growth,
and
five
cost
control
strategies
and
best
practices
that
can
help
your
law
firm
achieve
greatness.


What
is
Cost
Control
for
Law
Firms? 


Cost
control
refers
to
the
various
ways
that
law
firms
try
to
optimize
their
processes
and
reduce
expenses
in
order
to
increase
profitability. 


This
is
done
by
tracking
billable
and
non-billable
hours,
law
firm
expenses,
cash
flow,
and
other
metrics,
then
implementing
improvements
based
on
your
findings.


Unique
Challenges
for
Law
Firm
Cost
Control 


Finding
ways
to
control

law
firm
costs

is
a
pillar
of
any
business.
However,
unlike
a
retail
business,
the
ethical
and
financial
limitations
of
legal
finance
management
create
some
unique
cost
control
challenges.


1.
Lack
of
Control
on
Profit
Leakage


“Profit
leakage”
refers
to
the
various
ways
that
businesses
lose
expected
income.
Just
like
a
leaking
pipe,
a
few
small
(but
consistent)
drips
may
add
up
to
a
much
bigger
problem
over
time. 

“Profit leakage” refers to the various ways that businesses lose expected income.


Here
are
the
top
sources
of
law
firm
profit
leakage:


  • Inconsistent
    or
    inefficient
    billing
    practices

  • Manual
    receipt
    tracking
    and
    data
    entry

  • No
    time
    or
    expense
    tracking
    tools

  • Not
    scoping
    work
    correctly


Without
quantifiable
and
accurate
methods
to
track
and
bill
for
your
time
and
scope
work,
you
may
be
undervaluing
your
services—that
adds
up
in
the
long
term.


2.
Lack
of
Insight
Into
Spending


Without
a
clear
view
of
your
monthly
spending,
you
may
be
surprised
by
unexpected
end-of-the-month
expenses.
This
can
be
devastating
for
a
growing
law
firm
and
may
force
attorneys
to
shift
attention
away
from
their
clients.


3.
Uncaptured
Law
Firm
Expenses


To
effectively
serve
clients,
law
firms
employ
many
tools
and
outside
help.
With
so
much
on
their
plate,
oftentimes
lawyers
inadvertently
take
a
set-it-and-forget-it
approach
for
things
like
subscriptions
and
recurring
services. 


Or,
they
forget
to
account
for
some
expenses
altogether,
such
as
not
tracking
mileage
and
parking
fees
when
driving
to
court.


These
uncaptured
and
untracked
law
firm
operating
expenses
can
lead
to
significant
overhead
costs
that
are
hard
to
diagnose
and
fix.
Capturing
and
categorizing
your
firm’s
expenses
is
the
first
step
to
improving
your
firm’s
financial
health.


4.
Reimbursable
Case
Expenses
Missed


Many
lawyers
live
in
fear
of
losing
track
of
an
invoice
or
forgetting
to
enter
billable
work
into
their
case
management
system.
After
all,
why
do
all
that
hard
work
if
you
aren’t
getting
paid
for
it? 


When
your
accounting,
time
tracking,
and
billing
are
spread
across
disjointed
systems,
it
becomes
a
lot
easier
for
billable
work
to
fall
through
the
cracks.
Add
to
that
the
time
wasted
on
manual
data
entry,
invoice
follow-ups,
and
other

law
firm
accounts
receivable
(A/R)
processes
,
and
you
may
find
you’re
consistently
losing
track
of
hard-earned
income.

When your accounting, time tracking, and billing are spread across disjointed systems, it becomes a lot easier for billable work to fall through the cracks.


5.
Inability
to
Enforce
Budgets



Setting
a
budget

is
a
great
way
to
set
quantifiable
revenue
goals,
increase
law
firm
cash
flow,
and
grow
your
business
over
time.
However,
you
may
find
yourself
constantly
playing
catch
up
as
you
try
to
bill
clients,
track
law
firm
operating
expenses,
deal
with
unexpected
bills,
and
more. 


In
other
words,
in
the
absence
of
historical
financial
data
and



key
law
firm
performance
indicators
,
which
serve
as
a
fiscal
north
star,
sticking
to
a
budget
is
nearly
impossible.


