The
new
administration
has
made
it
clear
that
they
don’t
have
much
interest
in
enforcing
the
nation’s
securities
laws.
Except
maybe
as
an
avenue
to
accuse
companies
of
dishonoring
shareholders
by
promoting
ESG
initiatives.
The
point
is,
Trump
has
a
meme
coin
to
sell
and
a
media
company
stock
to
fluff
so
SEC
enforcement
has
to
hit
the
bench
for
a
few
years.
Meanwhile,
shadow
president
Elon
Musk
still
nurses
a
grudge
toward
the
agency
for
having
the
audacity
to
enforce
the
voluntary
settlement
he
signed
curtailing
the
risk
he
might
commit
fraud
at
scale
over
social
media
.
But
that’s
not
actually
the
reason
they
just
cut
off
the
SEC’s
Westlaw
access.
And
while
on
the
surface,
the
canceled
contract
looks
like
another
ill-conceived
cost
cutting
measure
from
Musk’s
bumbling
speedrun
through
the
federal
budget,
the
reality
appears
to
be
much
dumber.
So,
in
the
parlance
of
our
times,
“Shot.”
Earlier
today,
we
learned
that
the
word
had
gone
out
to
executive
agencies
to
purge
all
access
to
a
variety
of
media
that
don’t
meet
the
administration’s
editorial
standards.
It’s
a
vague
book
burning
but
the
running
theme
seems
to
be
publications
that
say
things
that
hurt
Trump’s
feelings.
The
New
York
Times
won’t
renounce
that
Pulitzer
they
won
reporting
on
Trump’s
ties
to
Russia,
the
country
he’s
currently
claiming
Ukraine
attacked
for
some
reason.
Or
the
Associated
Press
who
refuses
to
stop
calling
it
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
just
because
that’s
actually
what
it’s
called.
Let’s
just
pause
to
appreciate
that
we’ve
now
reached
a
stage
of
epistemic
collapse
where
The
Economist
—
a
publication
that
denounced
city
sewers
as
creeping
socialism
—
branded
as
a
leftist
rag.
Note
the
inclusion
of
Reuters.
And
so,
as
sure
as
the
night
follows
the
day,
may
we
present
“Chaser.”
Yeah,
maybe
this
is
just
about
“media
contracts,”
but
in
light
of
the
other
report
it
seems
likely
the
administration
saw
“Reuters”
and
starting
purging
agencies
of
everything
in
the
Reuters
family.
Including
the
ubiquitous
research
tool.
With
the
current
shift
in
the
legal
market
and
new
executive
orders,
if
you’re
one
of
the
44,000-plus
federal
government
lawyers,
you
might
be
deeply
apprehensive
about
transitioning
to
the
private
sector.
As
a
legal
resume
writer
and
legal
career
expert,
my
column
at
Above
the
Law
over
the
past
four
years
has
centered
on
strategies
and
resources
for
handling
legal
career
transitions
at
all
steps
of
the
legal
job
search
lifecycle,
including
strategies
for
updating
your
resume,
leveraging
LinkedIn
and
building
a
personal
brand,
utilizing
recruiters
through
the
hidden
job
market,
and
even
strategically
searching
during
different
segments
of
the
calendar
year
(Q2
job
search,
summer
job
search,
fall
job
search,
and
Q4
job
search).
Take
A
Deep
Breath
And
Process
Your
Emotions
Anyone
facing
a
major
career
transition
goes
through
a
series
of
emotions.
Recessions,
pandemics,
and
government
administration
changes
create
widespread
panic
in
professionals,
and
lawyers
are
not
immune
to
this.
During
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
I
had
a
number
of
clients
who
faced
major
uncertainty
after
being
laid
off
from
companies
they
were
at
in
the
upward
of
20-plus
to
even
30-plus
years.
They
were
completely
blindsided
and
shell-shocked
by
the
news.
Many
were
mourning
the
loss
of
“what
was”
and
what
they
had
built.
There
was
comfort,
complacency,
and
certainty,
and
the
rug
was
suddenly
ripped
out
from
underneath
them.
Losing
a
job
or
changing
a
career
suddenly
can
bring
a
wave
of
emotions
and
trauma
that
you’ve
never
experienced
before.
