Author: TSA Press

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

The
conservative
legal
movement
has
been
extremely
effective
at
identifying
people
who
are
ideological
true
believers
and
getting
them
credentialed,
getting
them
the
attention
of
the
White
House,
and
getting
them
onto
the
bench.

I
don’t
think
there’s
anything
comparable
to
that
sort
of
coordination
on
the
other
side.

—

Carolyn
Shapiro,
former
Illinois
solicitor
general
and
founder
and
co-director
of
Chicago-Kent’s
Institute
on
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
on
how
conservative
lawyers
are
moving
so
quickly
from
the
bar
to
the
bench.

---

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.

Chaos
is
a
ladder
if
you’re
plotting
to
conquer
a
dragon-themed
fantasy
world
or
practicing
law
at
the
highest
level.
Thanks
to
the
latest
global
trade
war,
Biglaw
is
enjoying
a
boom
straight
out
of
their
wildest
revenue
fantasies.
But
the

Q1
2025
Law
Firm
Financial
Index
suggests
the
good
times
may
not
last,
with
the
market
delivering
some
of
the
same
warning
signs
that
preceded
the
last
time
the
bottom
fell
out
of
the
industry.

The
average
law
firm
raised
its
worked
rates
by
7.3
percent
over
Q1
2024,
the
most
aggressive
increase
since
the
heady
days
of
2005.
Tom
Cruise
was
jumping
on
couches
about
Katie
Holmes
and
subprime
mortgage-backed
instruments
rode
high.
Clearly
nothing
could
possibly
disrupt
those
highs.

Across
the
board
—
from
midsize
shops
to
the
Am
Law
100
—
firms
pushed
clients
with
higher
rates
and
the
clients
barely
flinched.
In
fact,
for
the
first
time
in
two
years,
realization
(the
difference
between
what
firms

wanted
to
collect
and
what
they
actually

got)
ticked
up.
Apparently,
in
a
world
where
mad
kings
slap
arbitrary
tariffs
on
everything
from
cars
to
movies,
clients
have
bigger
fires
to
put
out
than
quibbling
over
hourly
rates.

But
before
the
partners
start
popping
champagne,
the
hangover
is
already
on
the
horizon:
demand
grew
by
just
0.5
percent.
Productivity,
meanwhile,
was
down
2.4
percent
and
direct
expenses
went
up
a
whopping
7.6
percent.
So
firms
are
charging
more,
working
less,
spending
more
to
keep
talent,
and
relying
on
short-term
spikes
in
crisis-driven
work
to
paper
over
long-term
vulnerabilities.

If
this
all
sounds
familiar,
it
should.
The
last
time
law
firms
saw
a
similar
short-term
surge
fueled
by
global
chaos
was
2007.

This
may
mean
that
the
long-term
outlook
for
law
firms
is
far
more
concerning.
While
the
trade
war
is
boosting
demand
and
pricing
power,
it
poses
a
direct
threat
to
law
firms’
prospects
in
the
latter
half
of
the
year
and
beyond.
Interestingly,
the
Global
Financial
Crisis
(GFC)
resulted
in
an
eerily
similar
surge
in
legal
demand
as
the
financial
markets
began
collapsing
in
2007,
leading
to
that
year
being
one
of
the
more
prosperous
years
for
law
firms.
Indeed,
our
LFFI
scores
remained
in
fairly
strong
territory
until
Q4
2007.

Remember
how
that
boomlet
turned
out?
Years
of
transactional
decline,
layoffs,
and
the
slow
slog
of
rebuilding.
Yet
here
we
are
again:
a
geopolitical
crisis
stoking
key
work,
a
rate
hike
bonanza,
a
sudden
uptick
in
realization…
cue
ominous
music.

The
LFFI
dropped
13
points
this
quarter,
settling
at
51,
signaling
choppier
waters
ahead.
Firms
might
be
wise
to
begin
planning
for
a
downturn
like
a
doomsday
prepper
when
there’s
a
sale
on
canned
beets.
And
yet,
many
firms
will
likely
double
down
on
the
same
spending
patterns
that
could
leave
them
exposed.
That
7.6
percent
jump
in
direct
expenses
reflects
a
continued
war
for
talent.
Overhead
climbed
another
6.3
percent
because
everyone
has
to
head
back
to
their
pricey
office
space.
Essentially,
firms
are
paying
more
to
keep
people
on
board
at
a
time
when
demand
is
barely
budging
and
productivity
is
slipping.

