Author: TSA Press

At
the

Everlaw
Summit
in
San
Francisco
last
week,
the
annual
customer
conference
of
the
e-discovery
company

Everlaw,
founder
and
CEO

AJ
Shankar
delivered
a
keynote
address
in
which
he
announced
the
general
availability
of
three
generative
AI
features
the
company
first
introduced
last
year
and
had
been
developing
in
beta
ever
since.

In
the
course
of
delivering
that
address
(see
featured
image
above),
Shankar,
a
computer
scientist
by
training,
detailed
the
core
principles
that
guide
the
company’s
AI
development
–
principles
that
he
said
are
“table
stakes”
to
ensuring
responsible
AI
development
and
the
best
long-term
outcomes
for
customers.

The
three
features
announced,
all
under
the
umbrella
name
Everlaw
AI
Assistant,
are
now
live
on
the
Everlaw
platform,
although
customers
must
purchase
credits
beyond
their
standard
subscriptions
to
use
them.
They
are:

• Review
  Assistant,
  for
  reviewing,
  summarizing
  and
  prioritizing
  documents.
• Coding
  Suggestions,
  for
  coding
  and
  categorizing
  documents
  based
  on
  criteria
  provided
  by
  the
  user.
• Writing
  Assistant,
  for
  analyzing
  and
  brainstorming
  against
  documents,
  evidence
  and
  depositions.

Three
Core
Principles

At
a
time
when
many
legal
professionals
still
question
the
safety
and
accuracy
of
generative
AI,
it
was
notable
that
Shankar
devoted
a
substantial
portion
of
his
keynote
to
talking
not
about
the
products,
per
se,
but
about
the
three
core
principles
that
guided
their
development
and
Everlaw’s
development
of
other
AI
products
still
to
come.
Those
principles
are:

• Privacy
  and
  security.
• Control.
• Confidence.

With
regard
to
privacy
and
security,
Shankar
said
that
Everlaw
ensures
that
providers
of
the
large
language
models
it
uses
adhere
to
strict
data
retention
policies.
Everlaw
prevents
LLM
providers
from
storing
any
user
data
beyond
the
immediate
query
and
from
using
that
data
for
model
training.

“We
ensure
that
they
apply
zero
data
retention
to
your
data,
which
means
that
when
you
send
data
to
them,
they’re
not
allowed
to
store
it
for
any
reason
past
when
they’ve
answered
your
query,
as
well
as
no
training,
so
they
can’t
use
the
data
to
train
their
models
in
any
way.”

With
regard
to
control,
Shankar
said
Everlaw
is
committed
to
enabling
users
to
maintain
control
over
their
data
and
tool
usage
through
features
that
allow
them
to
manage
visibility,
access,
and
project-specific
settings.
Everlaw’s
approach
to
transparency
includes
notifying
users
when
they
are
using
AI-powered
features
and
making
it
clear
which
models
are
in
use.

Administrative-level
control
allows
admins
to
control
access
to
AI
features
as
well
as
consumption
of
AI
credits
at
various
organizational
and
project
levels.

“Your
users
should
always
know
when
they’re
using
gen
AI,”
Shankar
said.
“We’ll
tell
you
what
models
we
use.
We
want
you
to
have
that
kind
of
transparency
and
control
in
your
interactions
here,
so
you
can
best
devise
how
to
use
a
tool.”

The
third
principle
–
that
of
enabling
customers
to
have
confidence
in
using
these
tools
–
is
the
hardest,
Shankar
said.
“We
know
gen
AI
can
provide
immense
value,
but
it
can
also
make
mistakes,
right.
We
all
know
about
the
potential
for
so
called
hallucinations.”

Shankar
outlined
two
ways
Everlaw’s
development
of
AI
seeks
to
establish
confidence
in
the
AI’s
results.

• 
  Play
  to
  AI’s
  strengths.
  “The
  first
  thing
  we
  do
  is
  that
  we
  design
  experiences
  that
  play
  to
  the
  strengths
  of
  large
  language
  models
  and,
  to
  the
  extent
  possible,
  avoid
  their
  weaknesses.”
  That
  means
  focusing
  on
  use
  cases
  where
  LLMs
  have
  reliable
  innate
  capabilities,
  such
  as
  natural
  language
  fluency,
  creativity,
  and
  even
  some
  reasoning.
  Even
  then,
  he
  said,
  “we’re
  really
  wary.”
  For
  that
  reason,
  Everlaw
  avoids
  uses
  that
  require
  embedded
  knowledge
  of
  the
  law
  and
  instead
  delivers
  results
  that
  rely
  on
  the
  four
  corners
  of
  the
  document
  set
  on
  which
  the
  customer
  is
  working
  –
  documents
  provided
  to
  the
  model
  when
  it
  is
  queried,
  not
  when
  it
  is
  being
  trained.
  “That
  makes
  a
  far
  more
  reliable
  experience.”
• 
  Embed
  into
  existing
  workflows.
  By
  embedding
  the
  AI
  into
  customers’
  existing
  workflows,
  rather
  than
  in
  a
  conversational
  chat
  interface
  that
  gives
  open-ended
  answers,
  the
  AI
  is
  able
  to
  deliver
  answers
  with
  greater
  precision.
  “We
  don’t
  want
  users
  having
  to
  learn
  how
  to
  prompt
  engineer
  to
  get
  what
  they
  want.
  They
  basically
  will,
  in
  many
  cases,
  just
  click
  a
  button
  and
  we’ve
  done
  the
  work
  for
  that
  precise
  use
  case
  to
  ensure
  it’s
  going
  to
  be
  reliable.”
  This
  embedding
  into
  workflows
  also
  means
  that
  the
  necessary
  context
  is
  provided
  to
  more
  precisely
  answer
  the
  question.
  “So,
  together,
  being
  able
  to
  have
  precise
  use
  cases
  and
  having
  all
  the
  context
  you
  need
  allows
  for
  protective
  guardrails
  and
  higher
  quality
  outputs.”

But
he
said
there
is
a
third
aspect
of
building
confidence
in
the
AI,
and
it
is
something
customers
have
to
do
for
themselves,
which
is
to
change
their
mental
model.