Navigating
the
“unknown”
is
scary.
As
I’ve
always
stressed
throughout
my
Above
the
Law
articles,
no
matter
how
long
you’ve
been
employed,
your
career
documents
should
be
updated.
Your
network
should
be
nurtured,
and
you
should
never
stop
keeping
yourself
relevant
and
doing
things
that
boost
your
career
value,
such
as
attending
conferences
and
bar
association
events,
engaging
with
an
executive
and
leadership
coach,
finding
a
mentor,
and
seeking
out
ways
to
grow
professionally.
Reflect
On
Your
Experience
Before
You
Update
Your
Resume
And
LinkedIn
Profile
Before
you
begin
updating
your
resume
and
LinkedIn
profile
for
a
career
transition
from
federal
government
lawyer
to
private
sector
lawyer,
reflect
on
your
experience
as
a
whole.
Legal
experience
in
the
government
sector
positions
you
well
for
a
transition
to
the
private
sector,
whether
as
a
law
firm
attorney,
as
an
in-house
counsel,
or
as
counsel
for
industry
trade
groups
and
associations.
I’ve
worked
with
numerous
lawyers
who
began
their
careers
at
the
SEC,
FTC,
FCC,
DOJ,
FDA,
and
other
agencies
and
departments
of
the
federal
government,
which
in
turn
laid
the
foundation
for
them
to
lead
a
practice
group
at
a
major
law
firm,
revamp
the
compliance
program
and
respond
to
enforcement
matters
at
a
public
company,
or
advance
regulatory
strategy
through
lobbying
efforts
for
a
national
trade
association.
The
key
is
to
showcase
how
you
possess
the
skills
needed
to
excel
in
the
private
sector.
Think
about
the
key
competency
areas
you’ve
touched
and
advised
on.
What
industry
sectors
have
you
interfaced
with?
Are
you
more
of
a
specialist
or
a
generalist
with
broader
touchpoints?
What
types
of
filings
or
enforcement
actions
have
you
managed?
Have
you
handled
the
rewriting
or
revision
of
policies
and
other
key
reports?
Have
you
improved
major
processes
or
helped
to
launch
new
contract
management
systems?
Have
you
led
legal
teams
and
mentored
junior
lawyers?
What
other
legal
adjacent
areas
have
you
garnered
experience
in?
Begin
writing
a
list
of
these
areas
of
expertise
and
match
those
areas
of
expertise
with
real
examples
of
results
and
contributions
where
you’ve
shined
in
your
experience.
This
will
help
you
to
update
and
optimize
your
resume.
You’ll
soon
begin
to
see
all
of
the
incredible
insights
and
experience
you
have
that
can
help
a
law
firm,
company,
or
industry
group
handle
issues
from
the
opposing
side.
Converse
With
Others
Who’ve
Made
The
Leap
From
Government
Sector
To
Private
Sector
LinkedIn
is
the
perfect
place
for
you
to
network
with
other
former
government
lawyers
who
have
made
the
successful
transition
to
in-house
counsel
or
law
firm
lawyer.
Now
is
the
time
to
reach
out
to
them
and
engage
with
them.
Find
out
how
they
did
it,
and
if
they
have
suggestions
for
you.
Listen
to
their
first-hand
experience
of
how
they
leveraged
their
background
and
made
the
leap.
Remember,
you
need
a
strong
network
and
an
effective
networking
strategy
to
successfully
job
search
in
the
digital
age.
Stay
Organized
During
The
Job
Search
And
Career
Transition
As
you
embark
on
any
job
search,
it’s
important
is
to
stay
organized.
Creating
a
job
search
spreadsheet
is
one
sure
way
to
keep
track
of
outreach,
job
postings,
networking
contacts,
and
other
progress
notes.
Check
in
with
yourself
weekly.
Save
job
postings.
Analyze
them
closely
to
identify
common
patterns
and
skills
that
are
continuously
emphasized.
Throughout
this
article,
I’ve
linked
and
cross-referenced
prior
articles
of
mine
that
can
be
a
helpful
resource
to
you
during
the
career
transition
from
government
lawyer
to
private
sector
lawyer.
Have
a
question
about
your
career
transition
or
need
additional
resources?
