Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
A&O
Shearman’s
annual
Corporate
Governance
&
Executive
Compensation
Survey
of
the
Top
100
Companies
in
the
United
States
listed
on
the
NYSE,
what
was
the
percent
increase
in
the
amount
of
directors
with
cybersecurity
experience
in
2024?

Hint:
In
2023,
there
were
70
directors
with
this
experience,
but
it
“increased
significantly”
this
year.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

For
one
shining
moment
last
week,
it
looked
like
the
world
might
be
getting
the
greatest
legal
reality
show
of
all
time,

Rudy
Giuliani:
Pro
Se
Litigant.
Sadly,
it
was
canceled
in
its
infancy
when
one
Joseph
Cammarata,
a
divorce
lawyer
from
Staten
Island,
entered
an
appearance
in
the
collection
action
filed
by
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss
against
America’s
onetime
Mayor.

Rudy’s
current
lawyers,
Ken
Caruso
and
David
Labkowski,
are

noping
out
(or
trying)
lest
they
be
forced
to
make
false
representations
to
Judge
Lewis
Liman.
Notably,
this
scruple
does
not
extend
to
Rudy’s
appeal
in
the
DC
Circuit
of
the
underlying
case
brought
by
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
he
defamed.

“It
is
one
thing
to
represent
a
client
on
appeal,
where
the
record
is
fixed,
the
issues
are
purely
legal,”
they

huff.
“It
is
another
to
represent
that
…”
This
is
followed
by
several
lines
of
black
bars,
presumably
laying
out
all
the
lies
Rudy
wants
his
lawyers
to
tell
the
court
about
the
location
of
his
assets
and
whether
he
resides
in
Florida
for
the
purpose
of
the
homestead
exception
to
judgment
collections.

For
his
part,
Cammarata
appears
to
be
a
wee
smidge
rusty
on
his
federal
procedure.
In
the
week
since
he
entered
his
appearance,
he’s
managed
to
improperly
docket
three
filings,
including
an
appeal
which
was
apparently
defective
in all
the
ways.

Freeman
and
Moss
say
they
do
not
object
to
the
substitution
of
counsel,
so
long
as
it
doesn’t
delay
the
trial,
which
is
set
to
begin
on
January
16.
But
of
course,
Cammarata
wants
to
do
just
that.
He’s
requested
not
only
a
30-day
delay
of
all
deadlines,
but
a
postponement
of
the
trial
so
that
Rudy
can
spend
the
entire
week
before
inauguration
partying
in
DC.

“To
the
extent
that
Defendant
requests
an
extension
of
deadlines
that
would
expire
prior
to
November
26,
2024,
that
request
is
denied.
All
deadlines
remain
in
place,”
Judge
Liman
harrumphed.
“To
the
extent
that
Defendant’s
letter
requests
additional
relief
beyond
an
extension
and
substitution
of
counsel,
those
requests
must
be
made
by
formal
motion
and
will
be
disregarded.”

Cammarata
went
on
to

lecture
the
court
on
all
its
prior
errors,
going
so
far
as
to
suggest
that
forcing
Giuliani
to
surrender
his
possessions
without
an
appraisal
—
which
Caruso
and
Labkowski
never
asked
for!
—
“has
taken
away
Defendant’s
statutory
and
constitutional
rights.”

Meanwhile,
Rudy’s
pals
are
playing
knifey-spooney
over
subpoenas.
During
his
disastrous
foray
into
bankruptcy,
his
girlfriend
Maria
Ryan
once
indignantly

denied
being
served,
snorting
to
counsel
at
Akin
Gump
that,
“I
think
you’ve
been
duped!
If
you
paid
money
for
this
service
I
would
get
your
money
back!”
This
was
despite
an
affidavit
by
the
process
server
that
included
a
picture
of
Ryan
taken
at
the
time
of
service.