“What
you
basically
have
to
do
is
think
about
using
a
computer
a
little
bit
differently
from
how
we’ve
all
been
trained
to
do
for
many
years.
You
have
to
move
from
an
interaction
model
where
you
have
very
repeatable
interactions
that
are
also
largely
inflexible,
like
a
calculator,
to
a
variable-interactions
model,
where
things
might
be
a
little
different,
but
it’s
highly
flexible.
It’s
much
more
like
a
human.”

‘A
Smart
Intern’

In
fact,
he
urged
the
audience
to
think
of
gen
AI
as
a
“smart
intern”
–
very
capable
and
very
hard
working,
but
still
able
to
make
mistakes.
Over
time,
you
need
to
learn
what
the
intern
is
capable
of
and
determine
your
personal
comfort
level
with
its
capabilities,
but
in
the
meanwhile,
you
need
to
continue
to
check
its
work.

“In
this
new
world,
it’s
neither
good
to
just
blindly
trust
the
output
of
a
gen
AI
tool,
nor
is
it
good
to
just
say,
hey,
one
mistake
and
it’s
out.
It’s
like
a
person,
and
that’s
a
fundamental
shift
in
how
we
want
you
to
think
about
these
tools.”

Just
as
you
would
with
an
intern,
in
order
to
build
confidence
in
the
AI,
you
need
to
check
its
work,
to
learn
what
it
is
good
at
and
what
it
is
not.
For
that
reason,
he
said,
Everlaw
builds
its
AI
products
with
features
that
make
it
easy
for
users
to
check
the
outputs.

“Our
answers
will
cite
specific
passages
in
a
document
or
specific
documents
when
you’re
looking
at
many
documents
at
once,
and
so
you
can
check
that
work.”

A
specific
example
of
this
ability
to
check
the
AI’s
work
can
be
found
in
the
new
Coding
Suggestions
feature,
which
will
evaluate
and
code
each
document
in
a
set
based
on
instructions
you
provide,
much
like
human
reviewers
would
do.

Unlike
predictive
coding,
it
will
actually
provide
an
explanation
for
why
it
coded
a
document
a
certain
way,
and
cite
back
to
specific
snippets
of
text
within
the
source
document
that
support
its
coding
decisions.
This
allows
the
user
to
quickly
verify
the
results
and
understand
why
the
document
was
coded
as
it
was.

“It
has
a
richer
semantic
understanding
of
the
context
of
each
document,
which
allows
for
a
unique
insight
like
a
human,
potentially
beyond
what
predictive
coding
could
provide
by
itself,”
Shankar
said.

A
Skeptic
Converted

During
his
keynote,
Shankar
invited
onto
the
stage
two
customers
who
had
participated
in
the
beta
testing
of
these
AI
products.

Of
particular
interest
was
customer

Cal
Yeaman,
project
attorney
at
Orrick,
Herrington
&
Sutcliffe,
who
admitted
he
had
been
highly
skeptical
of
using
gen
AI
for
review
before
testing
the
Review
Assistant
and
the
related
Coding
Suggestions
features
for
himself.

In
his
testing,
he
compared
the
results
of
the
gen
AI
review
tool
against
the
results
of
both
human
review
and
predictive
coding
for
finding
responsive
and
privileged
documents.

“I
was
surprised
to
find
that
the
generative
AI
coding
suggestions
were
more
accurate
than
human
review
by
a
statistically
significant
margin,”
he
reported.

He
speculated
that
others
might
get
different
results
when
using
the
gen
AI
review
tool,
depending
on
their
criteria
for
the
case,
the
nature
of
the
case,
and
the
underlying
subject
matter.

“But
the
more
subject
matter
expertise
is
required,
the
more
it’s
going
to
favor
something
like
the
generative
AI
model,”
he
said.

Another
way
in
which
the
gen
AI
review
impressed
him
was
its
consistency
in
coding
documents.
“If
it
was
right,
it
was
consistently
right
the
whole
way
through.
If
it
was
wrong,
it
was
consistently
wrong
the
whole
way
through.”
That
consistency
meant
less
QC
on
the
back
end,
he
said.

He
also
commented
on
the
speed
of
the
gen
AI
tool
compared
to
other
review
options.
In
just
a
few
hours,
he
was
able
to
complete
two
tranches
of
review
of
some
4,000-5,000
documents,
including
privilege
review.

Even
for
someone
who
is
inefficient
in
their
use
of
gen
AI,
the
review
would
have
cost
less
than
half
that
of
a
managed
review,
and
for
someone
who
is
proficient
in
these
tools,
the
cost
would
be
only
5-20%
of
the
cost
of
managed
review.
“So
it
was
a
massive
savings
to
the
client,”
he
said.

Of
course,
cost
doesn’t
matter
if
the
product
can’t
do
the
job,
he
said.
On
this,
he
said,
of
all
the
documents
that
the
model
suggested
were
not
relevant,
the
partner
who
reviewed
the
results
as
the
subject
matter
expert
found
only
one
that
he
considered
was
relevant,
and
that
was
a
lesser-inclusive
email
that
was
already
represented
in
the
production
population.

He
said
it
was
also
highly
impressive
in
its
identification
of
privileged
documents,
catching
several
communications
among
lawyers
who
the
review
team
had
not
been
aware
of
or
who
had
moved
on
to
other
positions.
In
one
instance,
it
flagged
an
email
based
only
on
a
snippet
of
text
that
a
client
had
copied
from
one
email
chain
and
pasted
into
another
email
with
only
the
lawyer’s
first
name
to
identify
him
and
no
reference
to
him
as
an
attorney.

“There’s
no
indication
that
it
was
an
email
to
an
attorney.
There’s
no
indication
that
it’s
necessarily
privileged.
Nothing
in
the
metadata.
No
nothing.”

Overall,
he
said,
there
was
close
alignment
between
the
gen
AI
coding
suggestions
and
the
predictive
coding,
with
their
suggestions
generally
varying
by
no
more
than
5-10%.

