Rudy Giuliani Embraces Contempt As A Lifestyle, And It Somehow Manages To Work Out For Him – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)

Once
you
get
locked
into
a
serious
collection
of
contempt
findings,
the
tendency
is
to
push
it
as
far
as
you
can.

That
sentiment

borrowed
from
Hunter
Thompson

developed
into
a
mantra
for
former
mayor
Rudy
Giuliani,
and
much
like
the
famed
author
he
seems
to
have
gotten
away
with
it,

settling
the
case

after
forcing
the
court
and
opposing
parties
to
wait
around
for
hours.

Already
held
in
contempt
by
two
different
courts

courtesy
of
SDNY

Judge
Lewis
Liman

and
DC

Judge
Beryl
Howell


Rudy
decided
to
go
all
in
this
morning
and
completely
skipped
out
on
his
in-person
trial
before
Judge
Liman.

Giuliani
was
due
in
court
for
a
limited
trial
to
determine
if
he
could
declare
his
Florida
condo
as
his
primary
residence
to
avoid
having
to
forfeit
it
to
satisfy
the
$148
million
he
owed
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss,
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
he
defamed
by
accusing
them
of
stealing
the
election
from
Donald
Trump
in
Georgia.
Freeman
and
Moss
were
subsequently
targeted
by
MAGALand
crazies
and
Rudy
took
off
to

fart
on
lawyers
around
the
country

in
a
doomed
effort
to
pretend
the
election
didn’t
happen.

Since
losing
the
defamation
action
to
Freeman
and
Moss,
Rudy’s
been
on
quite
a
journey,
claiming
to
be
bankrupt
and
declaring
takebacksies
on
bankruptcy
(takebankrupt-sies?).
Amidst
his
misadventures
in
bankruptcy
court,
he
listed
his
primary
residence
as
his
New
York
residence,
which
he’s
since
realized
isn’t
as
advantageous
as
claiming
Florida
as
his
home
and
taking
advantage
of
their
generous
laws
shielding
a
primary
residence
from
creditors.
Today,
Judge
Liman
was
set
to
preside
over
a
limited
bench
trial
to
determine
if
Rudy
could
pull
this
switch-in-time-to-save-what’s-mine.

But
Rudy
just
never
showed
up.

In
fact,
while
already
nearly
two
hours
late
for
the
trial,
Rudy
publicly
let
it
slip
that
he’s
hanging
out
at
Mar-a-Lago
instead
of
showing
up
to
court:

Around
1:30,
Judge
Liman
announced
that
the
trial
would
be
postponed
with
Rudy
still
M-I-A

or
M-A-L
as
the
case
may
be

and
set
to
reconvene
on
Tuesday.

Presumably
with
additional
contempt
hearings
to
follow
in
due
course.

But
then
everything
seems
to
have
turned
around
for
Rudy:

This
account
makes
it

seem

like
this
was
all
a
big
misunderstanding
and
Rudy
was
at
all
times
locked
in
serious
settlement
conversations
with
Freeman
and
Moss
and
they
just
all
forgot
to
tell
Judge
Liman
to
delay
the
trial
while
they
talked.
Though
this
reading
runs
afoul
of
the
fact
that
plaintiffs’
lawyers
showed
up
on
time
this
morning
expecting
to
have
a
trial
while
Rudy
took
videos
of
his
dog
aiding
and
abetting
contempt
of
court.

Indeed,
the
joint
letter
from
the
parties
to
Judge
Liman
announcing
the
agreement
indicates
that
it
wasn’t
hammered
out
until

after

Liman
postponed
the
trial
to
next
Tuesday.

Screenshot 2025-01-16 at 2.19.46 PM

To
be
clear,
this
is
an
agreement
in
principle
that
the
parties
expect
to
reach
“full
satisfaction”
before
the
end
of
February.
That
said,
the
parties
had
a
long
standing
court
date
this
morning
that
didn’t
work
out
either
so
if
you’re
a
gambler
there’s
even
odds
that
we’re
going
to
be
right
back
here
on
February
25.



(Joint
letter
on
next
page…)


Earlier
:

Rudy
Giuliani
And
His
Lawyer
Continue
Their
Courthouse
Vaudeville
Act


Rudy
Guiliani’s
Legal
Strategy
Is
Performance
Art


Giuliani
Bumstumbles
Into
Contempt
And
Sanctions
In
Freeman/Moss
Case




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

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

Bluesky

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

Are Nonequity Partners Getting A Bum Deal On Compensation? – Above the Law

There
are
lots
of
flaws
with
Biglaw,
but,
one
of
the
virtues
is
the
transparency
on
compensation.
When
it
comes
to
the
associate
ranks,
the

majority
of
top
firms

have
a
very
clear
salary
and
bonus
schedule
and,

for
the
most
part
,
firms
are
up
front
about
the
conditions
needed
to
take
home
the
cash
on
the
grid.
But
all
that
changes
when
you
make
partner.

Obviously,
the
ranks
of
equity
partnership
are
paid
with

often
byzantine
formulas

that
are
queued
off
of
profits.
But
what
about
the

growing
nonequity
partner

ranks?
Figuring
out
compensation
for
those
more
than
an
associate,
not
yet
an
equity
partner
is
a
lot
more
opaque.

According
to

reporting
by

Law.com,
nonequity
partners
are
averaging
less
than
$350,000
in
base
compensation
and
$106,000
in
bonuses.

According
to
a
recent
ALM
flash
survey
of
Am
Law
200
firms
and
midsize
firms,
nonequity
partners
averaged
about
$345,679
per
year,
with
an
average
annual
bonus
of
a
little
more
than
$106,000.