This
time
around,
Ryan,
along
with
Rudy’s
henchmen
Ted
Goodman
and
Ryan
Medrano,
along
with
yet
another
shell
company
called

Totally
Real
Company
Inc.
Standard
USA
LLC,
have
finally,
after
multiple
court
orders,

responded
to
subpoenas
for
information
…
sort
of.
For
instance,
the
subpoena
demanded
that
Rudy
identify,
for
any
transfer
of
funds
to
himself,
“(i)
the
parties
to
the
transfer,
(ii)
the
identity
of
the
property
transferred,
(iii)
where
applicable,
amounts
transferred,
(iv)
the
date
of
each
transfer
and
(v)
the
consideration,
if
any,
given
in
exchange
for
each
transfer”
along
with
“the
name
and
address
of
the
institution
and
the
name
and
number
on
the
account(s)
from
which
and/or
to
which
the
transfer
was
made.”

To
which
Cammarata
responded
on
Rudy’s
behalf:

But
the
plaintiffs’
lawyers
at
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
have also
played
knifey-spooney
before.
And
this
morning
they
informed
Judge
Liman
that
they
would
not
be
seeking
to
compel
FakeAss
LLC,
Ryan,
Goodman,
or
Medrano
to
comply.
The
would
instead
be
“reviewing
these
responses
and
will
seek
further
relief
from
the
Court
as
may
be
necessary.”
[Cough,
sanctions,
cough.]

And
then
this
afternoon,
they
docketed
another

wildass
letter
to
the
court
documenting
Rudy’s
efforts
to
obstruct
collection,
including
social
media
posts
by
a
guy
calling
himself
“Joe
the
Box”
who
owns
the
America
First
Warehouse
in
Ronkonkoma
where
Rudy
moved
his
possessions
after
stripping
his
Manhattan
Apartment.
Mr.
“Box”
promises
to
film
counsel
for
the
plaintiffs
as
they
attempt
to
inventory
the
property.

“In
light
of
this
conduct,
Receivers
have
not
returned
to
the
[Warehouse]
Facility
as
planned,
and
do
not
believe
it
would
be
safe,
efficient,
or
practical
to
do
so,”
the
lawyers
for
Freeman
and
Moss
write.

They
also
have
some
choice
words
for
Cammarata:

At
11:00
a.m.
on
Wednesday
morning,
Mr.
Giuliani’s
new
attorney
in
this
matter
held
a
press
conference
outside
of
the
New
York
City
offices
of
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
(Receivers’
counsel).
Mr.
Cammarata
is
a
member
of
the
New
York
Bar,
presumably
familiar
with
Rules
3.4,
3.6,
4.1,
and
8.4
of
the
New
York
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct,
and
has
his
own
office
at
which
he
is
capable
of
hosting
press
conferences—it
is
unclear
why
Mr.
Cammarata
thought
it
appropriate
to
target
Receivers’
counsel
by
staging
a
press
event
at
that
location.
In
any
event,
during
that
press
conference,3
Mr.
Cammarata
launched
a
variety
of
attacks
against
this
proceeding,
Receivers’
counsel,
and
the
underlying
judgment[.]

Judge
Liman
has
scheduled
a
hearing
for
Tuesday
on
all
the
impending
issues.
Feels
like
Caruso
and
Labkowski
might
not
be
getting
their
hall
pass
signed
quite
yet.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

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

Yet
another
shoe
has
dropped
in
the
UnitedHealth
Group/Amedisys
saga.
Last
week,
the
Justice
Department
—
along
with
the
Attorneys
General
of
Maryland,
Illinois,
New
Jersey,
and
New
York
—

filed
a
lawsuit
to
block
UHG’s
$3.3
billion
acquisition
of
home
health
and
hospice
company
Amedisys
through
Optum.

In
2023,
UnitedHealth
Group’s
Optum

announced
that
it
plans
to
acquire
Amedisys,
beating
out
Option
Care
Health.
However,
the
healthcare
giant
has
faced
numerous
challenges
in
finalizing
the
deal,
with
the
DOJ

scrutinizing
the
merger.
Then
in
late
June,
UHG
and
Amedisys
announced
that
they
agreed
to

sell
certain
home
health
centers
to
VCG
Luna,
an
affiliate
of
VitalCaring
Group,
as
a
way
to
push
the
deal
through. 