However,
in
those
cases
where
there
was
sharp
contrast
between
the
generative
AI
suggestions
and
the
machine
learning
models,
he
said,
then
in
every
instance
the
subject
matter
expert
found
that
the
gen
AI
had
gotten
it
right.

“Those
documents
tended
to
be
something
that
needed
some
sort
of
heuristic
reasoning,
where
you
need
some
sort
of
nuance
to
the
reasoning,”
he
said.

Other
New
Products

For
all
the
focus
on
generative
AI
at
the
Everlaw
Summit,
Shankar
noted
that
only
20%
of
the
company’s
development
budget
is
devoted
to
gen
AI,
with
the
rest
going
to
enhancing
and
developing
other
features
and
products.

In
a
separate
presentation,
two
of
the
company’s
product
leads
gave
an
overview
of
some
of
the
other
top
features
rolled
out
this
year.
They
included:

• Multi-matter
  models
  for
  predictive
  coding.
  This
  provides
  the
  ability
  to
  leverage
  predictive
  coding
  models
  created
  in
  one
  matter
  to
  be
  reused
  in
  subsequent
  similar
  matters,
  making
  it
  possible
  to
  generate
  prediction
  scores
  on
  new
  matters
  almost
  immediately.
  Over
  time,
  customers
  will
  be
  able
  to
  create
  libraries
  of
  predictive
  coding
  models.
• Microsoft
  Directory
  Integration
  for
  Legal
  holds.
  This
  feature
  allows
  users
  to
  create
  dynamic
  legal
  hold
  directories
  by
  connecting
  a
  Microsoft
  Active
  Directory
  to
  their
  legal
  holds
  on
  Everlaw.
  That
  can
  streamline
  the
  process
  of
  creating
  a
  legal
  hold
  and
  keep
  custodian
  information
  in
  existing
  legal
  holds
  up
  to
  date.
• Enhancements
  to
  Everlaw’s
  clustering
  and
  data
  visualization
  tools.

A
Note
on
the
Conference

This
was
my
first
time
attending
the
Everlaw
Summit.
As
it
generally
the
case
with
customer
conferences,
there
would
be
little
reason
to
attend
for
those
who
are
not
either
customers
or
considering
becoming
customers.

That
said,
the
more
than
350
attendees
(plus
Everlaw
staff
and
others)
got
their
money’s
worth.
The
programs
that
I
attended
were
substantive
and
interesting,
and
many
covered
issues
that
were
not
product
focused,
but
of
broad
interest
to
legal
professionals.
(I
moderated
one
such
panel,
looking
at
the
discovery
issues
and
strategies
in
two
high-profile
litigations
that
have
been
in
the
news.)

The
conference
also
featured
two
fascinating
“big
name”
speakers
–

Shankar
Vedantam,
creator
and
host
of
the

Hidden
Brain
podcast,
and

Kevin
Roose,
technology
columnist
for

The
New
York
Times.

An
unfortunate
sidebar
to
the
conference
was
the
strike
by
workers
at
The
Palace
Hotel,
the
Marriott-owned
hotel
where
the
conference
was
held.
Just
a
couple
days
before
the
conference
started,
they
started
picketing
outside
the
hotel,
joining
a
strike
and
picket
lines
that
are
ongoing
at
Marriott
hotels
throughout
the
United
States.

Workers
are
seeking
new
collective
bargaining
agreements
providing
higher
wages
and
fair
staffing
levels
and
workloads.

You
can
read
more
about
the
hotel
workers’
campaign
at

UnitedHere!
and
find
hotels
endorsed
by
UniteHere
at

FairHotel.org.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Conservatives
are
convinced
Kamala
would
melt
down
doing
a
full
Rogan
interview,
but
if
there’s
anyone
who
knows
how
to
make
charming
small
talk
with
people
who
aren’t
nearly
as
smart
as
they
think
they
are
for
long
periods
of
time,
it’s
the
wife
of
an
LA
entertainment
lawyer.

This
is
someone
who
has
been
forced
to
nod
and
smile
and
act
interested
while
some
A-lister
on
MDMA
cornered
her
at
a
party
to
drone
on
about
climate
change
and
regenerative
agriculture
and
their
last
ayahuasca
retreat.
Compared
to
that,
Joe
is
a
walk
in
the
park.

—

Zack
Stentz,
screenwriter
for
films
and
TV
shows
including
Thor,
X-Men:
First
Class,
The
Flash,
Rim
of
the
World,
and
Jurassic
World:
Camp
Cretaceous,

commenting
on
X
on
how
Democratic
presidential
candidate
Vice
President

Kamala
Harris
would
do
in
an
interview
with
outspoken
podcaster

Joe
Rogan.
Stentz
continued,
saying,
“I
actually
kind
of
like
Rogan,
but
if
you
think
I’m
going
to
pass
up
an
opportunity
to
make
a
joke
about
the
vapidity
of
Hollywood
party
conversations,
well…”
The
“LA
entertainment
lawyer”
Stentz
mentions
is
Harris’s
husband,
former
Biglaw
partner

Doug
Emhoff,
who
currently
holds
the
title
of
Second
Gentleman.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Don’t
ya
just
hate
it
when this
happens?

Plaintiffs
delayed
too
long
to
file
their
action,
they
lack
standing,
they
have
failed
to
join
indispensable
parties,
and
they
have
failed
to
articulate
a
viable
cause
of
action.
Hence,
we
will
grant
the
Secretary’s
motion
to
dismiss
plaintiffs’
amended
complaint
without
further
leave
to
amend,
and
we
will
deny
as
moot
plaintiffs’
motion
for
temporary
restraining
order
and
preliminary
injunction.
An
appropriate
order
shall
issue.

Thus
endeth
the
preposterous
challenge
to
overseas
and
military
ballots
filed
September
30
by
six
Republican
congressmen
in
Pennsylvania,
flicked
away
like
a
stray
piece
of
lint
adhering
to
US
District
Judge
Christopher
Conner’s
robes.
The
effort
to
block
counting
military
and
overseas
ballots,
filed
after
25,000
of
them
have
been
sent
out
by
the
Pennsylvania
Secretary
of
Commonwealth,
runs
aground,
felled
by
the
doctrine
of
laches,
the Purcell
principle,
and
half
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.