Thus,
economic
recessions
tend
to
benefit
law
firms
only
in
the
short
term.
While
the
Conference
Board
does
not
yet
forecast
a
recession,
its
relatively
optimistic
outlook
has
been
consistently
downgraded
in
recent
months.
Other
global
institutions
such
as
the
World
Trade
Organization
and
major
banks
like
J.P.
Morgan
have
increased
their
recession
probability
to
60%,
meaning
law
firms
may
face
a
long-lasting
decline
in
transactional
demand,
which
is
typically
a
fundamental
portion
of
their
operations.

“Law
firms
must
stay
focused
on
strategic
growth
and
investing
in
the
technological
revolution,”
says
Raghu
Ramanathan
of
Thomson
Reuters
in
the
press
release
accompanying
the
report.
When
things
turn
sour,
having
efficient
AI-assisted
workflows
might
be
what
keeps
cuts
from
digging
too
deep
into
the
firm’s
bone.

Biglaw’s
latest
boom
does
not
seem
sustainable
—
at
least
not
without
exogenous
change.
Firms
might
be
cashing
in
now,
but
the
trade
war
bites
everyone
eventually.

Enjoy
the
party
while
it
lasts.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Well,
that
didn’t
take
long.
After
spending
years
trying
to
claw
its
way
out
from

under
the
bankrupting
burden
placed
on
the
state’s
bar
examiners
by
the
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners
(NCBE),
California
will
now
go
running
right
back
into
its
arms.
Or
financially
bloody
maw,
as
the
case
may
be.
In
a

decision
announced
late
last
week,
the
California
Supreme
Court
ordered
the
state
to
ditch
its
newly
independent
exam
and
return
to
the
NCBE’s
Multistate
Bar
Examination
(MBE)
for
at
least
the
July
2025
administration.

The

February
exam
was
an
absolute
disaster.
The
test
was
thrown
together
at
warp
speed,
thanks
to
dilly-dallying
while
the
financial
crunch
loomed.
Once
the
examiners
finally
pulled
the
trigger,
the
state’s
in-house
test
creation
team
had
a
fraction
of
the
time
and
resources
needed,
the
administration
process
proved
buggy
and
incoherent,
and
then
they
had
to
admit
that

AI
played
a
vague
role
in
developing
a
few
questions
triggering
the
exact
freakout
you’d
expect
at
the
Venn
diagram
overlap
of
“bar
exams”
and
“AI.”

It’s
not
like
they
asked
ChatGPT
to
come
up
with
questions
and
then
slapped
those
on
the
test.
In
fact,
the
AI
assistance
came
from
the
psychometrician
side
meaning
it
probably
just
brainstormed
smoother
phrasings.
And
everything
got
checked
by
subject
matter
experts
before
landing
on
the
exam
anyway,
making
the
use
of
AI
on
23
of
the
171
questions
more
of
a
tempest
in
a
teapot,
but
that
didn’t
stop
headlines
like
“California’s
Bar
Exam:
Brought
to
You
by
ChatGPT’s
Drunk
Cousin.”

Because
the
whole
exam
sucked,
the
state
Supreme
Court
responded
by

lowering
the
passing
score
retroactively
to
534
and
had
already
declared
that
remote
testing
was
not
ready
for
primetime
and
that
July
would
be
in
person
with
all
the
costs
—
to
both
the
state
examiners

and
the
applicants
—
that
entails.
Because
remember,
California

already
scaled
back
its
testing
locations
in
a
bid
to
save
money,
which
should
be
read
as
“California
already
increased
the
travel
and
lodging
burdens
on
applicants
in
a
bid
to
save

its
money.”

Having
already
decided
to
return
to
an
in-person
exam
in
July
—
eliminating
the
primary
culprit
in
February’s
debacle
—
the
court
flushed
the
progress
made
on
a
new
exam
too.
Thus,
the
state
returns
to
square
one
in
the
effort
to
eventually
develop
a
remote
testing
solution.

And
so
the
NCBE,
the
non-profit
with

some
$175M
in
assets,
will
pass
Go
and
will
collect
considerably
more
than
$200.