Feel
free
to
connect
with
me
on
LinkedIn.
Wendi
Weiner
is
an attorney,
career
expert,
and
founder
of The
Writing
Guru,
an
award-winning
executive
resume
writing
services
company.
Wendi creates
powerful
career
and
personal
brands
for
attorneys,
executives,
and
C-suite/Board
leaders
for
their
job
search
and
digital
footprint. She
also
writes
for
major
publications
about
alternative
careers
for
lawyers, personal
branding,
LinkedIn
storytelling,
career
strategy,
and
the
job
search
process. You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected],
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn,
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @thewritingguru.
The
news
has
been
dominated
by
the
reckless
and
cruel
moves
of
the
fledgling
Trump
II
administration.
The
policy
devastation
left
in
their
wake
will
likely
last
decades,
but
there
is
also
a
more
personal
toll,
with
thousands
of
federal
employees
suddenly
out
of
work.
And
a
bunch
of
them
are
lawyers.
Already
former
federal
government
lawyers
have
taken
to
the
job
market,
saturating
the
lateral
market
—
particularly
in
Washington,
D.C.
Bloomberg
Law
reports
that
Biglaw
firms
are
inundated
with
applicants.
Resumes
are
flowing
from
lawyers
who
have
worked
at
the
Federal
Trade
Commission,
the
Consumer
Financial
Protection
Bureau,
and
Internal
Revenue
Service,
said
Kristin
Koehler,
managing
partner
of
Sidley
Austin’s
DC
office.
“There’s
high
numbers
of
them
and
really
extraordinary
talent
that’s
out
on
the
market
right
now,”
she
said.
And
it’s
not
like
it’s
just
Sidley
seeing
this
flood
of
resumes
—
Haley
Lelah,
global
director
of
talent
acquisition
and
integration
at
McDermott
Will
&
Emery,
said,
“We’re
seeing
probably
at
least
double
the
amount
of
usual
applicants.
This
is
definitely
a
unique
situation.”
Over
on
Fishbowl
newly
out
of
work
attorneys
are
looking
for
tips
to
make
their
resume
stand
above
the
rest.
They’ll
need
whatever
leg
up
they
can
find
too.
Because
as
Stephen
Springer,
managing
partner
of
recruiter
Major
Lindsey
Africa’s
DC
office,
notes,
candidates
are
not
in
the
best
position
to
negotiate
with
firms
when
they
don’t
have
a
book
of
business,
“There’s
only
so
many
dollars
that
they
can
put
forward
to
people
that
are
highly
skilled,
and
will
probably
be
very
successful
in
the
private
sector,
but
don’t
carry
an
immediate
book
of
business
with
them.”
Plus,
as
another
recruiter,
Justine
Donahue
of
Macrae,
observes,
when
it
comes
to
the
job
market,
“Supply
is
already
outweighing
demand.”
So
the
rank-and-file,
less-experienced
attorneys
are
having
the
hardest
time
riding
this
wave.
They’ll
have
to
be
out
there
grinding
and
networking,
figuring
out
just
how
disruptive
losing
their
federal
job
is
going
to
be
to
their
careers
(and
lives).
And
hoping
for
just
a
bit
of
luck.
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].
The
digital
health
funding
landscape
has
gone
through
a
series
of
twists
and
turns
ever
since
the
Covid-19
pandemic
—
once
characterized
by
a
frantic
investment
pace
and
overblown
valuations,
then
later
hesitance
and
a
dead
exit
market.
But
for
the
past
six
months
or
so,
the
digital
health
sector’s
funding
environment
has
been
quite
stable
and
busy,
noted
Billy
Deitch,
partner
at
Oak
HC/FT,
during
an
interview
this
week
at
the
ViVE
conference
in
Nashville.
This
year
“feels
busier”
in
terms
of
quality
investment
opportunities,
Deitch
stated.
“Coming
out
of
the
boom
times
of
‘21
and
‘22,
there
were
a
couple
years
of
companies
tightening
their
cash
burn,
not
raising
—
and
now
we’re
seeing
so
much
more
activity.
I
would
say
since
around
Labor
Day
of
last
year,
and
then
continuing
into
this
year,
the
pace
of
opportunities
that
we’re
seeing
is
much
higher
than
it’s
been
in
years,”
he
declared.