The
plaintiffs’
argument
was,
as
they
say,
hard
to
characterize.
Their
theory
seems
to
have
been
that
Pennsylvania’s
Republican
Secretary
of
the
Commonwealth
Al
Schmidt
and
his
Deputy
Secretary
for
Elections
Johnathan
Marks
broke
the
law
when
they
“issued
directives
and
guidance
to
county
officials
to
exempt
[overseas
and
military
voting]
applicants
entirely
from
any
verification
requirements.”

Which
would
make
complete
sense,
except
that:

1. The
   challenged
   directive
   was
   issued
   upwards
   of
   two
   years
   ago;
2. Generalized
   whining
   that
   the
   law
   hasn’t
   been
   followed
   does
   not
   constitute
   standing
   to
   challenge
   state
   action;
3. Ditto
   for
   claims
   of
   “vote
   dilution”;
4. Defendants
   Schmidt
   and
   Marks
   lack
   the
   authority
   to
   order
   the
   67
   county
   election
   boards
   to
   take
   the
   action
   requested,
   a
   fact
   the
   defendants
   were
   made
   aware
   of
   before
   they
   amended
   their
   complaint
   and
   failed
   to
   add
   the
   responsible
   parties
   as
   defendants;
5. The
   
   amended
   complaint
   seeks
   a
   declaratory
   order
   based
   on
   the
   Supremacy
   Clause,
   which
   contains
   no
   private
   right
   of
   action;
   and
6. The
   Uniformed
   and
   Overseas
   Citizens
   Absentee
   Voting
   Act
   [UOCAVA]
   expressly
   instructs
   states
   to
   accept
   registration
   applications
   from
   overseas
   voters
   with
   a
   simple
   attestation
   of
   citizenship
   and
   no
   other
   documentation.

But
other
than
than, bang
up
job,
boys!

If
anything,
the
dismissal
order
understates
how
nuts
this
complaint
was.
Reps.
Reschenthaler,
Kelly,
Meuser,
Perry,
Thompson,
and
Smucker
tried
to
read
a
federal
law
that
explicitly
says
that
the
Federal
Post
Card
Application
“shall”
serve
as
“simultaneous
voter
registration
application
and
absentee
ballot
application”
as
permitting
the
state
to
impose
additional
requirements
upon
registrants
…
and
their
argument
somehow
rested
on
federal
preemption???

On
the
other
hand,
the
plaintiffs
can
now
point
to
the
ruling
as
further
evidence
of
a
Deep
State
plot
to
enable
large
scale
voting
by
non-citizens,
aided
by
a
feckless
judiciary,
and
which
will
be
directly
responsible
for
any
and
all
Republican
losses
next
week.
And
if
that
was
the
goal,
it’s
a
winner!

Reschenthaler
v.
Schmidt
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Making
a
lot
of
money
comes
with
some
real
obligations.
No
—
not
the
ones
Peter
Singer
lays
out
in

Famine,
Affluence,
and
Morality
—
the
ones
that
really
matter,
like
making
sure
the
government
gets
a
cut
of
your
cash!
Paying
taxes
and
voting
may
both
be
civic
duties,
but
deciding
to
opt
out
of
taxes
for
a
couple
of
years
will
get
you
locked
up
before
not
voting
will.
One
very
successful
lawyer
had
to
learn
that
the
hard
way.

Reuters
has
coverage:

A
former
longtime
general
counsel
to
Moody’s was
sentenced
by
a
New
Jersey
federal
judge
on
Thursday
to
8
months
in
prison
for
willfully
failing
to
file
personal
federal
income
tax
returns.

Federal
prosecutors
said
John
Goggins
earned
$54
million
between
2018
and
2021
and
failed
to
file
federal
income
taxes
during
those
years.
Goggins
stepped
down
as
Moody’s
senior
vice
president
and
general
counsel
last
fall.

Remember,
readers
at
home,

if
the
IRS
can
get
Capone,
they
can
get
you!
The
$3.1M
in
restitution
was
a
mitigating
factor
in
Goggins’s
sentencing,
but
he’d
have
likely
been
better
off
if
he
just
paid
what
he
owed
before
it
got
to
this
point.
Don’t
let
his
punishment
be
yours
too;
pay
your
damned
taxes!

Moody’s
Former
Top
Lawyer
Gets
8-Month
Sentence
In
Personal
Tax
Case
[Reuters]

---

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
cannot
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.

Earlier
this
month,
I
presented

Part
I
of
my
written
interview
with
a
co-founder
and
the
executive
director
of

Free
Law
Project
(“FLP”),

Michael
Lissner.
That
column
presented
his
answer
to
the
first
of
my
three
questions
and
focused
on
how
FLP
has
helped
the
general
public
get
access
to
legal
information
through
their
various
offerings.
What
follows
are
Michael’s
answers
to
my
remaining
two
questions.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
his
answers
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
his
answers
as
he
provided
them.

Gaston
Kroub:
What
can
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments
be
doing
to
help
support
FLP’s
efforts?

Michael
Lissner:
Law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments
can
support
the
Free
Law
Project
in
several
important
ways.
First,
they
can
contribute
by
sharing
legal
data,
such
as
court
documents
and
filings,
to
help
us
expand
our
databases,
especially
in
areas
where
access
is
still
limited.
They
can
also
collaborate
with
us
by
adopting
and
promoting
the
use
of
open-source
legal
tools
like
CourtListener
or
RECAP,
helping
drive
awareness
and
usage
across
the
legal
industry.
Additionally,
financial
support
or
pro
bono
legal
assistance
can
be
invaluable,
especially
for
our
advocacy
work
around
legal
transparency
and
reform,
such
as
our
efforts
to
reduce
PACER
fees.
Finally,
law
firms
can
play
a
key
role
in
policy
reform
by
joining
us
in
advocating
for
greater
public
access
to
legal
records,
using
their
influence
to
push
for
changes
that
align
with
our
mission
of
democratizing
the
law.