The
divestiture
didn’t
satisfy
the
DOJ.

The
DOJ’s
complaint
alleges
that
the
deal
would
remove
competition
between

UHG
and

Amedisys
due
to
UHG’s
previous
acquisition
of
home
health
and
hospice
company
LHC
Group. 

However,
experts
are
unsure
what
the
outcome
of
this
lawsuit
will
be
particularly
under
the
incoming
Trump
administration,
which
may
have
a
different
M&A
policy
than
the
Biden
administration.
Some
believe
that
the
previous
Trump
administration
was
more
favorable
to
large
corporations,
likely
making
blocking
the
UHG/Amedisys
deal
less
of
a
priority,
compared
with
the
Biden
administration
that
has
favored
giving
power
back
to
clinicians. 

But
even
aside
from
the
differences
in
governing
philosophy,
one
expert
noted
that
the
main
reason
for
antitrust
lawsuits
—
prices
would
rise
as
a
result
of
the
transaction,
hurting
consumers
and
patients
—
seems
to
be
missing
from
the
equation
here.
That’s
because
of
the
outsized
role
Medicare
and
Medicaid
play
in
the
home
health
industry.  

Why
the
DOJ
is
Suing

According
to
the
DOJ’s

complaint,
“competition
between
UnitedHealth
and
Amedisys
benefits
millions
of
Americans
who
need
home
health
or
hospice
services.”
However,
that
competition
would
disappear
if
the
proposed
merger
between
Minnetonka,
Minnesota-based
UHG
and
Baton
Rouge,
Louisiana-based
Amedisys
went
through.
The
agency
alleged
that
the
merger
is
“presumptively
anticompetitive
and
illegal.”

The
complaint
also
stated
UHG’s
plan
to
acquire
Amedisys
was
part
of
“an
intentional,
sustained
strategy
of
acquiring,
rather
than
beating,
competition.”
In
2022,
the
healthcare
giant
recognized
that
home
healthcare
was
a
growing
space
and
went
on
to
buy
LHC
Group
in
2023
for
$5.4
billion.
Also
in
2023,
Amedisys
agreed
to
merge
with
infusion
provider
Option
Care.
However,
UHG
prevented
this
from
happening
by
offering
$3.3
billion
to
acquire
Amedisys,
as
well
as
paying
a
breakup
fee
to
Option
Care
for
ending
the
merger
with
Amedisys.

The
DOJ
added
that
UHG
and
Amedisys
are
aware
of
their
competition
and
how
it
benefits
patients. 

“As
Amedisys’s
former
CEO
and
current
Board
Chairman
said,
the
‘pure
competition’
between
Amedisys
and
UnitedHealth
means
the
two
companies
‘keep
each
other
honest
and
we
keep
driving
better
and
better
quality.
And
who
benefits
from
it?
Our
patients,’”
the
complaint
stated.
“Today,
UnitedHealth
and
Amedisys
compete
vigorously
against
each
other
across
their
home
health
and
hospice
businesses.
Amedisys
celebrates
‘stealing
share’
from
UnitedHealth
and
develops
its
strategy
with
UnitedHealth
in
mind.
For
its
part,
UnitedHealth
has
aspired
to
‘put
a
dent
in
Amedisys.’”

By
acquiring
Amedisys,
UHG
would
grow
its
home
health
and
hospice
footprint
to
five
more
states,
as
well
as
receive
500
additional
locations
across
32
states
it
already
operates
in.
The
deal
would
also
give
UHG
control
of
at
least
30%
of
the
home
health
or
hospice
services
in
eight
states.

The
merger
could
also
negatively
affect
home
health
and
hospice
nurses,
as
UHG
and
Amedisys
are
currently
each
other’s
biggest
competitors
for
employing
nurses,
according
to
the
DOJ.
The
deal
would
take
away
competition
for
pay
and
leave
fewer
options
for
employment.