The
survey,
which
took
in
responses
from
286
lawyers
total
and
about
56
nonequity
partners
specifically,
also
pegged
the
median
salary
for
the
non-equity
tier
right
at
$300,000,
and
the
bonus
at
$50,000.
The
respondents
in
both
groups
ranged
from
the
smallest
firms
(1-99
lawyers)
to
the
largest
(1,500+)
scale.

Yeah…
compare
that
to
senior
associate
compensation
at
top
firms
(which,
admittedly,
not
all
of
the
ALM
respondents
work
at).
Associates
can
take
home
$435,000
in
salary,
with
a
$115,000
bonus.
Even
at
the
biggest
of
Biglaw
firms
(more
than
600
attorneys),
the
average
nonequity
payday

isn’t
much
more

than
senior
associates.
Now
it’s
clear
why
there’s
“friction”
between
these
classes
of
attorneys.
As
Blane
Prescott,
managing
shareholder
at
MesaFive,
noted,
“It
definitely
produces
some
friction.
Especially
among
middle
market
firms
who
are
getting
pulled
up
into
the
ranks
of
those
firms
paying
set
class
bonuses
and
special
bonuses.
Many
of
these
firms
are
now
saying
that
they
can
no
longer
guarantee
that
[nonequity
partners]
will
earn
more
than
associates.”

Walking
the
compensation
line
between
senior
associates
and
nonequity
partners
is
also
a
challenge
at
top
Biglaw
firms.
With
a

number

of

firms

adding

nonequity

partners
to
their
ranks,
keeping
everyone
paid
and
happy
is
an
art.

“I
think
it
is
getting
more
complicated
because
you
also
have
a
different
class
of
firm
now
wrestling
with,
‘How
do
we
compensate
our
nonequity
partners?’
that
never
had
to
think
about
it
before,”
said
Jeff
Lowe,
senior
managing
partner
and
market
president
for
Washington,
D.C.
at
consulting
firm
CenterPeak.
“You’ve
seen
over
the
last
five
years,
in
particular
formerly
single-tier
firms
moving
to
a
two-tier
system,
so
they
have
to
continue
to
find
that
line
to
keep
the
partners
happy.
But
they
went
to
two
tiers
specifically
to
divert
more
compensation
to
the
equity
partners.
So,
it
can
be
very
tricky.”

Not
every
firm
balances
this
issues
in
the
same
way.
Betty
Temple,
chair
emeritus
at
Womble
Bond
Dickinson,
told
Law.com
nonequity
partner
compensation
is
“bespoke,”
and
a
nonequity
partners
can
make
“generally,
significantly
more
than
associates,
and
sometimes,
as
much
or
more
than
equity
partners.”
But
Dan
Binstock,
a
recruiter
for
Garrison,
noted
that
is
far
from
the
case
at
every
big
firm.

“There
can
often
be
a
big
gap,
a
sizable
gap
between
the
highest-paid
nonequity
partners
and
the
lowest-paid
equity
partners,”
Binstock
said.
“And
that
can
provide
a
lot
of
extra
profit
for
a
firm,
where
partners
are
reaching
for
the
brass
ring
of
equity
because
they
will
get
a
seven-figure
jump,
and
they’re
willing
to
tolerate
multiple
years
at
a
lower
level
in
order
to
have
a
seat
at
that
table.”

So
a
word
of
caution
for
those
getting
a
“promotion”
to
nonequity
partner

the
compensation
may
not
be
the
brass
ring
you
assume
it
is.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
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].

Precision Meets AI: Thomson Reuters’ New Era Of Legal Research – Above the Law


Imagine
a
world
where
legal
research
doesn’t
consume
hours
of
your
valuable
time.
A
world
where
you
can
get
a
comprehensive
overview
of
complex
legal
issues
in
minutes,
not
days.
Thomson
Reuters’
new
AI-Assisted
Research
tool,
integrated
within
Westlaw
Precision
with
CoCounsel,
brings
this
vision
closer
to
reality.


As
legal
professionals,
we’re
all
too
familiar
with
the
time-consuming
nature
of
traditional
legal
research.
Sifting
through
countless
cases,
statutes,
and
regulations
to
find
relevant
information
can
be
a
daunting
task.
But
what
if
there
was
a
way
to
significantly
jumpstart
this
process?


Thomson
Reuters’
AI-Assisted
Research
tool
represents
a
significant
advancement
in
legal
technology.
Built
on
the
foundation
of
Thomson
Reuters’
vast
legal
database
and
more
than
a
century
of
meticulous
work
by
attorney-editors,
this
tool
combines
proprietary
content
with
the
generative
power
of
a
large
language
model
to
provide
researchers
with
a
substantial
head
start.


In
recent
years,
there
have
been
notable
instances
of
misapplied
technology,
leading
to
some
embarrassing
legal
headlines.
However,
when
properly
harnessed,
generative
AI
can
greatly
enhance
the
efficiency
and
thoroughness
of
legal
research,
providing
you
with
comprehensive
information
faster
than
ever
before.


Superior
Data
Quality
for
Accurate
Results


The
efficacy
of
any
generative
AI
tool
hinges
on
the
quality
of
its
training
data.
AI-Assisted
Research
utilizes
premium
data,
curated
by
Thomson
Reuters’
seasoned
attorney
editors
over
several
decades.
This
robust
foundation
ensures
the
delivery
of
accurate
and
insightful
results,
simplifying
the
research
process
for
legal
professionals.


Simplified
User
Experience


Unlike
other
AI
tools
that
require
complex
prompt
engineering,
AI-Assisted
Research
invites
you
to
engage
with
it
through
straightforward,
conversational
queries.
This
creates
a
user-friendly,
chat-like
workflow
that
resembles
collaborating
with
a
colleague,
rather
than
navigating
intricate
commands.