GK:
It
is
hard
to
imagine
many
firms
that
are
not
interested
in
supporting
greater
access
and
transparency
in
law.
That
said,
if
you
are
at
a
firm
that
is
not
using
or
promoting
the
use
of
tools
like
CourtListener
or
RECAP,
then
it
might
be
time
to
make
a
change.
If
getting
more
senior
personnel
to
do
so
would
be
a
challenge,
then
why
not
try
to
have
associates
and
summer
associates
do
so?
Likewise,
for
those
firms
looking
for
a
worthy
place
to
direct
charitable
contributions
or
pro
bono
hours,
the
FLP
should
be
top
of
mind
as
a
destination
for
those
worthy
goals.
Everyone
benefits
when
the
rule
of
law
is
buttressed
by
an
informed
citizenry
–
and
the
FLP
is
on
the
front
lines
trying
to
make
that
happen.

GK:
What
opportunities
and
challenges
do
you
and
your
team
at
the
FLP
look
forward
to
tackling
in
the
coming
years?

ML:
One
of
the
biggest
challenges
we’re
excited
to
tackle
is
expanding
access
to
more
court
records
and
legal
data,
particularly
at
the
state
and
local
levels,
where
transparency
can
still
be
limited.
Scaling
our
databases
and
ensuring
real-time
access
to
court
documents
will
require
technical
innovation
and
collaboration.
Here,
AI
has
huge
potential
to
advance
our
work
at
the
Free
Law
Project.
It
can
help
us
process
and
organize
vast
amounts
of
legal
data
more
efficiently,
automating
tasks
like
summarizing
opinions
or
identifying
patterns
in
case
law.
AI-powered
search
tools
could
make
legal
research
faster
and
more
intuitive,
allowing
users
to
ask
complex
legal
questions
in
plain
language.
It
could
also
help
uncover
systemic
issues,
like
biases
in
rulings,
which
supports
our
advocacy
for
reform.
Overall,
AI
can
help
us
keep
up
with
the
growing
amount
of
legal
data
while
making
the
law
more
accessible
and
transparent.

Another
challenge
is
improving
the
usability
of
our
tools
—
making
them
more
accessible
not
just
to
legal
professionals
but
to
the
general
public,
so
anyone
can
easily
interact
with
the
legal
system.
We’re
also
focused
on
pushing
for
policy
reforms,
especially
around
PACER
fees
and
public
access
to
legal
documents,
which
will
require
ongoing
advocacy
and,
likely,
litigation.
Balancing
these
goals
while
maintaining
our
commitment
to
open-source
development
and
privacy
will
be
key,
and
we
look
forward
to
navigating
these
complex
challenges
as
we
continue
growing.

GK:
Quite
a
full
agenda
on
the
table
for
Michael
and
his
colleagues
at
the
FLP.
We
can
hope,
as
they
do,
that
AI
can
be
a
boon
to
the
challenging
task
of
assimilating
an
ever-growing
set
of
data
generated
by
the
legal
industry.
It
would
also
be
great
to
see
the
general
public
become
more
comfortable
with
legal
material,
especially
in
our
age
of
media
distrust
and
partisan
politics.
An
informed
citizenry
that
is
comfortable
accessing
and
analyzing
a
Supreme
Court
decision,
for
example,
is
a
lot
better
than
one
that
can
have
viewpoints
manipulated
by
interested
parties
—
irrespective
of
whether
those
parties
fall
on
the
right
or
the
left
of
the
political
spectrum.
Considering
the
FLP’s
success
to
date,
we
can
be
assured
that
their
efforts
will
continue
to
benefit
us
all
over
time.

My
thanks
to
Michael
for
the
insights
and
cooperation,
and
I
wish
him
and
his
FLP
colleagues
continued
success
with
their
important
work.
Those
inclined
to
provide
financial
support
for
their
efforts
will
be
making
an
impactful
choice
and
I
hope
that
we
will
continue
to
see
FLP
innovate
in
the
service
of
their
mission. 
I
am
always
open
to
conducting
interviews
of
this
type
with
other
IP
thought
leaders,
so
feel
free
to
reach
out
if
you
have
a
compelling
perspective
to
offer.

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.

Public
Service,
Labour
and
Social
Welfare
Minister
Hon. July
Moyo and
Higher
and
Tertiary
Education,
Innovation,
Science
and
Technology
Development
Minister
Hon. Frederick
Shava,
were
recently
sued
by
Hon. Marvellous
Kumalo,
a
former
opposition
legislator,
who
accused
the
duo
of
disregarding
the
provisions
of
the
Public
Finance
Management
(Treasury
Instructions),
2019
and
that
of
the
Constitution,
when
they
borrowed
money
from
several
funds,
established
by
government
to
assist
and
cater
for
the
less
privileged
members
of
society,
without
seeking
prior
approval
from
the
Treasury.

In
an
application,
which
was
filed
on
24
September
2024
at
Harare
High
Court,
Hon.
Kumalo,
who
was
represented
by Tonderai
Bhatasara of Zimbabwe
Lawyers
for
Human
Rights,
argued
that
the
failure
by
the
two
ministers
to
seek
prior
approval
of
the
Treasury
before
borrowing
from
the
critical
funds,
established
by
government
to
cater
for
the
development
and
promotion
of
the
welfare
of
children
and
protection
of
children
and
young
persons
including
to
cater
for
the
welfare
and
needs
of
aged
people
and
to
also
support
some
skilled
workers,
is
unlawful
and
is
clearly
against
the
principle
of
transparency
and
accountability
guaranteed
in
section
298(1)(a)
of
the
Constitution.

The
former
St
Mary’s
constituency
legislator
argued
that
his
right
to
proper
administration
of
public
funds
that
fosters
transparency
and
accountability
by
government
officials
had
been
violated
by
the
conduct
of
the
ministers,
which
is
a
violation
of
section
116
of
the
Public
Finance
Management
(Treasury
Instructions),
2019,
which
prohibits
accounting
officers
from
borrowing
money
from
funds
within
their
ministries
for
purposes
of
financing
appropriation
budgets
without
prior
written
authority
of
the
Treasury.