He
noted
that
this
isn’t
entirely
surprising,
given
many
companies
have
been
preserving
the
capital
over
the
past
two
years
with
the
plan
to
raise
funds
in
2025.
In
the
past,
it
was
common
for
startups
to
raise
capital
every
six
months
or
so,
Deitch
pointed
out.
With
all
that
cash,
a
lot
of
them
have
focused
inward
over
the
past
couple
years,
figuring
out
ways
to
scale
their
business
and
increase
their
revenue,
he
explained.
Deitch
also
highlighted
that
“growth
at
all
costs”
has
proven
to
be
an
unfit
motto
for
digital
health
startups.
“The
fact
of
the
matter
is
healthcare
can
move
really
slowly
—
a
lot
more
slowly
than
other
sectors.
You
need
to
really
deliver,
and
you
need
to
move
at
the
pace
that
health
systems
or
payers
are
willing
to
move
at,”
he
remarked.
“You
can’t
just
sell
solutions.
You
have
to
sell
solutions,
deliver
on
solutions
and
make
sure
that
your
customers
are
saying
great
things
about
you
—
that
gives
you
the
right
to
continue
to
grow.”
Deitch
added
that
point
solutions
probably
won’t
continue
to
receive
high
amounts
of
investment
like
they
did
in
2021
and
2022.
“Point
solutions
got
funded
[in
the
past]
—
they
had
a
narrow
focus,
so
let’s
say
a
health
system
has
to
buy
10
of
those
to
have
a
solution.
These
companies
can
struggle
on
their
own,”
he
stated.
He
said
he
is
seeing
more
and
more
point
solution
providers
merge
with
each
other
to
create
platforms
with
broader
sets
of
tools
—
and
added
that
he
believes
this
trend
will
only
become
more
common.
The
executive
orders
from
President
Donald
Trump
over
the
past
few
weeks
have
been
fast
and
furious,
and,
for
those
of
us
in
the
reproductive
space,
sometimes
terrifying.
(Is
birthright
citizenship
under
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
really
on
its
way
out?)
Still,
yesterday’s
executive
order
promising
an
expansion
of
access
to
IVF
protection
is
…
cautiously
exciting.
But
before
we
declare
a
stopped
clock
right
even
once,
there
are
some
serious
issues
that
need
addressing.
Unaffordable
Care.
Access
to,
and
affordability
of,
standard-of-care
fertility
treatments
has
long
been
an
issue
in
the
United
States.
While
a
few
states
have
passed
IVF
insurance
mandates
requiring
health
insurance
plans
to
include
fertility
treatments
like
IVF
—
just
as
it
would
treatments
for
any
other
medical
issues
—
a
majority
of
Americans
remain
without
insurance
coverage
for
IVF.
This
leads
hopeful
parents-to-be
to
take
desperate
measures,
like
setting
up
crowdsourcing
accounts
to
afford
the
high
out-of-pocket
costs
for
treatment,
or
even
working
a
second
job
at
Starbucks
for
the
IVF
insurance
coverage.
Insurmountable
IVF
Obstacles.
A
year
ago,
in
February
2024,
we
saw
a
major
threat
to
IVF
access,
when
the
Alabama
Supreme
Court
issued
its
ruling
in
LePage
v.
Center
for
Reproductive
Medicine.
There,
the
state’s
high
court
determined
that
cryopreserved
embryos
are
legally
minor
children,
and
that
the
destruction
of
embryos
equated
to
the
causing
the
death
of
children.
In
reaction,
fertility
clinics
in
Alabama
immediately
shut
down
all
IVF
services.
So
even
those
people
lucky
enough
to
be
able
to
afford
IVF
lost
access
to
treatment,
as
well
as
control
over
their
own
genetic
material
and
embryos.
After
the
ruling,
even
then-candidate
Trump
remarked
on
his
support
for
IVF.
And
fortunately
for
Alabamans,
the
state
legislature
acted
swiftly,
and
passed
a
bill
to
shield
IVF
providers
from
liability.
On
its
face,
the
new
Trump
executive
order
promises
the
protection
of
IVF,
as
well
as
increasing
affordable
access
—
great
things,
in
the
abstract.