Maintaining
Accuracy
with
Human
Oversight


While
AI-Assisted
Research
significantly
enhances
research
capabilities,
it
acknowledges
the
occasional
presence
of
inaccuracies.
Therefore,
it
encourages
users
to
verify
findings
against
underlying
authorities,
ensuring
the
integrity
of
legal
conclusions.
AI-Assisted
Research
is
designed
to
complement,
not
replace,
the
critical
role
of
the
legal
researcher.


Getting
Started
with
AI-Assisted
Research


Accessing
AI-Assisted
Research
is
straightforward:
simply
select
up
to
three
jurisdictions
and
enter
your
query
using
conversational
language.
For
instance,
if
you
are
working
on
an
employment
discrimination
case,
you
might
ask:
“Does
the
ADA
require
an
employer
to
reassign
an
employee
to
a
vacant
position
as
a
reasonable
accommodation?”

TR1224_01


Comparing
AI-Assisted
Research
With
Traditional
Research


Traditional
searches
often
yield
numerous
cases,
statutes,
and
secondary
sources,
necessitating
a
thorough
review
to
extract
relevant
information.
In
contrast,
AI-Assisted
Research
distills
the
data,
providing
direct,
nuanced
answers
and
linking
you
to
pertinent
authorities.

TR1224_02


Just
beneath
the
answer
is


a
list
of
supporting
authorities
with
passages
of
relevant
text.
Clicking
directly
on
the
passages
jumps
into
that
specific
language,
eliminating
the
need
to
search
for
complicated
text
within
a
lengthy
document.

TR1224_04


A
Conversational
Approach
to
Refining
Queries


Because
legal
issues
are
rarely
entirely
unpacked
by
a
single
inquiry,
AI-Assisted
Research
supports
an
iterative,
dialogue-based
approach.
By
posing
follow-up
questions,
you
can
refine
your
search
until
you
obtain
the
precise
information
needed
for
your
legal
strategy.


The
Bottom
Line


In
conclusion,
AI-Assisted
Research
serves
as
a
force
multiplier
for
legal
professionals.
It
doesn’t
replace
traditional
research
methods
but
enhances
them,
providing
a
valuable
head
start
while
maintaining
the
essential
role
of
human
judgment
and
oversight.
As
the
legal
profession
continues
to
evolve
in
the
digital
age,
having
access
to
AI-Assisted
Research,
where
technology
augments
human
expertise,
and
which
is
grounded
in
accurate
and
trustworthy
legal
content,
leads
to 
more
efficient
and
thorough
legal
work.


Explore
Further


To
learn
more
about
the
capabilities
of
CoCounsel
and
AI-Assisted
Research,



delve
deeper
into
their
features
here
.
For
additional
insights
on
related
tools
such
as



Claims
Explorer,
click
here
. 

Law Firm Partners Offer An Emphatic ‘Hell No’ To Office Attendance Mandates – Above the Law

With
the
recent
news
of
Sullivan
&
Cromwell’s

five-day
office
attendance
edict
,
law
firms
continually
find
themselves
balancing
their
in-office
needs
against
associates’
and
partners’
hybrid
schedules

and
it’s
no
surprise
that
the
flexibility
that
remote
work
offers
makes
in-person
facetime
seem
rather
unappealing.
If
associates
don’t
like
it,
they’ll
of
course
just
have
to
deal
with
it,
but
as
it
turns
out,
the
partners
don’t
like
it
either.


BTI
Consulting
Group

recently
surveyed
more
than
1,000
partners
from
law
firms
of
all
sizes,
ranging
from
Biglaw
to
boutique,
on
their
opinions
of
RTO
mandates.
As
it
turns
out,
a
majority
of
partners
(50.2%)
offered
a
resounding
“hell
no”
to
the
prospect
of
forced
office
attendance.
They
list
the
following
reasons
they’re
against
the
prospect
of
full-time
office
attendance
like
what’s
being
enforced
at
SullCrom:

  • No
    one
    else
    will
    be
    there
  • I
    am
    more
    productive
    working
    remotely
  • Remote
    options
    keep
    the
    edge
    off
  • I
    go
    in
    when
    I
    need
    to
  • I
    am
    an
    adult
    and
    can
    manage
    my
    schedule
  • I
    collaborate
    more
    when
    remote

    it
    is
    easier
    to
    reach
    out
    by
    text
    and
    Zoom

    “and
    can
    you
    believe
    I
    get
    better
    response
    when
    my
    colleagues
    are
    remote”

Wow,
that
must
be
refreshing
for
the
associates
who
are
dealing
with
congestion
pricing
and
toiling
away
in
the
office
to
hear.
A
comparatively
smaller
number
of
partners
(24.3%)
say
they
would
“quietly
resist
any
mandate”
because
“the
benefits
of
flexibility
outweigh
the
drawbacks.”

Now,
you
may
be
an
adult
who
can
manage
their
own
schedule,
but
your
work-life
balance
is
apparently
being
controlled
by
an
even
smaller
group
of
partners
(6.1%)
who
believe
that
being
in
the
office
the
only
proper
way
to
work
at
a
law
firm.
Here’s
why
they
support
in-person
office
attendance
mandates:

Better
collaboration
Training
less
experienced
attorneys
Improved
productivity
Higher
engagement
levels
Builds
firm
culture

All
of
these
wants
can
be,
and
have
been,
achieved
through
hybrid
work
schedules
that
allow
associates
and
partners
alike
to
have
a
sense
of
independence
when
it
comes
to
their
work
lives.

As
we
learned
from
this
survey,
not
even
partners
want
to
be
forced
to
go
to
the
office

so
why
mandate
that
associates
do
what
the
partners
can’t
bear
to
do
themselves?