According
to
Hon.
Kumalo,
the
borrowings
were
done
in
a
four
year
period
spanning
from
2019
to
2023
and
were
reported
and
revealed
in
the
Auditor-General’s
Report
of
2023,
where
Hon.
Moyo
and
Hon.
Shava
disregarded
the
provisions
of
the
Constitution
and
of
the
Public
Finance
Management
(Treasury
Instructions),
2019,
by
borrowing
funds
from
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Fund,
the
Child
Welfare
Fund,
the
Older
Persons
Fund,
the
Industrial
Training
and
Trade
Testing
Fund
and
the
Skilled
Manpower
Trade
Testing
and
Certification
Fund,
without
following
laid
down
procedures
such
as
obtaining
prior
approval
from
the
Treasury.

In
filing
the
application
at
the
High
Court,
Hon.
Kumalo
argued
that
he
had
been
motivated
by
the
need
to
uphold
principles
of
public
financial
management
as
set
out
in
section
298(1)(a)
of
the
Constitution
and
to
ensure
that
transparency
and
accountability
are
respected
and
that
public
funds
are
handled
in
a
manner
in
which
they
are
not
exposed
to
corruption
and
abuse.

On
18
October
2024,
High
Court
Judge
Justice Gladys
Mhuri ordered
Hon.
Moyo
and
Hon.
Shava
to
reimburse
ZWG206
370
840
to
the
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Fund,
the
Child
Welfare
Fund,
the
Older
Persons
Fund,
the
Industrial
Training
and
Trade
Testing
Fund
and
the
Skilled
Manpower
Trade
Testing
and
Certification
Fund,
within
three
months.

Justice
Mhuri
ordered
Hon.
Moyo
to
reimburse
ZWL$515
657
986
converted
to
ZWG206
368
508
as
at
5
April
2024,
which
was
borrowed
from
the
Sustainable
Livelihoods
Fund
within
90
days
and
for
the
Public
Service,
Labour
and
Social
Welfare
Minister
to
reimburse
ZWL$3
544
915
converted
to
ZWG1
418
69
as
at
5
April
2024,
which
was
borrowed
from
the
Child
Welfare
Fund
within
90
days
and
for
him
to
reimburse
ZWL$153
468
converted
to
ZWG61.49
as
at
5
April
2024,
which
was
borrowed
from
the
Older
Persons
Fund
within
90
days.

The
High
Court
Judge
ordered
Hon.
Shava
to
reimburse
ZWL$5
250
converted
to
ZWG2.10
as
at
5
April
2024,
which
was
borrowed
from
Industrial
Training
and
Trade
Testing
Fund
within
90
days
and
for
him
to
reimburse
ZWL$2
123
558
converted
to
ZWG849.86
as
at
5
April
2024,
which
was
borrowed
from
the
Skilled
Manpower
Trade
Testing
and
Certification
Fund
within
90
days.

Justice
Mhuri
also
ordered
Hon.
Moyo
and
Hon.
Shava to
seek
the
Treasury’s authority
for
all
the
borrowed
money
from
the
Sustainable
Livelihood
Fund,
from the Child
Welfare
Fund,
from
the
Older
Persons
Fund,
from
the
Industrial
Training
and
Trade Testing
Fund,
from
the
Skilled
Manpower
Trade
Testing
and
Certification
Fund, within
60
days
of
the
granting
of
the
court
order.

Post
published
in:

Featured

In
the
early
days
of
the
computer
revolution,
the
big
hardware
manufacturers
thought
they’d
just
kicked
off
an
intense
battle
for
market
dominance.
Instead,
what
Microsoft
figured
out
was
that
the
computer
on
the
desk
doesn’t
matter
as
much
as
the
programs
making
the
computer
run.
Decades
later,
Microsoft
has
a
stranglehold
on
the
business
world.

When
LawToolBox
began
in
legal
calendaring,
its
founders
bet
on
Microsoft,
forging
a
partnership
to
enrich
its
applications
for
legal
industry
use.
Which
has
paid
off
for
the
company
as
it’s
grown
from
calendaring
to
function
as
an
AI-enabled
umbrella
platform
within
Microsoft365
—
embedded
more
than
integrated
into
Microsoft
—
living
in
the
DMS,
Outlook,
Teams,
and
everything
else.
Changes
or
updates
populate
across
a
firm’s
ecosystem,
meaning
a
lawyer
can
adjust
a
deadline
in
Outlook,
and
that
update
will
reflect
across
all
relevant
matter
files,
calendars,
and
documents
in
real
time.
An
incredibly
useful
product,
but
it
remained
hard
to
succinctly
explain
the
extent
of
LawToolBox’s
role
within
the
system
without
resorting
to
incomplete
descriptions
like
“Microsoft’s
legal
helper.”

But
Microsoft’s
CoPilot
branding
unintentionally
provides
a
better
way
to
describe
how
LawToolBox
fits
into
a
Microsoft-based
environment.
The
company
uses
the
phrase
“CoPilot
for
Legal”
but
after
reviewing
what
they’re
doing,
it’s
more
like
“CoPilot’s
CoPilot”
for
this
industry.
Either
way,
it’s
a
much
more
straightforward
description
that
can
resonate
across
the
industry
and
with
clients.

The
first
legal
app
approved
for
Microsoft
CoPilot
back
in
December
2023,
LawToolBox
offers
a
lot
of
enhancements
to
the
out-of-the-box
AI
offering.
“Our
ability
to
access
a
wide
range
of
pre-built
and
customizable
Al
models
and
built
and
customizable
Al
models
and
easy-to-use
APIs
through
Azure
OpenAl
helps
our
solution
maintain
the
optimal
level
of
intelligence
to
recognize
matter-specific
dates
and
other
types
of
content,
even
from
handwritten
notes,”
COO
Carol-Lynn
Grow
notes.
There’s
also
a
legal
prompt
library
providing
pre-configured
prompts
for
routine
tasks
and
an
option
for
firms
to
design
customized
workflows
for
complex
matters.

Every
time
Microsoft
makes
copilot
show
up
in
new
places

—
like
Excel
or
PowerPoint
—
LawToolBox
is
along
for
the
ride
and
automatically
shows
up
in
those
places
too.