6.
Manual
Receipt
Tracking


Some
firms
have
been
slow
to
adopt
digital
financial
tools
—and
it
shows.
Manual
data
entry
and
receipt
tracking
are
error-prone
and
time-consuming.
Lawyers
who
still
rely
on
old-school
spreadsheets
or
antiquated
software
spend
significantly
more
time
on
non-billable
administrative
work.


Why
Is
It
Important
to
Have
a
Law
Firm
Cost
Control
Strategy?


Why
are
you
not
as
profitable
as
expected?
It
might
be
because
you
don’t
have
an
effective
law
firm
cost
control
strategy
in
place.
In
truth,
understanding
how
law
firms
can
save
money
is
one
of
the
areas
where
many
lawyers
struggle.
After
all,
you
went
to
school
to
practice
law,
not
manage
finances. 


Here
are
the
top
reasons
your
law
firm
should
implement
a
cost
control
strategy:


  • Peace
    of
    mind:


    Gain
    confidence
    that
    nothing
    has
    slipped
    through
    the
    cracks
    by
    ensuring
    your
    expense
    management,
    time
    tracking,
    and
    billing
    data
    are
    centralized
    in
    one
    place.
    Using

    law
    firm-specific
    time-tracking
    templates

    is
    one
    way
    to
    standardize
    your
    information. 

  • Increased
    profits:


    Accurately
    tracking
    your
    case-related
    expenses
    can
    help
    you
    identify
    areas
    for
    growth
    and
    improve
    your
    cash
    flow.

  • Reduced
    financial
    risk:


    Even
    unintentional
    misuse
    of
    funds
    can
    land
    law
    firms
    in
    hot
    water
    leading
    to 
    IOLTA
    compliance
    violations
    and
    lost
    reputation.
    Protect
    your
    firm
    by
    taking
    control
    of
    your
    finances.
     


4
Strategies
for
Law
Firm
Cost
Control


Exceptional
work
and
happy
clients
are
the
cornerstones
of
a
successful
law
firm.
Implementing
effective
cost
control
strategies
isn’t
there
to
limit
what
you
can
do,
but
enhance
everything
that
already
makes
you
great.


Below
are
our
top
four
strategies
to
take
control
of
your
finances.


1.
Evaluate
Law
Firm
Costs,
Profitability,
and
Revenue
Leakage


To
establish
a
law
firm
budget,
you
first
need
a
comprehensive
view
of
all
of
your
invoices,
expenses,
and
billable
hours.
Integrating
case
management
software
into
your
daily
processes
is
a
good
way
to
start.
This
will
streamline
things
like
expense
and
hour
tracking
(for
both
billable
and
non-billable
tasks). 

To establish a law firm budget, you first need a comprehensive view of all of your invoices, expenses, and billable hours.


Most
importantly,
it
will
give
you



quantifiable
data


to
work
with.
Once
you
categorize
your
various
expenses
and
revenue
sources,
you
can
hone
in
on
the
areas
where
you’re
underperforming.
Focus
on
setting
financial
goals
that
are
trackable
and
achievable
within
a
set
period.


For
instance,
if
you
find
a
major
area
of
revenue
leakage
is
inefficient
accounts
receivable
(A/R)
management
and
billing,
you
can
set
a
goal
of
reducing
the
hours
spent
on
billing
by
20%
in
the
next
quarter.
To
accomplish
that,
you
may
consider
investing
in
automated
billing
or
digital
payment
tools.


2.
Implement
Law
Firm
Cost-Saving
Measures


Unnecessary
expenses
and
services
will
slowly
but
surely
eat
away
at
your
profits.
With
a
centralized
view
of
your
expenses,
receipts,
billable
hours,
and
other
financial
data,
you
can
determine
the
cost-saving
steps
your
firm
needs
to
take—and
those
it
doesn’t. 


Instead
of
arbitrarily
cutting
costs,
leverage
technology
to
make
data-driven
decisions.
Common
areas
of
focus
when
reducing
law
firm
overhead
include:


  • Manual
    tasks:


    Are
    there
    tasks
    like
    billing
    and
    scheduling
    that
    could
    be
    automated?
    Could
    legal
    software
    help
    you
    save
    time
    in
    areas
    like
    these?