Hell
No
We
Won’t
Go:
Partners
Respond
to
RTO
Mandates

[Mad
Clientist
/
BTI
Consulting
Group]



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

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Florida Woman Bumbles Through Senate Hearing But Will Get To Be Attorney General Anyway – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Joe
Raedle/Getty)

Pam
Bondi,
former
Florida
Attorney
General
and

the
sort
of
cartoonish
villain
who
fights
Hurricane
Katrina
victims
over
their
pets
,
began
her
confirmation
hearings
yesterday
to
serve
as
Donald
Trump’s
Attorney
General.
After
Trump
flopped
trying
to
help

Venmo
enthusiast
Matt
Gaetz
,
Bondi
is
seen
as
a
“reasonable”
option.
Even
the
Washington
Post,
which
took
a
tough
stance
against
injecting
itself
into
partisan
disputes
when
it

tanked
an
endorsement
of
Kamala
Harris
,
found
the
wherewithal

to
endorse
Bondi
for
the
Department
of
Justice
post

on
the
strength
of
her
tenure
as
Florida
AG

where
she
killed
an
investigation
into

the
Trump
University
fraud

after

Trump
bought
her
off
.

All
vibes
that
bode
well
for
her
confirmation
because
heaven
knows
her
answers
didn’t.

In
fairness,
the
America
First
Policy
Institute
where
Bondi
prepared
this
brief
(along
with
former

cosplay
Attorney
General
,

toilet
industry
trade
scammer
,
and

soon-to-be
NATO
Ambassador

Matthew
Whitaker)
advances
a
Herculean
level
of
nonsensical
legal
claims,
so
one
could
say
it’s
understandable
if
she
forgot
one.
Even
if
it’s
a
massively
consequential
position
that
she
took
a
mere
two
months
ago.

Jose
Pagliery
of
NOTUS
helpfully
reminds
us
of
the
brief
:

GhWOLMjXcAE1Urx

That’s
quite
the
contradiction.

But
let’s
assume,

arguendo
,
that
Bondi
isn’t
suffering
from
transient
global
amnesia
and
does
recall
taking
this
position
in
front
of
a
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
in
November
and
she
just
doesn’t
care
about
the
special
counsel
law
now
that
Trump
isn’t
being
prosecuted
by
one.

Or,
more
ominously,
now
that
she
expects
to
use
the
special
counsel
process
herself
to
harass
Trump’s
political
enemies.

Avoiding
hypotheticals…
the
last
refuge
of
the
scoundrel.
While
this
is
a
tactic
that
couldn’t
get
a
1L
out
of
a
cold
call,
DOJ
and
judicial
nominees
pull
this
in
Senate
confirmation
hearings
all
the
time.
In
the
Trump
administration,
Republican
nominees
used
this
to
avoid
answering

whether
or
not
they
intended
to
bring
back
segregation
.

But
as
shady
as
the
“hypothetical”
excuse
may
be
normally,
Bondi
isn’t
being
asked
about
*A*
hypothetical,
she’s
being
asked
about
*HER*
hypothetical.
She
said
it!
On
TV!
Bondi
says
that
“no
one
has
been
prejudged,”
but
she’s
the
one
who
said
“prosecutors
will
be
prosecuted”
which
doesn’t
leave
a
lot
of
wiggle
room.

In
fairness,
a
lot
of
people
who
should
have
read
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
have
started
pleading
ignorance
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
Like
Judge
James
Ho,
who
not
only
understood
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
birthright
citizenship
provision
but

got
himself
published
defending
it
,
but
now
responds
with
the
Mariah
Carey
“I
don’t
know
her”
meme

anytime
someone
asks
about
this

now
that
Donald
Trump
has
proposed
a
mass
deportation
of
people
born
here.

Not
that
Bondi
didn’t
deliver
her
share
of
Carey
moments:

The
tape


which
cost
multiple
Biglaw
lawyers
their
jobs


has
been
played

ad
nauseam

over
the
last
four
years.
It’s
a
key
piece
of
evidence
in
an
election
interference
prosecution


that
Bondi
claims
to
be
improper
.
How
can
she
know
if
the
case
is
improper
if
she’s
never
heard
the
evidence?
You
all
know
the
answer…
even
if
she
can’t
say
it.

And
those
are
just
the
answers
she
did
give.
But,
like
jazz,
it’s
all
about
the
notes
you

don’t

play.

Bondi
indignantly
declares
she
doesn’t

have

to
answer
the
Committee’s
questions
to
get
confirmed,
which
is
probably
true
given
where
we
are
right
now.
That
said,
the
question
used
to
have
a
certain

Ghostbusters

quality
in
that
any
time
a
Senator
asked
“are
you
going
to
do
something
illegal
for
the
president?”
you
say
NO.
That
answer
seems
to
be
a
disqualifying
one
in
this
administration.

But
the
Washington
Post
is
satisfied,
so
there’s
that.




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

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

Bluesky

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

LLMs And The Business Of Law: How Will Lawyers Make Money In An AI World? – Above the Law


In



Season
9,
Episode
2
of
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”


I
welcomed
back
Damien
Riehl,
an
industry
leader
with
a
wealth
of
expertise
spanning
data
science,
large
language
models
(LLMs),
and
legal
standards.
This
conversation
dives
into
one
of
the
most
pressing
questions
of
the
digital
age:
How
will
lawyers
make
money
in
a
world
transformed
by
AI?


The
Billable
Hour
And
The
Evolution
Of
Value


Damien
began
by
framing
the
current
landscape:
The
traditional
billable
hour
still
dominates
legal
billing,
making
up
85%
of
revenues
for
many
firms.
But
the
rise
of
LLMs,
capable
of
completing
tasks
in
minutes
that
once
took
hours,
is
shaking
this
model
to
its
core.