In
addition,
UHG
and
Amedisys’
proposed
divestiture
to
VitalCaring
is
not
enough
for
the
deal
to
go
through.
VitalCaring
will
not
make
up
for
the
competitive
strength
lost
in
the
merger,
as
the
company
has
only
operated
for
three
years,
the
DOJ
said. 

“Even
if
VitalCaring
were
an
adequate
buyer,
the
divestiture
does
not
resolve
the
competitive
overlap
in
over
100
home
health
and
hospice
markets
across
19
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia,
accounting
for
well
in
excess
of
$1
billion
in
total
commerce,”
the
DOJ
said. 

The
divestiture
also
fails
to
address
the
harm
caused
to
thousands
of
home
health
and
hospice
nurses
in
labor
markets
in
18
states,
the
DOJ
added.
Additionally,
it
forms
a
new
anticompetitive
and
illegal
overlap
in
the
Biloxi
and
Gulfport,
Mississippi
area.

There
are
also
larger
healthcare
implications
at
stake,
the
DOJ
argued.
If
UHG
successfully
acquires
Amedisys,
then
the
three
largest
home
health
providers
would
be
owned
by
the
two
largest
Medicare
Advantage
insurers.
UHG
would
have
both
LHC
and
Amedisys,
while
Humana
bought
Kindred
in
2021.
In
other
words,
it
would
make
UHG
even
more
dominant
than
it
already
is. 

“This
merger
would
also
further
consolidate
UnitedHealth’s
standing
as
the
dominant
force
in
nearly
every
corner
of
the
American
healthcare
system,”
the
complaint
stated.
“Over
the
past
three
years,
UnitedHealth
has
spent
more
than
$36
billion
acquiring
companies
in
a
variety
of
healthcare
settings,
turning
itself
into
the
largest
commercial
health
insurer
in
the
United
States;
the
largest
employer
of
physicians;
the
second-largest
pharmacy
benefit
manager;
and
one
of
the
largest
healthcare
technology
and
service
vendors.”

Amedisys
and
UHG’s
Optum
subsidiary,
which
would
be
acquiring
the
home
health
company,
disagree
that
the
deal
is
anti-competitive
and
launched
a

website
addressing
the
DOJ’s
complaint.
On
the
website,
the
companies
argue
that
once
combined,
they
would
operate
only
a
“fraction”
of
home
health
and
hospice
markets
nationally,
and
that
the
merger
will
not
“adversely
impact
services”
in
the
U.S.

In
a
statement,
company
representatives
offered
similar
explanations.

“The
Amedisys
combination
with
Optum
would
be
pro-competitive
and
further
innovation,
leading
to
improved
patient
outcomes
and
greater
access
to
quality
care,”
an
Optum
representative
stated.
“We
will
vigorously
defend
against
the
DOJ’s
overreaching
interpretation
of
the
antitrust
laws.”

A
spokesperson
for
Amedisys
stated
that
it
remains
“committed
to
the
transaction,
which
we
believe
will
create
more
opportunities
to
deliver
quality,
compassionate
and
value-based
care
to
patients
and
their
families.”

Will
the
DOJ
succeed?

It’s
hard
to
say
for
sure
what
the
outcome
of
the
DOJ’s
lawsuit
will
be,
particularly
with
the
change
in
administration.

“That
presents,
I
think,
a
whole
other
set
of
questions
around,
‘how
much
will
the
future
FTC
leadership
and
DOJ
leadership
continue
to
make
this
a
priority
as
far
as
the
lawsuit
goes?’”
said
Tyler
Giesting,
director
of
healthcare
and
life
sciences
at
Chicago-based
West
Monroe.
“Or
will
that
change,
given
the
potential
for
a
more
dealmaking-friendly
administration
taking
office
again?”