  • Unused
    service
    subscriptions:


    Many
    of
    us
    regularly
    pay
    for
    various
    software
    subscriptions,
    answering
    services,
    and
    more.
    Are
    you
    using
    all
    of
    them?
    Are
    there
    duplicate
    services
    that
    could
    be
    cut?

  • Office
    space:


    An
    increasing
    number
    of
    firms
    are
    going
    remote
    because
    it
    reduces
    real
    estate
    costs,
    and
    clients
    often
    prefer
    online
    interaction. 

  • Ineffective
    marketing:


    Lead-tracking
    will
    help
    you
    determine
    which
    of
    your
    advertising
    methods
    were
    effective
    and
    which
    were
    duds.
    This
    helps
    you
    spend
    more
    strategically
    on
    marketing
    moving
    forward.


3.
Optimize
Law
Firm
Cash
Flow


Law
firms
have
unique
cash
flow
challenges
because,
in
many
cases,
any
profit
from
your
hard
work
is
unrealized
until
it’s
actually
billed
and
paid.
It’s
easy
to
get
caught
up
working
with
current
clients
and
bringing
new
ones
in,
as
unpaid
client
bills
can
start
to
add
up.


An
inefficient
or
outdated
accounts
receivable
process
is
one
of
the
biggest
culprits.
Strict
payment
terms,
unresponsive
clients,
and/or
manual
processes
can
all
account
for
a
consistently
high
A/R. 


Implementing
a
legal
payment
solution
can
significantly
improve
your
cash
flow
by
automating
many
billing
tasks
and
making
payment
more
convenient.
This
removes
the
burden
of
following
up
with
clients
and
provides
the
tools
necessary
to
set
up
client-friendly



alternative
payment
structures
.

Implementing a legal payment solution can significantly improve your cash flow by automating many billing tasks and making payment more convenient.


Having
a
simplified
and
modern
billing
process
can
increase
your
available
funds
and
provide
more
stability.


4.
Monitor
Law
Firm
Financial
Performance


Do
you
know
how
healthy
your
firm’s
financial
outlook
is?
A
lot
of
law
firms
measure
their
success
by
caseload
and
number
of
clients—but
the
truth
is,
that
doesn’t
necessarily
indicate
a
healthy
cash
flow. 


Regular
financial
reports
are
incredibly
important
to
get
an
honest,
bird’s-eye
view
of
your
law
firm’s
performance.
With
custom
reports,
you
can
both
determine
the
financial
health
of
your
business
and
narrow
down
specific
areas
for
improvement.


Leveraging
Technology
for
Cost
Control 


You
can’t
execute
an
effective
cost
control
strategy
on
instinct
or
hunches
alone.
That’s
why
leading
law
firms
leverage
technology
to
track
KPIs
and
optimize
their
daily
processes.
Legal
billing
and
case
management
software
is
helping
law
firms
of
all
sizes
stay
competitive
and
increase
profits.


Here
are
a
few
of
the
ways
technology
can
help
save
money
at
your
law
firm:


Monitor
Firm
Spending
With
Dashboards


Dashboards
are
visualizations
of
various
types
of
data
in
the
form
of
graphs
and
statistics.
Reports
on


modern

spend
management

softwar
e
for
law
firms
can
give
you
real-time
insights
into
all
of
your
expenses.


Combining
spend
and
case
management
solutions
allows
you
to
spot
trends
and
find
actionable
areas
for
improvement.
Many
software
solutions
will
also
let
you
integrate
your
existing
accounting
and
case
management
solutions
so
you
can
have
a
centralized
view
of



all


of
your
data.


Dashboards
are
also
a
great
way
to
monitor
your
firm’s
performance
at
a
glance
without
having
to
spend
hours
manually
inputting
data
and
running
equations
on
spreadsheets.


Digital
and
Paper
Receipt
Tracking


Manual
receipt
tracking
is
one
of
the
primary
forms
of
profit
leakage
in
law
firms.
Receipts
are
often
lost,
which
means
you
can’t
get
reimbursed
for
common
expenses.