Damien
outlined
two
potential
futures:


  1. The
    Status
    Quo.


    Lawyers
    use
    AI
    tools
    to
    answer
    more
    questions
    in
    the
    same
    amount
    of
    time,
    offering
    clients
    more
    comprehensive
    service
    while
    maintaining
    billable
    hours.

  2. A
    New
    Paradigm.


    Clients
    demand
    flat
    fees
    and
    in-house
    teams
    leverage
    AI
    to
    handle
    simpler
    tasks,
    pushing
    firms
    to
    redefine
    their
    value
    proposition.


Expanding
The
Market:
Serving
The
Underserved


While
lawyers
often
lament
the
risks
posed
by
LLMs,
Damien
emphasized
the
immense
latent
market
AI
can
unlock.
Today,
80%
to
90%
of
legal
needs
go
unmet,
leaving
middle-
and
lower-income
clients
without
access
to
justice.
LLMs
can
help
bridge
this
gap
by
enabling
firms
to
serve
these
clients
profitably.


“We
need
to
stop
seeing
underserved
markets
as
charity
cases,”
Damien
argued.
“These
are
opportunities
to
scale
our
impact
and
grow
our
businesses.”


By
automating
routine
work,
lawyers
can
serve
more
clients
at
lower
costs

tapping
into
a
vast,
underserved
market
that
includes
individuals,
small
businesses,
and
even
underrepresented
industries.


The
Future
Of
Pricing:
More
Than
The
Billable
Hour


Damien
explored
alternative
pricing
models,
including:


  • Flat
    Fees.


    By
    reducing
    costs
    through
    automation,
    firms
    can
    offer
    competitive
    flat
    fees
    while
    preserving
    or
    even
    increasing
    profit
    margins.

  • Value-Based
    Pricing.


    Lawyers
    could
    align
    fees
    with
    the
    impact
    they
    create,
    such
    as
    a
    percentage
    of
    a
    client’s
    savings
    or
    added
    value.
    While
    this
    model
    is
    promising,
    ethical
    and
    regulatory
    hurdles
    remain.

  • Hybrid
    Models.


    For
    unpredictable
    or
    complex
    cases,
    firms
    may
    still
    rely
    on
    billable
    hours
    alongside
    alternative
    models.


These
shifts
require
a
fundamental
rethinking
of
how
lawyers
define,
measure,
and
deliver
value.


Navigating
Ethical
And
Regulatory
Challenges


The
conversation
turned
to
ethics
and
regulation,
particularly
around
LLMs
and
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law
(UPL).
Damien
highlighted
three
key
points:


  1. Reasonable
    Fees.


    Lawyers
    must
    balance
    efficiency
    with
    fairness.
    Charging
    10
    hours
    for
    a
    task
    that
    takes
    AI
    two
    minutes
    may
    no
    longer
    meet
    the
    ethical
    standard
    of
    reasonableness.

  2. Confidentiality.


    Firms
    must
    ensure
    that
    client
    data
    remains
    secure,
    even
    when
    using
    third-party
    AI
    tools.

  3. UPL
    And
    AI.


    Tools
    like
    ChatGPT
    and
    Google’s
    Gemini
    can
    draft
    legal
    documents,
    raising
    questions
    about
    whether
    AI
    constitutes
    unauthorized
    practice.


Damien
noted
that
regulators
face
an
uphill
battle
in
enforcing
UPL
laws
against
tech
giants
like
Google
and
Microsoft.
Smaller
legal
tech
companies,
however,
may
bear
the
brunt
of
these
disputes.


Opportunities
For
Lawyers:
5
Doors
To
Success


Damien
outlined
five
pathways
lawyers
can
take
to
thrive
in
the
age
of
AI:


  1. Leverage
    AI
    For
    Efficiency.


    Use
    LLMs
    to
    complete
    more
    work
    in
    less
    time,
    offering
    greater
    value
    to
    clients.

  2. Adopt
    Flat
    Fees.


    Lower
    costs
    through
    automation
    and
    compete
    effectively
    with
    in-house
    teams.

  3. Expand
    Down-Market.


    Serve
    middle-
    and
    lower-income
    clients
    who
    have
    historically
    been
    priced
    out
    of
    legal
    services.

  4. Go
    Up-Market.


    Meet
    the
    growing
    demand
    from
    heavily
    regulated
    industries
    like
    automotive
    and
    finance.

  5. Develop
    Technology.


    Create
    AI-driven
    tools
    to
    empower
    lawyers
    and
    clients.


What
About
The
Regulators?


Damien
predicted
that
bar
associations,
constrained
by
shrinking
membership
and
limited
resources,
may
struggle
to
enforce
strict
UPL
rules
against
major
tech
players.
Meanwhile,
cases
like



UpSolve



which
challenges
UPL
statutes
on
First
Amendment
grounds

could
pave
the
way
for
more
liberal
interpretations
of
what
constitutes
legal
practice.


However,
he
cautioned
against
relying
on
regulatory
inertia.
Lawyers
should
focus
on
adapting
their
practices
to
serve
a
broader
market,
rather
than
resisting
inevitable
changes.


Final
Thoughts


As
the
conversation
drew
to
a
close,
Damien
issued
a
challenge
to
the
legal
profession:


“If
we’re
not
serving
80%
to
90%
of
the
population,
we’re
failing.
AI
isn’t
the
enemy

it’s
the
tool
we
need
to
scale
our
impact
and
fulfill
our
ethical
obligations.”


The
rise
of
LLMs
is
less
a
threat
to
lawyers
and
more
a
wake-up
call.
By
embracing
new
technologies,
exploring
alternative
pricing
models,
and
serving
untapped
markets,
lawyers
can
not
only
maintain
their
standard
of
living
but
also
expand
access
to
justice.