One
sideshow
in
the
California
bar
exam’s
recent
misadventures
is
the
decision
to
remove
several
veteran
subject
matter
experts
from
the
process
of
vetting
the
new
questions.
The
ousted
experts
assert
that
this
compromised
the
process
while
the
examiners
maintain
they
still
found
sufficient
expertise
to
keep
the
test
sound.
In
any
event,
the
reason
given
for
excluding
these
experts
was
the
fear
that
it
would
introduce
intellectual
property
issues
if
folks
on
NCBE
vetting
committees
started
vetting
rival
questions.
Sort
of
underlining
the
whole
problem
with
building
a
testing
environment
where

one
entity
writes
all
the
questions
across
the
country.

But
how
essential
is
the
vetting
process
when
the
old
test
also

notoriously
fails
to
accomplish
the
task
that
is
its
sole
justification:
identifying
“minimum
competence.”
It’s
a
test
that
labors
under
the
insane,
antiquated
notion
that
the
practice
of
law
is
defined
by
an
M&A
lawyer
memorizing
the
rules
of
evidence
for
a
closed-book
exam.
This
is
a
test
that

failed
one
of
the
most
decorated
litigators
in
the
country.
And
it’s
a
test
that
delivers
a
lawyer
population
demonstrably
no
better
or
worse
at
serving
the
public
as

having
no
test
at
all.

Which
is
neither
here
nor
there
as
far
as
which
entity
writes
the
questions.
But
the
odds
of
meaningful
reform
improve
when
we
open
ourselves
up
to
providers
who
don’t
have
deep,
vested
interests
in
maintaining
business
as
usual.

This
is
a
triumph
of
short-term
optics
over
long-term
reform
—
a
return
to
the
status
quo
masquerading
as
stability.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

When
you
talk
to
Cat
Casey,
you
quickly
realize
she’s
not
just
an
expert
in
AI
and
legal
technology
—
she’s
a
force
of
nature.
As
the
chief
growth
officer
at
Reveal
and
a
globally
recognized
voice
in
legal
AI,
Cat
brings
a
unique
blend
of
humor,
insight,
and
pop
culture
references
to
a
field
that
desperately
needs
all
three.
In
our
recent
conversation,
Cat
unpacked
the
transformative
potential
of
AI
in
the
legal
world,
her
favorite
metaphors
(spoiler:
“Game
of
Thrones”

plays
a
starring
role),
and
why
lawyers
need
to
embrace
change
—
or
risk
being
left
behind.

Watch
the
full
conversation
here:


AI
&
The
Future
of
Legal:
Challenges
and
Opportunities.

Dragons
And
The
Dance
Of
Data

Cat’s
chapter
in
our
book,
“Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data,”
is
everything
you’d
expect
from
her:
sharp,
insightful,
and
wildly
entertaining.
Using


“Game
of
Thrones”
as
a
metaphor,
she
breaks
down
the
high-stakes
world
of
eDiscovery.
“It’s
all
about
finding
that
one
piece
of
information
that
can
change
everything,”
she
said.
“Just
like
in
Westeros,
one
secret
can
shift
the
balance
of
power
in
litigation.”

The
dragons
in
her
analogy
are
eDiscovery
tools,
which
start
as
helpful
companions
but
can
grow
into
powerful
beasts
that
transform
the
game
entirely.
“If
you’re
not
prepared
to
ride
the
dragon,
you’re
going
to
get
burned,”
Cat
quipped.
It’s
a
vivid
reminder
that
while
technology
can
be
a
lawyer’s
greatest
ally,
it
requires
skill,
strategy,
and
a
touch
of
bravery
to
wield
effectively.

AI
As
Fire:
A
Transformational
Force

When
it
comes
to
the
impact
of
generative
AI,
Cat
doesn’t
mince
words.
She
likened
it
to
fire
—
a
transformative
force
that
changes
how
humans
interact,
work,
and
live.
“This
isn’t
just
the
next
internet
or
the
next
printing
press,”
she
explained.
“It’s
reshaping
everything,
including
how
we
think
about
information
and
decision-making.”

For
Cat,
the
speed
of
AI
adoption
is
both
thrilling
and
daunting.
“I’ve
spent
20
years
pushing
the
rock
up
the
hill,
trying
to
get
people
to
embrace
AI.
Suddenly,
the
rock
is
rolling
on
its
own
—
and
fast.”
The
challenge
now
is
helping
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
ride
the
wave
without
being
overwhelmed.