Manual receipt tracking is one of the primary forms of profit leakage in law firms.


Law
firm
spend
management
software,
like

MyCase
Smart
Spend
,
can
help
you
simplify
your
expense
tracking
and
facilitate
reimbursement.
In
MyCase
Smart
Spend,
any
purchase
will
send
out
a
text
message
that
prompts
firm
employees
to
categorize
the
expense
and
take
a
picture
of
the
receipt
so
that
it’s
tracked
ASAP.


Automatically
Limit
Spending
in
Some
Categories


Every
day,
you
have
you
pay
for
various
expenses,
from
postage
and
court
filing
fees
to
office
supplies
and
various
other
costs.
Over
time, 
you
may
be
surprised
how
this
can
add
up. 


Credit
cards
are
useful
for
handling
business
expenses
but
can
become
a
source
of
profit
leakage
when
spending
isn’t
carefully
tracked.
Modern
legal
spend
management
tools
can
help
cut
down
on
careless
spending
by
setting
spending
limits.
Spending
limits
can
be
set
per
purchase
category,
employee
or
based
on
the
time
of
day,
reducing
your
financial
risk.


Track
Case-Related
Expenses


It’s
impossible
to
understand
your
law
firm’s
overhead
when
your
expense
tracking
consists
of
a
jumbled
stack
of
receipts,
a
spreadsheet,
and
maybe
an
old
filing
cabinet.
Expense
tracking
software
centralizes
all
of
your
expenses
and
categorizes
them.


A
centralized
view
lets
you
see
what
is
contributing
the
most
to
your
overhead
and
opens
up
areas
to
strategically
cut
costs. 


Law
Firm
Cost
Control
With
MyCase
Smart
Spend


When
costs
get
out
of
control
or
slip
through
the
cracks,
law
firms
are
limited
in
their
ability
to
effectively
serve
their
clients.
In
other
words,
implementing
smart
cost
control
measures
is
about
more
than
profits—it’s
about
achieving
better
client
outcomes.


The
first
step
of
effective
law
firm
cost
control
is
visibility.
Modern
technology
like

MyCase
Smart
Spend

gives
law
firms
of
all
sizes
a
comprehensive
view
of
their
finances,
along
with
actionable
insights
on
how
to
improve
profitability.


MyCase
Smart
Spend
is
the
first
spend
management
tool
built
specifically
for
law
firms,
with
features
that
help
law
firms
simplify
the
way
they
track
expenses
and
bill
clients. 


Ready
to
see
how
it
works
firsthand?



Schedule
a
free
10-day
trial


of
MyCase
today.

The Emperor’s New Associates: ALSPs Replacing Junior Lawyers – Above the Law

Junior
associates
powered
the
engines
of
Biglaw.
Like
the
human
batteries
of
the
Matrix
except
instead
of
the
deluded
bliss
of
the
late
20th
century,
they
survive
on
the
deluded
bliss
of
ever
having
the
time
to
spend
their
bonus
on
something
fun.
They
slogged
through
document
review,
churned
out
first
drafts,
and
otherwise
served
at
the
beck
and
call
of
their
senior
colleagues
while
drowning
under
the
crushing
weight
of
student
loans.

While
artificial
intelligence
generates
a
lot
of
hype
as
a
threat
to
junior
associates,
AI
still
requires
a
junior
user.
Firms
may
not
need

as
many

juniors
in
the
world
of
AI,
but
some
of
those
jobs
will
survive
the
AI
onslaught.
Alternative
legal
services
providers
(ALSPs),
on
the
other
hand,
could
join
forces
with
AI
and
decimate
the
junior
ranks.

The
word
“decimate”
is
often
misused,
but
in
this
case
we
mean
it
literally…
AI
will
one
day
send
centurions
to
publicly
execute
every
tenth
associate
to
enforce
the
discipline
of
Rome.
All
right,
maybe
not
literally
and
realistically
it’s
going
to
be
more
a
lot
more
than
10
percent.