The
future
of
law
is
about
choice:
Which
door
will
you
walk
through?




Olga MackOlga
V.
Mack



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



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




LinkedIn



and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Healthcare Leaders Support FTC’s Second Report on PBMs, While PBMs Criticize Findings – MedCity News

The
pressure
against
pharmacy
benefit
managers
(PBMs)
continues
to
build.

On
Tuesday,
the
Federal
Trade
Commission
(FTC)
released
its

second
interim
staff
report

on
prescription
drug
middlemen.
The
report
examines
the
impact
of
PBMs
(specifically
CVS
Caremark,
Express
Scripts
and
Optum
Rx)
on
specialty
generic
drugs,
highlighting
substantial
price
markups
by
PBMs
on
medications
for
cancer,
HIV
and
other
conditions.
The
commission
voted
5-0
to
release
the
report.

“The
FTC
staff’s
second
interim
report
finds
that
the
three
major
pharmacy
benefit
managers
hiked
costs
for
a
wide
range
of
lifesaving
drugs,
including
medications
to
treat
heart
disease
and
cancer,”
said
FTC
Chair
Lina
M.
Khan
in
a
statement.
“The
FTC
should
keep
using
its
tools
to
investigate
practices
that
may
inflate
drug
costs,
squeeze
independent
pharmacies,
and
deprive
Americans
of
affordable,
accessible
healthcare

and
should
act
swiftly
to
stop
any
illegal
conduct.”

The
new
report
is
the
latest
development
in
a
battle
that
has
been
brewing
between
the
FTC
and
the
PBMs.
The
agency
released
its

first
interim
staff
report

on
PBMs
in
July,
which
detailed
how
concentrated
the
PBM
market
has
become.
In
addition,
the
FTC

sued

CVS
Caremark,
Express
Scripts
and
Optum
Rx
over
insulin
prices
in
September,
prompting
the
Big
Three
PBMs
to

countersue

the
agency
in
November,
claiming
the
agency’s
lawsuit
is
unconstitutional.  

While
several
healthcare
executives
are
coming
out
in
support
of
the
report,
the
PBMs
named
in
the
report
are
unsurprisingly
decrying
its
findings.


What
the
FTC
found

In
the
second
interim
report,
the
FTC
examined
specialty
generic
drugs
dispensed
between
2017
and
2022
for
members
of
commercial
health
plans
and
Medicare
Part
D
prescription
drug
plans
managed
by
the
Big
Three
PBMs.
This
differs
from
the
previous
report,
which
analyzed
two
specialty
generic
drugs.

The
FTC
found
that
the
top
three
PBMs
applied
markups
ranging
from
hundreds
to
thousands
of
percent
on
various
specialty
generic
drugs
dispensed
through
their
affiliated
pharmacies,
including
medications
for
cancer
and
HIV.
The
PBMs
also
reimbursed
their
affiliated
pharmacies
at
higher
rates
than
they
paid
to
unaffiliated
pharmacies
for
nearly
every
specialty
generic
drug
reviewed.

During
the
study
period,
the
affiliated
pharmacies
of
the
Big
Three
PBMs
earned
more
than
$7.3
billion
in
dispensing
revenue
above
their
estimated
acquisition
cost,
as
determined
by
the
National
Average
Drug
Acquisition
Cost
(NADAC),
on
specialty
generic
drugs,
the
FTC
also
reported.

In
addition,
the
three
PBMs
earned
about
$1.4
billion
of
income
from
spread
pricing
on
the
specialty
generic
drugs
analyzed
in
the
report
during
the
study
period.
Spread
pricing
is
when
PBMs
bill
their
plan
sponsor
clients
more
than
what
they
reimburse
pharmacies
for
prescription
drugs.

“These
results
illustrate
the
increasing
financial
importance
of
specialty
generic
drugs
to
the
Big
3
PBMs,
as
well
as
to
plan
sponsors
and
patients,”
the
FTC
stated
in
the
report.
“The
results
also
reveal
that
the
two
case
study
drugs
analyzed
in
our
First
Interim
Staff
Report
were
not
isolated
examples.
This
report
confirms
that
the
Big
3
PBMs
impose
significant
markups
on
a
wide
array
of
specialty
generic
drugs.”


The
response

The
Big
Three
PBMs
have
largely
criticized
the
FTC
report.

A
spokesperson
for
CVS
Health
argued
that
the
FTC
has
drawn
broad
conclusions
from
“cherry-picked”
specialty
generic
outliers
in
both
of
its
interim
reports.

“Between
2017-2022,
specialty
generic
products
have
represented
less
than
1.5%
of
our
clients’
total
drug
spend
and
only
51
out
of
thousands
of
drugs,”
said
David
Whitrap,
vice
president
of
external
affairs
at
CVS
Health,
in
an
email.
“In
contrast,
branded
specialty
products
represent
more
than
50%
of
our
clients’
total
drug
spend
and
are
entirely
ignored
by
the
FTC.”

Express
Scripts,
meanwhile,
declared
in
a
statement
that
“nothing
in
the
FTC’s
report
addresses
the
underlying
cause
of
increasing
drug
prices,
or
helps
employers,
unions,
and
municipalities
keep
prescription
benefits
affordable
for
their
members.”

An
Optum
spokesperson
told
MedCity
News
that
the
company
is
still
reviewing
the
report,
but
pointed
to
work
it
is
doing
to
decrease
drug
prices.

“Optum
is
lowering
the
cost
of
specialty
medications,
which
comprises
half
of
all
drug
expenditures,
and
providing
clinical
expertise,
programs
and
support
for
patients
with
complex
and
rare
conditions,”
the
spokesperson
said.
“In
2024,
we
helped
eligible
patients
save
$1.3
billion
and
the
median
out-of-pocket
payment
for
these
patients
was
$5.”