And
outside
of
CoPilot
proper,
LawToolBox
developed
its
own
“LawToolBox
AI,”
offering
many
of
the
same
capabilities
as
Microsoft’s
Copilot
–
reading
PDFs,
scanning
handwritten
documents,
and
organizing
data
–
without
the
CoPilot
price
tag.
“Microsoft
suggested
we
build
this,”
Grow
said.
“It’s
still
on
their
platform,
and
they’re
excited
about
making
AI
accessible
at
every
level.”

And
securely
accessible
at
every
level,
leveraging
all
the
security
that
Microsoft
offers
including
the
MACC
(Microsoft
Azure
Consumption
Commitment),
while
providing quick
access
to
documents,
deadlines,
and
co-authoring
capabilities
in
Word,
with
everything
tied
back
to
a
case
or
client
matter
with
its
Matter
Container
concept
for
organizing
legal
matters
within
the
Microsoft
ecosystem.

“The
best
story
that
we
have
to
tell
about
the
way
attorneys’
lives
are
changed,
is
that
an
attorney
is
at
a
soccer
game
and
they’ve
got
an
M&A
deal
and
they’re
like,
oh
shoot,
that’s

tomorrow
in
the
Outlook
calendar
entry,
they
just
click
on
the
documents
link
and
it
has
all
their
documents
and
everything’s
secure
and
right
there
on
their
iPhone.”

As
Microsoft
continues
to
evolve,
so
does
LawToolBox.
At
this
year’s
Microsoft
Ignite
conference,
CEO
Satya
Nadella’s
keynote
highlighted
LawToolBox
as
a
prime
example
of
a
partner
using
Copilot
to
bring
AI
into
specialized
industries.
It’s
a
recognition
not
just
of
LawToolBox’s
technical
prowess
but
of
the
vision
that
has
carried
them
from
1998
to
today.

And
a
reflection
of
Microsoft’s
vision
dating
back
to
the
early
80s.
What
matters
is
the
software
that
makes
the
system
go.
LawToolBox
operates
as
a
secure
bridge
between
Microsoft’s
applications
and
legal-specific
needs.
Empowering
law
firms
to
use
familiar
tools
like
NetDocuments
and
SharePoint
while
providing
AI
capabilities
required
to
compete
in
this
AI
moment.
When
it
comes
to
CoPilot,
LawToolBox
has
embraced
the
task
of
making
it
work
for
lawyers.

Because
even
CoPilots
need
CoPilots
sometimes.

In
the
lead
up
to
the
2024
election,
we’re
hearing
a
lot
about

“politicizing”
government
institutions
—
usually
by
Republicans
looking
to
shake
public
confidence
in
neutral
bodies
charged
with
maintaining
law
and
order.
But
in
North
Carolina,
the
GOP
is
doing
exactly
what
they
accuse
Democrats
of
doing.

State
Supreme
Court
Justice
Allison
Riggs
is
in
the
middle
of
a

tight
election
to
keep
her
seat.
And
she’s
been
hitting
the
campaign
trail,
talking
about
her
stance
on
important
issues
that
matter
to
voters,
like
reproductive
freedom…
And,
relatedly,
her
opponent’s,
Judge
Jefferson
Griffin
of
the
North
Carolina
Court
of
Appeals,
comments
that
“life
begins
at
conception.”
This
is
apparently
a
bridge
too
far
for
three
Republicans
in
the
North
Carolina
Legislature,
and
they
filed
an
ethics

complaint
with
the
Judicial
Standards
Commission.

At
Slate,
Billy
Corriher
points
out
the
absurdity
of
the
move:

Three
Republicans
in
the
North
Carolina
Legislature
have
filed
an
ethics
complaint
against
state
Supreme
Court
Justice
Allison
Riggs,
a
former
civil
rights
lawyer
who
is
running
for
reelection.
Did
she

rule
in
favor
of
her
father after
refusing
to
recuse
in
the
case,
as
her
colleague
has
repeatedly
done?
No.
Did
she,
as
a
Republican
justice
did, rule
for
a
company whose
stock
she
owns?
No.
Her
alleged
offense
was
talking
about
reproductive
rights
on
the
campaign
trail
and
calling
out
her
opponent
for
declaring
that
“life
begins
at
conception.”

Interestingly,
Griffin
was
ready
to
go
with
an
attack
ad:

The
complaint
against
Riggs
itself,
as
well
as
the
GOP’s
response
to
it,
could
raise
further
ethical
issues.
Ethics
rules prohibit
legislators
from
using public
resources
to
help
political
candidates.
Yet
Riggs’
opponent,
Judge
Jefferson
Griffin
of
the
North
Carolina
Court
of
Appeals,
had
an attack
ad
ready
to
go referencing
the
“investigation”
almost
as
soon
as
the
ethics
complaint
was
revealed.
Moreover,
a
memo
from
the
JSC
instructs
judges
that
ethics
rules
require
that
judicial
campaign
ads
not
“diminish
public
confidence”
in
the
courts
or
be
“intentionally
misleading,”
and
it’s
not
clear
if
the
JSC
is
even
investigating
Riggs
or
preparing
to
issue
a
“formal
advisory
opinion.”

This
isn’t
the
first
time
this
move
has
been
busted
out
of
the
GOP
playbook.
In
Wisconsin’s
2023
state
supreme
court
election,
challenger
Janet
Protasiewicz
also
made
comments
on
issues
relevant
to
voters
—
she
spoke
about

reproductive
freedom
as
well
as
redistricting
maps
— without
committing
how
she
would
rule
on
a
particular
case.
Protasiewicz
faced
an
ethics
complaint
as
a
result,
but
it
was
eventually

dismissed
(after
she
won
the
election).
Hopefully
the
case
against
Riggs
faces
a
similar
fate.

---

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].