ALSPs
are
increasingly
taking
on
the
grunt
work
that
used
to
be
the
proving
ground
for
new
attorneys.
According
to
the

Alternative
Legal
Services
Providers
2025
Report


produced
by
the

Thomson
Reuters
Institute
,
the

Center
on
Ethics
and
the
Legal
Profession
at
Georgetown
Law
;
and
the

Saïd
Business
School,
University
of
Oxford


35
percent
of
law
firms
already
use
independent
ALSPs
to
deliver
services
to
clients,
with
usage
expected
to
increase
in
the
next
year.
Among
firms
with
their
own
affiliate
ALSPs,
a
remarkable
62%

also

engage
independent
ALSPs
to
handle
tasks
like
eDiscovery,
contract
review,
and
compliance
work​.

The
report
estimates
the
ALSP
market
reached
$28.5
billion
in
2023,
growing
at
an
18
percent
compound
annual
rate,
outpacing
traditional
legal
services​.
While
ALSPs
have
always
offered
corporate
law
departments
a
cost-effective
solution
for
high-volume
work,
those
clients
have
increasingly
overcome
their
hangups
as
junior
associate
rates
climb.
Beyond
the
these
tasks,
ALSPs
are
also
penetrating
niche
areas
like
regulatory
compliance
and
tech-enabled
legal
operations,
markets
that
law
firms
tend
to
neglect​.

For
junior
associates,
this
trend
strips
away
some
of
the
foundational
work
historically
relied
upon
to
develop
professional
skills.
This
outsourcing
is
great
for
clients
looking
to
save
money
and
increase
efficiency,
but
it
deprives
new
lawyers
of
the
opportunity
to
develop
expertise
in
these
areas.
And
while
few
tears
are
shed
over
combing
through
irrelevant
emails,
there’s
something
to
be
said
for
learning

why

something
is
irrelevant.

And
let’s
not
forget
the
joy
of
piecing
together
an
office
affair
from
the
email
dump—one
of
the
last
perks
of
document
review.

Junior
associates
also
used
to
create
legal
content
from
scratch
before
an
avalanche
of
red
ink
created
an
unrecognizable
final
draft.
But
with
AI
and
ALSPs
delivering
polished
drafts,
juniors
spend
more
time
editing
than
analyzing.
That’s
all
well
and
good
until
you
remember
that
they
don’t
actually
know
what
makes
a
good
draft
in
the
first
place.
And
it
will
only
get
worse
as
the
report
found
that
40%
of
firms
anticipate
increasing
their
use
of
independent
ALSPs
specifically
because
it
is
“more
profitable
to
outsource”
such
work​.

It’s
not
that
ALSPs
actually
outperform
junior
associates.
In
fact,
the
report
highlights
lingering
concerns
about
ALSP
quality
and
confidentiality,
with
half
of
corporate
respondents
citing
these
as
barriers
to
full
adoption​.
Yet
the
price
gap
between
ALSPs
and
law
firm
associates
has
made
the
decision
an
easy
one
for
many
corporate
law
departments.

Clients
may
see
ALSPs
as
a
value
play
rather
than
a
skill
play,
there’s
something
to
be
said
for
the
fact
that
ALSPs
are
staffed
with
folks
with
experience

the
experience
that
the
juniors
used
to
get
on
the
job.
For
tasks
like
document
review
and
due
diligence,
where
the
stakes
are
low
but
the
volume
is
high,
ALSPs
offer
efficiency
that
most
law
firms
simply
cannot
match.
Volume
work
is
their
bread
and
butter​.

Which
is
where
the
AI
comes
in.
While
generative
AI
remains
in
its
infancy
within
the
legal
sector,
45
percent
of
law
firms
are
at
least
exploring
the
development
of
GenAI-powered
services…
but
ALSPs
already
lead
the
way
in
adoption​.

The
report
paints
a
sobering
picture
for
the
future
of
legal
apprenticeship.
If
firms
and
ALSPs
continue
down
their
current
paths,
junior
associates
may
find
themselves
doing
less
legal
analysis
and
more
project
management,
overseeing
the
work
of
ALSPs
and
AI
tools.
While
this
might
make
for
more
efficient
firms,
it
risks
creating
a
generation
of
lawyers
as
middle
managers
lack
hands-on
legal
skills
needed
to
progress
to
more
traditionally
senior
tasks.