Giesting’s
comments
were
echoed
by
Dr.
Adam
Brown,
an
emergency
physician
and
founder
of
healthcare
advisory
firm
ABIG
Health.
While
the
DOJ
under
the
Biden
administration
has
been
cracking
down
more
on
mergers
and
has
been
favoring
giving
power
back
to
clinicians
to
promote
competition,
the
previous
Trump
administration
seemed
to
favor
Medicare
Advantage
and
corporations.
Therefore,
he’s
not
sure
what
will
happen
with
this
DOJ
lawsuit
when
the
new
administration
takes
over.

Another
healthcare
expert
noted
that
this
is
an
interesting
case
because
the
federal
government
typically
blocks
proposed
mergers
on
the
grounds
that
the
combined
company
could
raise
prices
for
consumers.
The
UHG/Amedisys
deal,
however,
is
different.
Given
that
Medicare
and
Medicaid
pay
for
75%
of
expenses
tied
to
the
home
health
industry
and
only
25%
is
paid
by
commercial
insurers,
the
government
is
actually
the
“price
setter”
for
home
health
services,
said
Hal
Andrews,
president
and
CEO
of
Trilliant
Health,
a
healthcare
analytics
company.

“As
a
result,
the
underlying
rationale
of
the
complaint
isn’t
really
on
price
because
an
individual
Medicare
Advantage
beneficiary
is
not
really
impacted
by
the
‘transfer
pricing’
between
two
UnitedHealth
subsidiaries,”
Andrews
said.
“Instead,
the
complaint
emphasizes
the
potential
impact
on
quality
of
service
and
competitive
compensation
for
home
health
aides
and
nurses
if
the
merger
was
consummated,
and
it
will
be
interesting
to
see
if
the
judge
believes
that
is
enough
to
block
the
merger.”

Even
if
this
merger
with
Amedisys
doesn’t
go
through,
Brown
believes
that
UnitedHealth
has
built
a
company
that
is
“too
big
to
fail.”

“There
are
not
a
lot
of
tentacles
that
UnitedHealth
does
not
have
into
our
entire
healthcare
system,”
he
said.
“That
should
give
all
of
us
a
bit
of
concern
when
a
corporation,
singular
entity,
has
that
much
market
share,
but
not
just
in
one
singular
sector,
in
multiple
different
sectors.
It
gives
them
a
lot
of
power,
and
that
gives
the
people
that
they’re
trying
to
serve
not
a
lot
of
control
or
power.”

Photo:
Kritchanut,
Getty
Images

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

We
were
never
in
an
actual
performance,
but
we
were
in
a
drama
class
together
and
we
were
paired
as
scene
partners
…
he’s
not
going
to
remember
this,
of
course.
The
reason
why
I
remember
it
is
because
he
was
already
kind
of
well-known
around
campus
and
off
campus,
so
it
was
kind
of
exciting
to
be
his
scene
partner
for
a
particular
class.

As
I
recall,
we
had
to
do
the
scene,
we
had
to
memorize
a
part
of
it,
and
we
did
it
together,
and
it’s
a
two-person
play,
a
two-person
scene.
And
at
the
end,
the
professor
said,
‘Ketanji,
you
were
very
good.
Matt,
we’ll
talk.’

I
was
like,
‘Oh
my
god,
I
was
better
than
Matt
Damon
in
a
scene.’

—
Justice

Ketanji
Brown
Jackson,
happily
sharing
during
an
interview
with

CBS
News,
about
the
time
she
acted
a
scene
out
of
the
play
“Waiting
For
Godot”
alongside

Matt
Damon,
while
the
pair
were
enrolled
at
Harvard
during
their
undergraduate
years.
Damon
confirmed
that
Brown
was
correct,
admitting
that
he
didn’t
remember
acting
with
her,
but
said
of
the
experience
in
a

2022
interview
with
the
AP,
“That’s
so
cool!”

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

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

In
some
legal
practice
situations,
litigants
and
their
attorneys
can
pretty
much
guarantee
that
a
court
will
grant
a
request.
For
instance,
if
all
parties
consent
to
a
given
application,
and
there
is
no
prejudice
to
any
other
party,
courts
will
usually
approve
a
request
in
the
interests
of
justice.
However,
judges
do
not
always
act
like
a
rubber
stamp
and
approve
requests
even
if
there
is
no
opposition.
Attorneys
should
not
rely
on
a
judge
granting
an
application,
even
if
nobody
opposes
the
request,
since
courts
might
still
have
a
variety
of
reasons
for
refusing
to
grant
a
given
motion.