What
Keeps
Cat
Up
At
Night

Cat
isn’t
losing
sleep,
but
she’s
deeply
curious
about
who
will
thrive
in
this
AI-driven
future
and
who
will
be
left
behind.
With
studies
predicting
that
up
to
70%
of
legal
work
could
be
automated,
the
stakes
are
high.
“Robot
lawyers
aren’t
going
to
replace
us,”
she
said.
“But
lawyers
who
use
AI
effectively
are
absolutely
going
to
replace
those
who
don’t.”

Her
biggest
concern
isn’t
fear
or
ethics
—
it’s
inertia.
“Lawyers
are
used
to
doing
things
the
same
way.
AI
requires
us
to
rethink
how
we
work,
and
that’s
hard
for
a
lot
of
people.”
She’s
on
a
mission
to
break
through
that
resistance
and
help
legal
professionals
see
the
opportunities
AI
brings.

The
Rise
Of
The
‘Liar’s
Dividend’

As
generative
AI
and
deepfakes
become
more
advanced,
Cat
sees
a
major
challenge
for
the
legal
system:
trust.
“We’re
entering
an
era
where
video
and
photo
evidence
isn’t
automatically
reliable,”
she
said.
She
pointed
to
cases
where
defendants
have
claimed
that
incriminating
videos
were
deepfakes.
“It’s
already
happening,
and
it’s
going
to
bottleneck
the
legal
process.”

The
solution?
New
tools
and
expertise
to
authenticate
digital
evidence.
“We’re
going
to
need
a
whole
industry
dedicated
to
verifying
what’s
real.
It’s
going
to
get
messy
before
it
gets
better.”

How
To
Future-Proof
Your
Career

Cat’s
advice
for
lawyers
navigating
this
AI
revolution
is
straightforward:
be
curious,
start
experimenting,
and
find
your
people.
“I
tell
everyone
to
start
small.
Use
ChatGPT
before
you
Google
something.
Play
around
with
MidJourney.
Get
comfortable
with
the
tools,
even
for
low-risk
tasks
like
finding
a
recipe
or
researching
a
vacation
spot.”

She
also
emphasized
the
importance
of
building
a
community.
“Find
your
tribe.
Surround
yourself
with
people
who
are
passionate
about
AI
and
willing
to
share
what
they
know.
No
one
can
keep
up
with
this
pace
of
change
alone.”

Most
importantly,
Cat
urged
lawyers
to
lean
into
their
humanity.
“AI
is
a
tool,
not
a
replacement
for
you.
Your
expertise,
judgment,
and
creativity
are
what
make
you
valuable.
Use
AI
to
amplify
those
strengths,
not
replace
them.”

The
Final
Word

Talking
to
Cat
is
like
sitting
in
a
masterclass
on
the
future
of
legal
technology
—
with
a
lot
of
laughs
along
the
way.
Whether
she’s
comparing
eDiscovery
to
dragon
riding
or
urging
lawyers
to
embrace
their
inner
dork
(her
words!),
her
message
is
clear:
the
AI
revolution
is
here,
and
it’s
time
to
dive
in.
As
Cat
put
it,
“This
isn’t
the
time
to
sit
on
the
sidelines.
Get
curious,
start
experimenting,
and
get
ready
to
ride
the
dragon.”

Watch
the
full
conversation
here:


AI
&
The
Future
of
Legal:
Challenges
and
Opportunities.

---

Olga
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.

Donald
Trump
acts
as
though
he’ll
always
be
president.

Trump
has,
for
example,
threatened
to
eliminate
Harvard
University’s
tax-exempt
status,
assuming,
presumably,
that
the
Democrats
will
never
again
be
in
charge
and
able
to
retaliate. Which
got
me
to
thinking: What
would
you
include
in
a
truly
vindictive
Democratic
Project
2029?

Thoughtful
people have
said
that
the
Democrats
should
create
their
own
Project
2029,
which
would
include
such
noble
ideas
as
strengthening
the
administrative
state.

No
one
has
ever
accused
me
of
being
a
thoughtful
person.

But
maybe
I
can
be
a
truly
vindictive
one.

How
would
a
vindictive
Project
2029
fight
back
against
the
Trump
administration?