But
is
this
real?
Many
questions
are
still
open.
Federal
IVF
Protection.
Trump
and
Vice
President
JD
Vance
have
both
spoken
about
their
interest
in
Americans
having
more
kids.
Assuming
those
interests
are
in
good
faith,
passing
federal
legislation
protecting
access
to
IVF
would
be
a
great
start
for
the
“more
babies”
goal.
Maybe
Congress
could
pass
something
like
the
Access
to
Family
Building
Act,
which
was
previously
introduced,
but
failed
along
partisan
lines.
With
the
leader
of
the
Republican
Party
now
vocally
in
support,
it
should
be
unanimous
for
federal
legislators
to
support
a
statutorily
enshrined
nationwide
legal
right
for
patients
to
access
IVF
and
other
assisted-reproductive
technology
services,
and
for
doctors
to
provide
IVF
treatment
in
line
with
medical
standards.
Give
Veterans
Access
To
Fertility
Care.
What
about
at
least
giving
veterans
fertility
services?
Currently,
veterans
have
access
to
VA-covered
treatment
if
their
need
for
fertility
treatment
was
directly
and
specifically
caused
by
injuries
suffered
by
their
service.
But,
of
course,
such
a
clear
cause
is
only
present
in
a
small
number
of
cases.
For
many
others,
the
cause
of
infertility
is
unknown.
Passing
comprehensive
legislation
to
require
full
coverage
for
those
that
served
our
country
seems
only
fair.
Affordable
Care
For
All.
While
we
are
at
it,
let’s
give
everyone
else
insurance-covered
access
to
fertility
treatment
as
well!
Congress
could
pass
something
like
the
previously
introduced
Access
to
Infertility
Treatment
and
Care
Act.
In
his
executive
order,
Trump
acknowledged
the
extreme
expense
of
IVF
—
$12,000
to
$25,000
per
IVF
cycle.
If
insurance
plans
were
required
to
cover
treatment
for
infertility
and
fertility
preservation
services,
everyone,
regardless
of
financial
resources,
could
access
the
care
they
need
to
grow
their
families.
Let’s
require
all
Affordable
Care
Act
policies,
as
well
as
Medicaid,
to
include
IVF!
Of
course,
these
are
all
acts
of
the
legislative
branch,
not
the
Executive
Branch.
But
given
that
equivalent
pieces
of
legislation
previously
failed
on
party
lines,
with
Republicans
unified
in
opposition,
vocal
support
of
the
leader
of
the
Republican
Party
should
be
all
that
Congress
needs
to
get
these
passed
handily.
Right?
The
building
blocks
are
there.
So
it
seems
like
it’s
time
to
build
something
we
can
all
agree
on
—
access
to
affordable
medical
care
to
grow
families.
As
they
say,
even
a
stopped
clock
is
right
twice
a
day.
We’re
now
two
years
into
the
generative
AI
era
and
so
far
this
supposedly
revolutionary
technology
has
mostly
delivered
bad
middle
school
term
papers
and
embarrassing
lawyer
stories.
Which
isn’t
to
say
the
technology
can’t
perform
useful,
time-saving
tasks,
it’s
just
that
—
barring
a
fundamental
breakthrough
like
fusion
energy
or
quantum
computing
—
AI’s
potential
upper
bound
isn’t
“replacing
lawyers”
as
much
as
“processing
transcripts
faster.”
It’s
time
to
rejoice
in
AI’s
amazing
but
mundane
capabilities
rather
than
pine
for
free
intellectual
labor
that
won’t
hallucinate
like
it’s
on
the
brown
acid.
And
this
goes
double
for
the
non-lawyers
that
in-house
legal
teams
have
to
keep
in
line.
Part
of
this
isn’t
their
fault.
AI
is
moving
rapidly
and
users
are
working
just
as
fast
creating
headaches.
The
volume
of
queries
people
make
of
consumer-facing
AI
toys
have
skyrocketed
with
one
firm
reporting
32,000
hits
in
a
week.
And
that’s
a
law
firm!
Multiply
that
usage
rate
out
across
a
multibillion
dollar
corporation.
No
matter
how
hard
lawyers
try
to
direct
users
to
products
with
real
security
and
guardrails,
a
new
product
will
arrive
with
the
security
integrity
of
a
wet
paper
bag
to
upset
that
guidance.