Earlier
in
my
career,
I
litigated
a
case
in
which
an
adversary
filed
a
motion
against
my
client,
that,
if
granted,
would
have
somewhat
prejudiced
my
client.
I
told
my
client
about
the
motion,
but
my
client
instructed
me
not
to
oppose
the
motion
because
my
client
did
not
want
to
pay
the
attorneys’
fees
associated
with
opposing
the
motion
and
because
the
motion
would
not
greatly
prejudice
my
client.
The
court
took
months
to
render
a
decision,
which
I
thought
was
weird
since
the
court
usually
acted
quickly
and
because
no
one
filed
opposition
papers.

Eventually,
the
court
issued
a
multipage-decision
denying
the
motion.
The
court
went
into
great
detail
about
why
it
did
not
have
the
power
to
grant
the
motion
in
question.
In
order
to
reach
this
decision,
the
court
parsed
out
language
in
several
documents
against
very
discrete
lines
of
caselaw
I
had
never
seen
before.
Since
the
motion
had
not
been
granted,
my
adversary
had
to
expend
considerable
resources
to
accomplish
what
they
wanted
to
achieve.

When
I
told
my
client
about
the
positive
outcome,
the
client
was
ecstatic.
The
client
thanked
me
for
all
of
my
work
on
the
case,
and
I
think
my
client
might
have
credited
me
for
this
positive
result
even
though
I
did
literally
nothing
to
achieve
this
outcome.
Perhaps
if
I
had
filed
opposition
papers,
I
would
have
confused
the
issues,
and
it
would
have
been
less
likely
that
my
client
would
have
achieved
a
good
result.

Courts
may
deviate
from
expectations
when
it
comes
to
case
management
issues
as
well.
In
a
jurisdiction
in
which
I
practice,
litigants
are
given
a
particular
period
for
discovery,
but
this
can
be
extended
by
motion.
If
all
of
the
parties
consent,
a
discovery
extension
is
almost
always
granted.
Indeed,
it
is
not
uncommon
for
courts
to
grant
several
extensions
of
the
discovery
deadline
in
this
jurisdiction,
and
usually,
courts
will
warn
the
parties
when
they
are
approaching
a
point
at
which
the
court
will
not
extend
discovery
any
further.

I
once
had
a
case
in
this
jurisdiction
in
which
the
parties
had
not
yet
asked
the
court
for
a
discovery
period
extension.
With
the
consent
of
all
parties,
a
motion
to
extend
was
filed
so
that
everyone
could
complete
expert
discovery
and
a
few
other
outstanding
matters
before
discovery
ended.
To
everyone’s
surprise,
the
court
refused
to
grant
a
discovery
extension!
I
am
not
sure
why
the
court
did
not
grant
an
extension
like
other
courts
in
that
jurisdiction
would
nearly
100%
of
the
time.
Perhaps
there
was
some
pressure
to
clear
dockets
and
expedite
cases.
In
any
event,
all
of
the
lawyers
had
to
scramble
to
complete
outstanding
discovery
to
prepare
the
case
for
the
summary
judgment
stage
and
beyond.
As
I
recall,
the
refusal
to
grant
a
discovery
extension
did
lead
to
an
earlier
resolution
of
the
matter,
which
is
a
positive
outcome.

In
any
event,
attorneys
who
practice
for
a
while
in
a
jurisdiction
may
believe
they
can
predict
when
a
court
will
act
a
certain
way
based
on
their
experience
and
the
circumstances
of
a
case.
However,
courts
often
will
not
act
as
a
rubber
stamp,
and
attorneys
should
not
rely
on
a
court
to
approve
a
request
before
it
has
been
decided
upon.

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at




[email protected].