If
Trump
can
eliminate
Harvard’s
tax-exempt
status,
then
a
vindictive
Project
2029
should
propose
eliminating
the
tax-exempt
status
of
organizations
that
lean
to
the
right. The
Heritage
Foundation,
Hillsdale
College,
the
Family
Research
Council,
and
the
like
would
be
good
places
to
start. Let’s
see
how
they
do
without
tax
exemptions.
Load
that
idea
into
Project
2029. Fair
is
fair,
right?

Or
think
about
presidential
pardons. Trump
pardoned
the
January
6
criminals. He
pardoned
Charles
Kushner,
Jared’s
father,
and
nominated
the
former
felon
to
be
the
United
States
ambassador
to
France. So
what
would
a
vindictive
Project
2029
say? It
might
propose,
for
example,
to
pardon
all
Democrats
convicted
of
felonies. Then,
after
Bob
Menendez,
the
former
senator,
receives
a
pardon
—
what’s
a
little
political
corruption
among
friends?
—
he
should
be
appointed
ambassador
to
France.
That
would
be
more
fun
than
spending
11
years
in
the
slam,

ne
pensez-vous
pas?

It’s
funny
—
even
writing
this
column
hurts. Thinking
about
all
the
evil
stuff
that
the
government
could
do
is
terribly
uncomfortable. But
Trump’s
not
just
thinking
about
it;
he’s
doing
it.  

Duty
calls;
I’ll
persevere.

My
evil
Project
2029
will
of
course
strip
security
details
and
security
clearances
from
anyone
who
had
the
temerity
to
serve
in
the
Trump
administration. Vice
President
JD
Vance;
Secretary
Pete
Hegseth;
Secretary
Tulsi
Gabbard;
and
all
the
rest
—
you’re
on
your
own. Protect
yourself
on
your
own
nickel,
and
don’t
count
on
having
access
to
government
secrets
in
any
new
job
you
land.

How
about
FCC
licenses?
Trump
threatens
to
rescind
the
licenses
of
media
that
he
perceives
to
be
left-leaning;
Project
2029
would
explicitly
go
after
the
licenses
of
those
who
lean
to
the
right.
Fox
News
is
a
cable
channel,
so
it
doesn’t
have
an
FCC
license,
but
many
of
its
local
affiliates
do.
Strip
all
the
local
Fox
affiliates
of
their
licenses.
Same
deal
with
Sinclair
Broadcast
Group.
If
you’re
conservative,
you’re
off
the
air.
Let’s
put
it
right
there
in
Project
2029
(which
the
Democratic
candidates
for
president
could
all
disavow
while
they’re
campaigning
but
implement
once
one
of
them
is
in
office).  

What
about
weaponizing
the
Department
of
Justice?
The
DOJ
previously
prosecuted
Trump
for
the
obviously
political
reason
that
he
had
…
checks
notes
…
committed
crimes.
Trump
says
he
needs
retribution
for
this.
Trump
says
the
DOJ
should
now
prosecute,
among
others,
Kamala
Harris,
Liz
Cheney,
and
the
members
of
the
January
6
Committee. More
recently,
Trump
said
that
the
DOJ
should
prosecute
Chris
Krebs, the
former
head
of
the
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency,
and
Miles
Taylor,
another
former
government
official.

When
Democrats
return
to
office,
it’s
time
to
return
the
favor
—
with
a
vengeance.
If
the
statutes
of
limitations
haven’t
expired,
restart
the
criminal
prosecutions
of
Trump.
Prosecute
him
for
new
stuff,
too,
like
political
corruption
for
which
he
wouldn’t
have
immunity.
If
the
DOJ
can
dig
up
crimes
that
anyone
else
committed
—
perhaps
using
commercial
messaging
applications
to
transmit
government
secrets
is
illegal;
if
so,
you’ve
got
a
half-dozen
possible
defendants
right
there
—
go
after
’em.
No
reason
to
be
lenient
on
folks
who
served
their
country;
it’s
time
to
turn
the
screws
on
public
servants
as
retribution
for
Project
2025.

Would
ginning
up
a
vindictive
Project
2029
polarize
the
country?
Sure.

Would
it
undermine
democratic
institutions?
Sure.

Would
the
Republicans
then
propose
a
vindictive
Project
2033,
leading
to
an
endless
cycle
of
retribution?
Sure.

Would
any
thinking
person
refuse
to
serve
in
government?

Frankly,
we
might
have
already
reached
that
point.

Perhaps
even
discussing
the
possibility
of
a
vindictive
Project
2029
will
cause
politicians
to
stop
the
insanity.