This
shift
also
has
implications
for
client
service.
Corporate
clients
may
appreciate
the
immediate
cost
savings
ALSPs
and
GenAI
deliver,
but
will
they
still
value
these
savings
if
they
come
at
the
cost
of
eroding
the
next
generation
of
legal
talent?
Clients
have
long
complained
about
paying
for
the
training
pipeline,
but
as
the
report
notes,
clients
already
cite
quality
as
a
significant
concern
when
dealing
with
ALSPs​
and
“decrease
the
quality
across
the
board”
is
a
less
than
efficient
solution.

Or
maybe
the
future
of
law
is
bland
middle
management.
When

Elon
makes
Trump
turn
over
the
judiciary
to
the
robots
,
maybe
we
won’t
need
lawyers
to
think
creatively
or
persuasively.
Just
ones
who
can
click
“approve”
on
a
machine’s
work.




HeadshotJoe
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
.

On The Dotted Line – Above the Law

The
overwhelming
majority
of
patent
cases
settle
at
some
point
in
their
lifespan.
Some
settle
quickly
after
a
case
is
filed,
while
others
do
not
reach
their
denouement
until
after
a
trip
up
to
the
Federal
Circuit
or
even
the
Supreme
Court.
No
matter
how
convoluted
a
path
a
patent
case
may
take
to
its
final
destination,
the
reality
is
that
a
negotiated
resolution,
rather
than
with
an
executed
judgment,
is
almost
always
how
a
case
ends.

Considering
the
importance
of
settlement
to
patent
cases,
you
would
think
that
law
firms
would
invest
as
much
into
training
their
less
experienced
attorneys
on
the
set
of
skills
necessary
to
achieve
good
client
outcomes
at
settlement
as
they
do
in
training
up-and-coming
litigators
on
how
to
take
a
deposition,
for
example.
Maybe
some
firms
do,
but
speaking
from
personal
experience,
in
order
to
make
partner
in
IP
litigation
at
my
prior
Biglaw
firm,
I
needed
to
undergo
rigorous
trial
and
litigation
skills
training.
Settlement
training?
That
was
for
figuring
out
on
your
own,
assuming
that
you
were
lucky
enough
to
get
assigned
a
settlement
agreement
to
draft
and
negotiate
in
the
first
place.

Despite
a
lack
of
formal
training
in
the
settlement
arts
as
associates

a
program
for
which
should
be
considered
by
firms
with
robust
patent
litigation
practices,
which
necessarily
also
have
robust
patent
litigation
settlement
practices,
even
if
no
one
thinks
of
it
that
way

we
can
assume
that
most
experienced
patent
litigators
learn
how
to
get
a
settlement
closed
over
the
course
of
their
careers.

In
most
patent
litigation
scenarios,
all
it
takes
is
a
straightforward
settlement
and
license
agreement,
where
most
of
the
negotiation
is
centered
on
the
amount
of
money
changing
hands
and
payment
terms,
if
any
is
at
all.
There
are
of
course
more
demanding
situations,
where
licensing
specialists
may
be
brought
in
to
assist
the
litigation
team
in
an
effort
to
protect
the
client’s
interests
to
their
maximum.
Most
cases
do
not
present
the
complexity
or
importance
to
justify
that
type
of
expense,
however,
which
means
that
in
practice
most
settlement
agreements
are
handled
by
the
litigation
team.
In
practice,
that
often
means
a
more
junior
member
is
given
the
task
of
updating
a
previously
used
agreement
to
at
least
serve
at
the
first
turn
of
a
document
that
will
be
sent
to
the
other
side
for
comment
and
revision.