While
the
PBMs
are
strongly
criticizing
the
findings
of
the
report,
one
industry
expert

Antonio
Ciaccia,
CEO
of
46booklyn

said
he’s
glad
not
to
be
the
only
one
working
to
expose
PBM
practices.
He
said
he
launched
46brooklyn
in
2018
with
an
exposé
on
how
Medicaid
programs
were
being
overcharged
for
generic
Gleevec,
one
of
the
drugs
mentioned
in
the
report. 

“We
were
told
by
PBMs
that
our
focus
on
this
drug
was
an
exercise
in
cherry
picking.
Since
then,
we
have
identified
a
litany
of
other
examples
of
these
exorbitant
markups
on
generic
specialty
drugs
and
how
PBM
conflicts
of
interest
in
the
specialty
pharmacy
market
have
resulted
in
excessive
charges
to
employers,
Medicare,
and
patients,”
he
said.
“I’d
love
to
say
I’m
surprised
by
the
findings,
but
I’m
not.
I’m
just
happy
to
no
longer
feel
like
I’m
alone
in
identifying
these
unfortunate
realities.”

Ellen
Rudolph,
CEO
of
autoimmune
digital
health
company
WellTheory,
noted
that
the
FTC’s
findings
“underscore
a
critical
issue
in
our
healthcare
system:
the
significant
markups
on
specialty
drugs
not
only
strain
patients
but
also
create
substantial
financial
burdens
for
employers.”

Another
healthcare
executive
called
on
policymakers
to
step
up
based
on
the
findings
of
the
report.

“Patients
would
be
well
served
if
these
so-called
specialty
drugs
were
able
to
be
dispensed
by
their
preferred
community
pharmacy,”
said
Douglas
Hoey,
CEO
of
the
National
Community
Pharmacists
Association.
“Instead,
however,
for
the
PBMs’
financial
gain,
patients’
choice
is
oftentimes
limited
to
PBM-owned
mail-order
pharmacies
and
their
care
is
unfortunately
disrupted.
This
is
just
the
latest
obvious
signal
to
policymakers
that
they
must
pass
PBM
reform
that
would
include
paying
for
prescriptions
based
on
the
cost
of
the
drug
plus
a
transparent
pharmacist
professional
dispensing
fee.”


Photo:
z_wei,
Getty
Images

Discover Powerful Negotiation And Exceptional Client Service With Foundation Dragon – Above the Law

When
it
comes
to
finding
precedent
deal
data
and
what’s
market,
transactional
lawyers
are
frustrated.

It
often
takes
in
excess
of
6-8
hours
to
find
a
precedent
deal
and
identify
relevant
deal
points
from
firm
documents.
And,
even
then,
lawyers
may
not
feel
they
are
getting
a
complete
picture
of
the
data.

Now
multiply
these
hours
exponentially
when all recent
precedent
deal
points
are
needed
as
a
reference
for
drafting
and
negotiation.

For
many
lawyers,
the
process
is
further
frustrated
by
the
number
of
steps

and
people

required
for
manual
deal
data
extraction.

When
a
new
deal
comes
in,
or
a
client
is
in
immediate
need
of
critical
information,
lawyers
start
the
hunt.
Often,
details
can’t
be
found
quickly,
and
others
are
engaged.
An
urgent
email
goes
out
looking
for
help.


From
accounting
to
knowledge
management
to
business
development,
professionals
across
the
firm
drop
everything
to
help
with
the
search.
Other
priorities
are
put
on
hold
as
the
team
scrambles
to
assemble
the
information,
often
from
various
sources,
all
while
the
client
waits.
The
team
puts
together
the
best
information
they
can
find
and
hopes
it
will
be
enough. 
  

Regardless
of
the
outcome,
this
is
not
an
ideal
process.

Enter
Litera’s
new
solution
for
transactional
lawyers
and
knowledge
management
teams: Foundation
Dragon
.

This
easy-to-use
platform
helps
lawyers
instantly
answer
complex
questions
by
using
GenAI
to
extract
deal
points
from
firm
deal
documents
and
pairing
it
with
matter
experience
data
to
quickly
and
accurately
get
you
the
answers
you
need,
when
you
need
them.

That
6-8
hours
it
can
take
an
associate
to
pull
deal
points
from
just
one
deal?
It’s
now
cut
down
to
minutes.

Furthermore, all of
your
firm’s
deals
are
in
one
searchable
place,
so
finding
the
most
relevant
precedent
deals
and
their
deal
points
for
comparison
is
simple
for
any
attorney
to
find

no
staff
needed.

The
tool
verifies
data
with
minimal
human
input,
ensuring
the
highest
standard
of
accuracy
while
still
being
simple
and
intuitive.


Getting
Started

Lawyers
typically
lack
the
time
to
learn
a
complex
new
system,
and
ease
of
onboarding
is
a
key
goal
for
any
legal
technology
tool.

Foundation
Dragon
is
intuitive
and
easy
to
use.

When
a
deal
closes,
simply
upload
the
closing
documents
to
Dragon,
select
the
appropriate
deal
type
and
Dragon
will
extract
and
load
the
deal
data
from
the
documents
into
the
system
quickly
and
easily.

To
help
get
a
new
system
off
the
ground,
Litera
also
offers
a
service
to
pre-populate
Foundation
Dragon
with
all
of
a
firm’s
historical
data.


Contrast
this
process
with
that
of
many
law
firms,
which
collect
experience
data
by
circulating
a
blank
survey
form
to
a
transaction
team.