With
Halloween
nearly
upon
us,
that
means
bonus
season
is
right
around
the
corner.
In
years
past,
Biglaw
firms
were
all
about
treats,
offering
pandemic-related
special
bonuses
amid
a
white-hot
lateral
market.
But
here
in
2024,
some
firms
are
handing
out
tricks
—
like
$0
in

Milbank
special
bonus
cash
(thus
far,
at
least).
That
said,
associates
are
now
eagerly
awaiting
their
year-end
bonuses.
In
fact,
the
majority
of
the
500-plus
respondents
to
our
annual
bonus
season
survey
think
2024’s
overall
bonus
compensation
will
be
higher
last
year’s
bonuses.

As
a
little
reminder
—
as
if
you
really
needed
one
—
this
is
what
last
year’s

Milbank/Cravath
bonuses
looked
like:

• 
  Class
  of
  2023:
  $15,000
  (pro-rated)
• 
  Class
  of
  2022:
  $20,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2021:
  $30,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2020:
  $57,500
• 
  Class
  of
  2019:
  $75,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2018:
  $90,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2017:
  $105,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2016+:
  $115,000

Bonus
money
remained
the
same
in
2023
after
Cravath
increased
the
size
of
its
bonuses
across
all
class
years
in
2021.
Everyone
saw
more
money,
and
the
most
senior
associates
in
Biglaw
received
$115,000
instead
of
the
usual
$100,000.
Once
again,
it
was
a
great
year
for
bonuses.
With
all
of
that
background,
let’s
turn
to
this
year’s
bonuses.

Considering
current
economic
conditions,
what
will
2024
bonuses
look
like?

More
than
half
of
associates
(57%)
predict
that
bonuses
will
be
higher
than
they
were
in
2023.
This
is
a
dramatic
shift
from
last
year’s
survey,
when
just
14%
of
associates
surveyed
predicted
higher
bonuses
—
but
last
year,
Milbank’s
special
bonuses
weren’t
in
the
mix.
Will
firms
decide
to
add
include
them
along
with
their
regular
year-end
bonuses?
Biglaw
firms
better
not
disappoint,
because
we
can’t
even
imagine
the
state
of
uproar
it
would
cause
among
associates.

So,
will
any
other
money
be
headed
associates’
way?
Our
respondents
seem
pretty
enthusiastic
when
it
comes
to
bonuses
on
top
of
bonuses
in
2024.

Do
you
think
your
firm
will
use
the
year-end
bonus
announcement
to
match
the
Milbank
summer
bonus
or
offer
any
other
special
bonuses?

Most
associates
are
also
much
more
optimistic
about
special
bonuses
than
they
were
in
2023.
Last
year,
83%
of
associates
surveyed
said
they
didn’t
expect
to
see
any
special
bonuses,
whereas
this
year,
62%
of
associates
think
there
will
be
some
kind
of
special
bonus.
And
nearly
half
of
respondents
(49%)
expect
firms
to
use
this
opportunity
to
match
the
Milbank
summer
bonus.
Still,
not
everyone
is
convinced
anything
extra
will
be
offered:
31%
say
there
won’t
be
special
bonuses
and
7%
are
unsure.
Let’s
not
forget,
those
Milbank
special
summer
bonuses
ranged
from
$6,000
to
$25,000,
without
any
hourly
requirements
attached.
It’s
time
to
cross
your
fingers
and
hold
out
hope
that
this
bonus
season
will
be

extra
special.

For
those
of
you
who
are
wondering
when
your
bank
accounts
will
be
a
little
more
flush,
here’s
a
list
of
the
dates
when
year-end
market
bonuses
hit
Biglaw
since
2006,
the
very
first
year
Above
the
Law
started
publishing
bonus
news.
Take
a
look:

For
the
past
few
years,
since
2018,
bonus
announcements
had
been
made
in
early
to
mid-November
until
Cravath
stretched
the
timeline
by
a
smidge
in
2021.
Let’s
see
when
our
respondents
think
this
year’s
first
bonus
will
be
announced.

When
do
you
think
2024
bonuses
will
be
announced?

The
majority
of
respondents
(77%)
believe
that
bonuses
won’t
be
announced
until
mid-November
or
later.
The
most
popular
prediction
(selected
by
24%
of
associates)
is
the
week
before
Thanksgiving.
This
(sort
of)
lines
up
with
past
precedent
set
by
Cravath
in
recent
years
—
if
we
assume
that
Cravath
will
be
the
first
firm
on
bonuses
this
year,
that
is.

In
the
past,
Cravath
announced
its
bonus
news
on
either
the
last
Monday
in
November
or
the
first
Monday
in
the
first
week
of
December.
But
with
other
firms
in
the
mix
—
will
Milbank
or
Baker
McKenzie
try
to
announce
first
again
this
year?
—
it’s
really
hard
to
say
what
will
happen.
There
may
be
no
rhyme
nor
reason
when
it
comes
to
this
year’s
big
bonus
announcements.

While
associates
are
busy
counting
down
the
hours
until
Bonus
Day,
they’re
likely
even
busier
counting
up
the
hours
they’re
on
track
to
bill
in
2024
to
meet
bonus
eligibility
targets.
Just
how
much
are
associates
billing
now?
The
answer
is…
nearly
as
much
as
they
billed
last
year.
Here
are
the
full
survey
results.

How
many
hours
are
you
on
track
to
bill
in
2024?

The
largest
group
of
associates
(24%)
said
they
are
on
track
to
bill
between
2000
and
2099
hours
this
year.
Nearly
half
(47%)
expect
to
bill
even
more.
While
these
figures
are
similar
to
those
reported
in
2023,
more
respondents
this
year
said
they
expect
to
bill
at
least
2400
hours
(16%
vs
10%
in
2023).
Bill,
baby,
bill
—
and
hope
for
even
bigger
bonuses!
Associates
tell
us
that
some
firms
are
offering
special
perks
for
their
hard
work,
with
the
most
commonly
reported
incentive
is
an
above-market
bonus
for
high
billers.
A
few
associates
reported
other
kinds
of
perks
like
a
reduced
work
schedule,
origination
credit,
and
“unplugged
time.”

Check
back
in
with
us
on
bonuses
soon,
because
Biglaw
associates
are
looking
forward
to
their
bank
accounts
being
stuffed
like
the
Thanksgiving
turkeys
they’ll
gobble
down
at
the
end
of
next
month.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

---

---