It
is
understandable,
particularly
in
situations
where
a
case
has
not
yet
gotten
off
the
ground
or
where
many
years
of
intense
fighting
have
fizzled
out
with
clients
willing
to
hang
up
their
gloves,
that
there
can
be
a
distinct
lack
of
focus
given
to
something
as
prosaic
as
an
initial
draft
of
a
settlement
agreement.
That
is
particularly
true
where
the
expectation
is
that
the
initial
draft
will
be
sent
back
with
voluminous
comments
and
redlines
from
the
other
side,
even
in
those
rare
cases
where
all
the
key
terms
are
agreed
to
before
that
first
draft
is
sent.

Sometimes,
that
lack
of
focus
can
come
back
to
create
problems,
as
a
recent
District
of
Delaware

decision

points
out

to
the
chagrin
of
a
branded
pharmaceutical
company
that
sought
to
enforce
a
settlement
agreement
that
they
had
thought
was
a
done
deal.
(As
usual,
there
is
some
great
commentary
on
the
decision
over
at
the

IP/DE
blog
,
which
I
recommend.)
Besides
providing
interesting
fodder
for
the
next
episode
of
“Patent
Settlements
Gone
Wrong,”
a
few
interesting
tidbits
in
the
decision
are
worthy
of
attention.

To
start,
it
was
a
real
pleasure
to
read
a
decision
in
a
patent
case
that
had
hyperlinks
to
both
the
briefing
leading
up
to
the
motion
as
well
as
to
cited
cases
and
statutes.
It
makes
for
a
more
immersive
review
experience
and
I
hope
that
other
judges
decide
to
do
likewise
when
issuing
decisions
of
their
own.
That
aside,
it
was
also
a
curious
artifact
of
the
Hatch-Waxman
litigation
regime
that
you
had
the
plaintiff
here
pushing
to
enforce
the
purported
settlement
agreement

in
effect
arguing
that
its
claim
should
be
dropped
in
favor
of
a
negotiated
resolution.
(While
I
have
been
in
the
position
of
representing
a
patent
owner
trying
to
get
a
recalcitrant
defendant
to
finalize
a
settlement
agreement
after
they
had
agreed
to
a
licensing
payment,
it
is
also
true
that
defendants
sometimes
find
themselves
trying
to
get
a
plaintiff
to
follow
through
on
a
proffered
deal.)

Here,
settlement
discussions
started
about
a
month
before
the
complaint
was
even
filed,
lasting
about
six
months
before
breaking
down
on
the
eve
of
execution
of
the
negotiated
agreement.
Upset
about
the
deal
flying
away,
the
plaintiff
moved
to
enforce
the
settlement
agreement,
on
the
grounds
that
but
for
the
signatures,
the
parties
had
come
to
a
meeting
of
the
minds
on
all
the
relevant
terms.
But
the
court
rejected
that
reasoning,
pointing
to
the
fact
that
a
clause
explicitly
stating
signatures
were
necessary
for
a
final
agreement
had
been
included
from
the
very
first
turn
of
the
settlement
agreement
draft.

Add
in
that
the
initial
draft
was
a
“template”
provided
by
the
plaintiff
themselves,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
neither
party
had
actively
negotiated
any
changes
to
that
provision,
and
it
was
clear
to
the
court
that
both
sides
knew
“that
signatures
were
a
necessary
condition
to
settling
the
matter.”

Boilerplate
language
from
a
template?
Enough
to
sink
a
deal
that
might
have
prevented
many
years
and
dollars
that
have
and
will
be
invested
in
litigation.

Ultimately,
this
decision
highlights
the
continued
importance
of
making
sure
that
each
and
every
draft
of
a
settlement
agreement
is
reviewed
thoroughly
before
being
shared
with
the
other
side.
At
the
same
time,
the
decision
also
reminds
us
that
even
though
the
temperature
around
settlement
negotiations
is
often
much
lower
than
what
we
often
see
in
active
litigation,
everyone
involved
in
settlement
talks
must
bring
their
utmost
attention
and
focus
to
that
effort.
Because
mistakes
happen,
even
to
sophisticated
companies
represented
by
sophisticated
and
able
counsel, and
we
all
have
been
reminded
that
the
deal
may
not
be
done
until
everyone
signs
on
the
dotted
line.


Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]

or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub
.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.




Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of




Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC
,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and 
Markman
Advisors
LLC
,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at 
[email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: 
@gkroub.