In
interviews,
85
percent
indicated
they
are
minimally
or
not
at
all
prepared,
a
slight
improvement
from
the
prior
year’s
total
of
93
percent.
Additionally,
generative
AI
was
the
only
topic
where
not
one
of
the
participants
assigned
a
four
or
five
out
of
five
for
their
AI
readiness
(on
a
one-to-five
scale
of
not
at
all
prepared
to
very
prepared).
At
that
rate,
in-house
lawyers
won’t
be
prepared
until
just
before
Trump’s
fifth
term.
Another
obstacle
to
preparedness
is
the
lack
of
consensus
over
exactly
presents
the
biggest
problem:
Loss
of
jobs
at
the
bottom.
Never
change
corporate
America!
“Security”
and
“Data
Privacy”
are
separate
but
overlapping
issues
when
it
comes
to
AI.
But
worse,
these
challenges
aren’t
limited
to
AI
usage.
A
staggering
65
percent
of
GCs
say
they’re
not
prepared
to
deal
with
securing
all
the
emerging
data
sources
under
their
roofs
like
collaboration
apps,
cloud
storage,
and
linked
content.
Some
respondents
also
reported
increases
in
data
breaches
(21%)
and
privacy
violations
or
notifications
(18%).
These
figures
varied
somewhat
from
the
2024
report,
when
38%
and
21%
noted
increases
in
breaches
and
privacy
violations,
respectively.
Data
privacy
and
DSARs
were
also
ranked
as
the
second
and
third
highest
issues
causing
disputes
and
investigations,
listed
as
a
primary
driver
by
33%
and
29%,
respectively.
While
employees
are
probably
exposing
data
or
avenues
into
the
company
systems
in
a
variety
of
ways,
feeding
confidential
client
data
to
an
AI
model
headquartered
somewhere
between
Shanghai
and
“Gee,
Wouldn’t
You
Like
To
Know”
adds
a
whole
new
level
of
risk.
Put
more
bluntly,
one
respondent
said,
“I
am
scared
$h!+less
that
if
we
are
audited,
we
will
be
found
non-compliant
because
of
how
employees
or
patients
transmit
data.”
SNL’s
50th
anniversary
has
spawned
a
lot
of
commentary.
A
good
bit
of
it
was
about
them
bringing
back
Black
Jeopardy.
As
great
as
Tracy
Morgan
was
as
Darius,
Eddie
Murphy
as
Tracy
Morgan
stole
the
show.
4
Cheese
Lasagna
or
nothing!
Other
commentary
has
been
less
appetizing,
namely
Brian
Freedman’s
remarks
on
a
quick
joke
Ryan
Reynolds
during
the
taping.
People
has
coverage:
In
one
moment
during
the
show,
Reynolds
seemingly
referenced
their
headline-making
lawsuits
with
[Justin]
Baldoni
when
he
was
asked
from
the
stage,
“How’s
it
going?”
and
the
actor,
with
[Blake]
Lively
seated
beside
him,
responded,
“Great,
why?
What
have
you
heard?”
before
moving
on
with
the
bit. … “I’m
unaware
of
anybody,
frankly,
whose
wife
has
been
sexually
harassed
and
has
made
jokes
about
that
type
of
situation,”
said
[Baldoni’s
attorney,
Brian]
Freedman.
“I
can’t
think
of
anyone
who’s
done
anything
like
that.
It
surprised
me.”
First
things
first,
it
isn’t
like
he
made
some
grand
joke.
“Great,
what
have
you
heard?”
is
“Get
a
load
of
this
guy”‘s
tongue-in-cheek
and
heavily
decaffeinated
cousin,
not
a
15
minute
cold
open
on
his
wife’s
court
proceedings.
On
top
of
that,
it
makes
perfect
sense
for
a
high
profile
celebrity
to
make
a
quick
nod
toward
the
public
scrutiny
they’ve
been
under
so
that
they
can
get
the
audience
focused
on
why
they’re
actually
there:
to
do
their
jobs.