It’s
officially
bonus
season,
which
is
the
most
wonderful
time
of
the
year
as
far
as
Biglaw
associates
are
concerned.
Now
that
firms
are
stepping
up
to
the
plate
to
match
Milbank’s

year-end
bonuses
and

special
bonuses,
lawyers
have
a
lot
more
to
be
thankful
for
this
year.

The
latest
firm
to
announce
bonuses
is
Skadden
Arps,
which
brought
in
$3,270,091,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
5
on
the
Am
Law
100.
The
elite
firm
is
of
course
matching
the
generous
Milbank
bonus
scale,
but
is
offering
extra
cash
for
its
most
experienced
associates
—
something
that
other
firms
may
want
to
start
doing
to
recognize
their
incredibly
hard
work.
That
said,
here’s
what
bonuses
looks
like
at
the
Skadden:

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Skadden!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
the
full
memo
from
the
firm.)

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s

Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts.

As
noted
in
a
recent
report,
average
lawyer
pay
—
not
including
profits
for
law
firm
shareholders
—
saw
the
biggest
two-year
increase
of
the
century
from
2021-23. 

The
American
Bar
Association’s
2024
“Profile
of
the
Legal
Profession”
study
shows
that
the
average
lawyer
salary
grew
from
$148,030
in
2021
to
$176,470
in
2023,
citing
the
U.S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics. 

This
19.2%
jump
far
outpaces
the
13%
rise
in
the
Consumer
Price
Index
over
the
same
time
period.

The
highest-paid
U.S.
locale
is
in
Silicon
Valley
—
San
Jose,
which
has
a
mean
wage
of
$268,570,
according
to
the
report. 

The
ABA
Journal


has
a
detailed
summary
of
the
findings. 

Where
have
all
the
lawyers
gone?
25%
are
in
these
2
states
with
higher
pay
than
$176K
average
[ABA
Journal]

ABA
Profile
of
the
Legal
Profession
2024
[American
Bar
Association]

Jeremy
Barker
is
the
director
of
content
marketing
for
Breaking
Media.
Feel
free
to email
him with
questions
or
comments
and
to connect
on
LinkedIn. 

The
top
of
Biglaw
has
been
busy
putting
their
size
and
cash
to
good
use
—
announcing
associate
bonuses.
The
latest
firm
to
delight
associates
with
a
nifty
new
bonus
package
is
none
other
than
White
&
Case.

The
firm
ranks
#9
on
the
Am
Law
100,
with
$2,949,400,000
in
gross
revenue
last
year.
So
with
all
that
cash
around,
of
course
White
&
Case
is
matching
the
market
standard
for
year-end
and
special
bonuses.

The
new
bonus
scale
at
W&C
is
as
follows:

Bonuses
will
be
handed
out
on
February
14th.
You
can
read
the
memo
on
the

next
page.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
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
all
of
your
help!

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].

Enter
your
email
address
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s

Bonus
&
Salary
Increase
Alerts.

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“From
champagne
to
speeches,
would-be
Trump
Supreme
Court
justices
draw
conservative
buzz”: John
Fritze
of
CNN
has this
report.

“Judiciary
Drops
Push
to
Curb
Judge
Shopping
After
GOP
Backlash;
Judiciary
told
Rep.
Chip
Roy
it
wouldn’t
pursue
judge-shopping
rule;
Roy
threatened
to
block
judgeship
bill
over
issue”: Suzanne
Monyak
and
Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
have this
report.

“Antiabortion
groups
plan
new
crackdowns,
emboldened
after
election;
Distressed
by
rising
use
of
abortion
pills,
activists
devise
aggressive
new
action
now
that
Republicans
will
be
in
charge”: Caroline
Kitchener
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.

“Losing
GOP
candidate
for
NC
Supreme
Court
challenges
60,000
ballots
as
recount
starts”: Kyle
Ingram
of
The
News
&
Observer
of
Raleigh,
North
Carolina
has this
report.

“Absences
by
Trump’s
Senate
pals
help
Democrats
confirm
Biden
judges”: Tierney
Sneed
of
CNN
has this
report.