The
latter
approach
requires
lawyers’
time
and
effort
to
fill
a
blank
page

and
often
achieves
mixed
results
in
collecting
usable
data.

With
Foundation
Dragon,
the
system
will
automatically
extract
nearly
300
deal
points
for
an
M&A
transaction
within
minutes
of
a
document
upload,
and
the
commercial
real
estate
acquisition
version
of
Foundation
Dragon
extracting
over
90
deal
points.
Foundation
Dragon
now
supports
several
new
document
types,
including
commercial
real
estate
leases,
credit
agreements,
limited
partnership
agreements,
and
NDAs,
with
plans
to
introduce
more
in
the
coming
year.

The
system
then
delivers
a
populated
dashboard
of
all
the
deal
points
that
have
been
extracted.

Instead
of
a
blank
survey,
a
transaction
team
receives
a
pre-existing
draft.
They
only
need
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
deal
point,
and
the
process
for
doing
so
is
intuitive.


Litera_02

A
click
on
a
deal
point
value
automatically
brings
up
the
relevant
portion
of
the
underlying
document.
With
one
click
of
the
button,
the
deal
point
can
then
be
marked
“verified”
in
the
system
or,
on
rare
occasions,
edited
to
the
correct
figure.

This
creates
a
workflow
where,
after
the
closing
of
a
deal,
an
attorney
who
worked
on
the
matter
can
verify
all
of
the
deal
points
in
a
matter
of
minutes.

The
extracted
deal
points
will
then
be
accessible
to
all
lawyers,
be
included
in
aggregate
metrics,
and
be
available
for
marketing
and
business
development
efforts. Foundation
Dragon’s
insights
become
even
more
impactful
when
combined
with
Litera’s
experience
management
solution,
Foundation,
as
it
allows
you
to
push
the
extracted
deal
data
over
to
Foundation’s
matter
profiles.
This
means
firms
can
reap
the
benefits
of
automatically
populating
enhanced
deal
profiles
in
Foundation
with
minimal
effort.


Accessing
Your
Insights

Once
your
deals
have
been
uploaded
into
the
system,
your
users
can
put
the
data
to
work
through
an
efficient,
user-friendly
interface
that
displays
all
of
the
metrics
that
have
been
collected.

One
view,
called
“market,”
contains
all
of
the
deal
points
as
aggregate
metrics,
based
on
every
deal
the
firm
has
uploaded.

The
resulting
dashboard
allows
you
to
instantly
answer
the
question
of
“what’s
market?”
for
any
of
the
deal
points
the
system
collects.


Litera_03

Looking
for
insights
based
on
a
specific
matter
or
group
of
matters?
A
few
clicks
narrow
the
data
points
down
to
that
subset.

Each
deal
point
here
represents
the
type
of
data
that
would
often
have
to
be
found
by
having
a
knowledgeable
professional
comb
a
200-page
document
for
hours
on
end.


Litera_04

A
group
of
up
to
five
deals
can
be
compared,
and
the
data
can
be
directly
exported
to
Excel.

The
simplicity
of
the
design
is
particularly
helpful
when
comparing
deals.

Here,
all
of
the
deal
points
being
compared
are
laid
out
right
next
to
each
other
for
easy
visualization.


Litera_05

From
document
upload
to
data
visualization,
Foundation
Dragon
provides
a
simple,
intuitive
process
that
requires
minimal
onboarding
while
delivering
impactful
insights
that
save
lawyers
time
and
a
client
billable
hours.


Putting
Data
to
Work

For
the
legal
industry,
manually
curating
data
from
transactions
has
long
been
a
time-consuming
task
requiring
skilled
practitioners
and
delivering
mixed
results.

Some
firms
have
devoted
decades
to
creating
a
bespoke,
reasonably
efficient
process.
These
firms
have
distinct
advantages
in
accessing
data-driven
insights
from
precedential
deals
when
negotiating
transactions
and
advising
their
clients.

Firms
that
lack
such
a
system
often
rely
on
“reply
all”
emails
and
firmwide
fire
drills
instead

a
process
that
needlessly
consumes
resources
and
delivers
inferior
results.

As
Foundation
Dragon
shows,
this
is
a
situation
that
can
be
effectively
addressed
by
generative
AI.

Foundation
Dragon
offers
elite
data
tracking
and
reporting
to
all
transactional
lawyers

with
only
minimal
effort
on
the
lawyers’
part
to
get
it
up
and
running.
Dragon
gives
lawyers
the
ability
to
negotiate
from
a
position
of
strength
and
deliver
unparalleled
client
outcomes.

Morning Docket: 01.16.25 – Above the Law

*
Counsel
feeling
pinch
as
non-equity
partner
tier
grows.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
A
crypto
business
breaking
the
law?
No
way!
[Law360]

*
What
do
we
know
about
online
law
schools.
[ABA
Journal
]

*
North
Carolina
GOP
effort
to
toss
60,000
votes
to
win
a
state
supreme
court
seat
they
have
lost
on
multiple
recounts
includes
some
“surreal”
challenges.
[WRAL]

*
Supreme
Court
makes
wage
theft
just
that
little
bit
easier.
[Reuters]

*
Remote
control
trains
trouble
unions
who’ve
already
been
sidelined
by
billion
dollar
transportation
companies
running
skeleton
crews
on
ridiculously
long
shifts.
But,
hey,
what
can
go
wrong
with
an
out-of-control
train?
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

If You Stand At The Top You Might Look Down And See Yale – See Also – Above the Law




<br /> If<br /> You<br /> Stand<br /> At<br /> The<br /> Top<br /> You<br /> Might<br /> Look<br /> Down<br /> And<br /> See<br /> Yale<br /> –<br /> See<br /> Also<br /> –<br /> Above<br /> the<br /> Law