It’s
easy
to
get
caught
up
in
the
fame
and
glitz,
but
on
some
level
this
was
just
a
live
streamed
employee
who,
knowing
that
the
audience
heard
about
their
legal
troubles,
decided
to
break
the
4th
wall
and
say
“Lawyers,
can’t
live
with
’em,
can
definitely
live
without
em!”
before
straightening
his
tie
and
carrying
on
with
his
PowerPoint
presentation.
Not
to
mention
that
Ryan
Reynolds
is
Deadpool,
after
all
—
4th
wall
breaks
are
kind
of
his
thing.
Second…can
some
junior
associate
quietly
inform
Brian
that
dark
humor
is
a
thing?
Even
if
Reynolds
or
Lively
made
the
decision
to
allude
to
the
trial
in
stronger
terms,
it
should
generally
be
read
in
bad
form
to
spin
a
clearly
signaled
self-deprecating
joke
as
an
excuse
to
discredit
someone’s
truthfulness
in
court.
Further,
if
someone
who
was
sexually
harassed
or
supported
their
spouse
who
was
did
decide
to
go
on
and
do
a
15
cold
open,
more
power
to
them
so
long
as
all
of
the
parties
involved
consent.
Humor
can
provide
catharsis
and
community
for
some
of
the
worst
things
that
can
happen
to
people
—
sexual
assault
included.
Congratulations
to
everyone
that
helped
make
SNL’s
50th
year
special
a
hit
with
its
viewers.
If
you
haven’t
seen
it,
go
watch
it!
And
a
suggestion
to
Brian
Freedman
—
watch
your
mouth.
Seriously,
the
judge
already
told
you
to
shut
up.
Focus
on
the
case
instead
of
scrutinizing
jokes.
There
have
been
several
lawyers
who
managed
a
pivot
from
legal
to
comedy,
but
I
get
the
feeling
that
jokes
aren’t
your
forte.
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.
Based
on
our
experience
in
recent
client
matters,
we
have
seen
an
escalating
threat
posed
by
the
Democratic
People’s
Republic
of
Korea
(DPRK)
information
technology
(IT)
workers
engaging
in
sophisticated
schemes
to
evade
US
and
UN
sanctions,
steal
intellectual
property
from
US
companies,
and/or
inject
ransomware
into
company
IT
environments,
in
support
of
enhancing
North
Korea’s
illicit
weapons
program.
Businesses
have
been
entangled
in
politics
since
there
have
been
businesses
and
politics.
It
didn’t
used
to
be
so
in-your-face
though.
Now,
before
spending
a
dollar,
we
apparently
have
to
somehow
try
to
sort
out
the
“good”
corporations
from
the
“bad”
corporations.
I’m
going
to
let
you
in
on
a
little
secret,
though.
All
corporations
are
ultimately
amoral.
A
lot
of
corporations
talk
a
good
game
as
to
caring
about
important
external
things
like
the
environment
or
civil
unrest.
Whatever
they
say,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
there
is
a
major
conflict
between
some
purported
corporate
value
and
profitability,
you
don’t
need
an
MBA
to
know
what
the
real
priority
(for
the
corporation)
is
going
to
be.
Here
in
America,
we
used
to
have
things
like
government
oversight
to
help
ensure
that
companies
didn’t
get
too
evil,
but
elected
officials
would
rather
worry
about
which
bathrooms
we’re
using,
I
guess.
Customers
have
a
little
influence
to
exert.
But
not
much.
If
you
really
cared
so
deeply
about
exploitative
labor
practices,
animal
welfare,
pollution,
corruption,
etc.,
that
you
would
not
touch
any
product
from
any
company
with
a
hand
in
such
things,
well,
there
is
not
a
whole
lot
you
could
buy.
So
you
probably
do
what
we
all
do:
try
to
avoid
the
very
worst
companies
and
don’t
think
too
hard
about
how
the
rest
of
what
you’re
buying
found
its
way
into
your
shopping
cart.
The
impossibly
complex
web
of
moral
turpitude
in
corporate
America
is
a
big
part
of
why
very
few
of
the
proposed
boycotts
and
counter
boycotts
over
the
past
10
years
of
hyperpoliticization
have
accomplished
anything
(with
the
big
exception
of
the
Bud
Light
boycott
—
if
your
target
demographic
is
men
insecure
about
their
masculinity,
it
turns
out
that
even
a
small
nod
to
the
transgender
community
is
a
bad
business
decision).