---

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

Biglaw
firms
may
be
incredibly
busy

dodging
or
capitulating
to
executive
orders
from
Donald
Trump,
but
they’re
still
busy
thinking
about
how
to
enforce
their
attendance
policies
amid
the
constitutional
mayhem.

Earlier
today,
White
&
Case
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$3,316,735,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
9
in
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
announced
that
starting
on
June
2,
associate
and
partners
alike
would
have
to
work
from
the
office
four
days
each
week,
with
anchor
days
of
Monday
through
Thursday.
This
change
will
affect
employees
in
the
firm’s
Americas
region,
including
Boston,
Chicago,
Houston,
Los
Angeles,
Mexico
City,
Miami,
New
York,
São
Paulo,
Silicon
Valley,
and
Washington,
DC. As
noted
in
the
firm’s
memo
(available
in
full
on
the
next
page),
W&C
“remain[s]
committed
to
offering
flexibility
and
[is]
keeping
Fridays
outside
of
the
work-from-the-office
requirement
to
reflect
our
belief
in
the
benefits
of
hybrid
working.”

White
&
Case
now
joins
the
likes
of Davis
Polk; Latham; Paul
Weiss; Ropes
&
Gray; Simpson
Thacher; Skadden; Vinson
&
Elkins; Weil
Gotshal;
and

WilmerHale in
its
four-day,
in-person
attendance
policy. Sullivan
&
Cromwell has
taken
its
attendance
policy
one
step
further,
requiring
attorneys
to
work
from
the
office
five
days
each
week.

Best
of
luck
to
associates
at
White
&
Case
as
they
adjust
to
their
new
lives
at
the
beginning
of
June,
which
will
be
mostly
spent
at
the
office.

As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Reopening”)
or
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.

---

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.

Since
president
Donald
Trump
declared

war
on
the
rule
of
law,
the
niche
world
of
Biglaw
has
made
the
national
news.
The
increased
focus
on
law
firms
was
on
display
on
yesterday’s
episode
of
60
Minutes.
The
show
(also
a
target
of
a
vindictive
Trump)
featured
a
segment
on

the
Executive
Orders
targeting
Biglaw
firms,
and

the
capitulation
of
nine
firms
to
the
demands
of
the
president.

None
of
what
was
covered
in
the
segment
is
really
new
information
for
regular
readers
of
Above
the
Law.
*We*
know
that
the
attacks
are
a
bonkers
display
from
a
wannabe
strongman.
That
there’s
been
a

bipartisan
meeting
of
the

legal
minds,
so
when
former
Bush
Deputy
Attorney
General
Donald
Ayer
said
on
60
Minutes,
“Everyone’s
got
a
right
to
a
lawyer.
Everyone’s
got
a
right
to
go
to
court.
And
it’s
something
we’ve
always
assumed
to
be
true,
and
now
it’s
threatened,”
it
wasn’t
surprising.
Sad
and
scary,
yes,
but
not
surprising.

And
John
Keker’s

dire
warning
that
we’re
on
the
brink
of,
“No
rule
of
law.
You’re
in
a
dictatorship,”

seems
familiar.

But
stark
was
former

Skadden
associate
Breanna
Frey’s
observation
that
the
firms
capitulating
to
Trump
are
“naive.”
Frey
—

who
quit
her
job
when
Skadden
inked
its
deal
with
the
administration
—
said,
“There
was
nothing
in
these
agreements
that
prevents
the
president
from
issuing
another
executive
order
against
the
law
firm
in
the
future.”
And,

like
Darth
Vader,
there’s
nothing
that
stops
Trump
from
changing
the
terms
of
the
deal
to
suit
his
whims
—
something

he’s
already
started
doing.

“There
was
nothing
in
these
agreements
that
prevents
the
president
from
issuing
another
executive
order
against
the
law
firm
in
the
future,”
says
attorney
Brenna
Frey.
She
resigned
from
Skadden
Arps
after
the
firm
struck
a
deal
with
President
Trump.
https://cbsn.ws/4iNd8nx

—

60
Minutes
(@60minutes.bsky.social)

2025-05-04T23:12:26.207Z

While
the
message
of
the
60
Minutes
piece
might
be
one
familiar
to
Biglaw,
it’s
great
to
know
its
being
communicated
to
a
broader
audience.

---

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].