There
are
just
too
many
people
out
there
buying
things
in
America,
many
of
them
ignorant
of
or
thrilled
about
whatever
is
upsetting
you,
for
nationwide
boycotts
to
be
effective.
The
apparent
leaders
of
this
movement
are
also
targeting
specific
retailers
for
more-widespread
boycotts
and
are
specifically
upset
over
the
Trump
administration’s
hostility
toward
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
programs.
While
I
totally
understand
why
this
would
be
motivating
for
people
—
what,
you’re
for
homogeneity,
inequity,
and
exclusion?
—
I
also
don’t
want
to
get
too
caught
up
in
that
specific
justification
for
a
24-hour
voluntary
freeze
on
all
consumer
spending.
If
we
really
could
get
a
large
majority
of
the
American
population
to
not
spend
any
money
for
one
whole
day,
something
interesting
would
happen
economically.
I
don’t
know
what,
exactly,
that
would
be.
Inflation
could
instantly
chill.
CEOs
might
quake
at
the
prospect
of
consumer
power
that
only
exists
when
we
work
together.
Perhaps
we
would
all
feel
momentarily
connected
in
expressing
our
collective
economic
might.
Even
if
you
hate
DEI,
I
invite
you
to
join
this
consumer
blackout
on
February
28.
You
have
nothing
to
lose
—
at
the
very
least
you
will
save
a
little
money.
And
don’t
tell
me
you
can’t
go
a
single
day
without
buying
anything.
Make
coffee
at
home.
Fill
your
gas
tank
the
day
before
or
the
day
after.
Eat
that
old
can
of
beans
that
you’ve
been
navigating
around
in
your
kitchen
cabinet
for
months.
And
in
the
name
of
all
that
is
holy,
don’t
buy
anything
online.
There
are
not
many
chances
for
an
individual
worker,
a
consumer,
to
have
any
sort
of
real
influence
on
the
massive
corporations
that
dominate
our
lives.
Joining
this
no-buy
Friday
on
February
28
could
be
the
only
opportunity
you
have
for
a
while
to
show
big
companies
that
they
are
successful
because
of
us,
not
the
other
way
around.
Our
political
division
is
their
strength.
Showing
big
companies
that
we
can
unite,
however
briefly,
would
send
a
powerful
message.
Whatever
your
politics,
consider
joining
in
for
a
24-hour
hiatus
on
spending
this
February
28.
I
guarantee
you
have
a
lot
more
in
common
with
other
potential
participants,
even
those
who
may
have
voted
differently
than
you,
than
you
do
with
Jeff
Bezos
or
Elon
Musk.
Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD
(affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
It
may
be
February,
but
at
least
one
Biglaw
firm
is
already
thinking
of
the
brighter
days
yet
to
come
by
announcing
special
bonuses
—
and
the
most
surprising
thing
about
this
is
that
Milbank
isn’t
the
firm
that’s
leading
the
pack
on
this
round
of
bonuses.
Which
highly
profitable,
IP-focused
law
firm
just
announced
spring
bonuses
for
both
associates
and
counsel?
California-based
Knobbe
Martens
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$275,000,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
135
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
200
—
is
offering
attorneys
up
to
$25,000
to
thank
them
for
helping
the
firm’s
business
grow
and
flourish.
Tipsters
tell
us
that
the
firm
delivered
the
good
news
on
Valentine’s
Day,
so
they
must
have
felt
especially
loved.
This
is
what
the
bonus
scale
looks
like
at
the
firm:
1st-year
associates
$2,500
2nd-year
associates
$5,000
3rd-year
associates
$10,000
4th-year
associates
$15,000
5th-year
associates
$20,000
6th-year
associates
and
above
(including
counsel)
$25,000
Associates
in
good
standing
at
the
firm
will
receive
their
bonuses
on
March
31.
Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Knobbe
Martens!
So,
what’s
going
on
at
at
your
firm?
If
your
firm
announces
special
spring
bonuses,
please
let
us
know
ASAP,
so
we
can
spread
the
good
news.
(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
the
firm’s
memo
in
full.)
Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Joe
Kathryn
Joe
