[Late
night
developments…
Skadden
caves
to
Trump
threat
and
the
White
House
targets
WilmerHale]
Trump
Administration
Insults
Fail
To
Sway
Judge:
No
falling
in
line!
Law
School
Deans
Denounce
The
Trump
Administration:
Three
cheers
for
the
rule
of
law!
Fraud
Comes
With
Costs:
Disbarred
lawyer
gets
25
years
stemming
from
weed
fraud.
Turns
Out
Groveling
To
Trump
Is
Horrible
For
Business:
Paul
Weiss’s
“financial
decision”
could
cost
them
a
lot
of
money.
With
Skadden
joining
Paul
Weiss
in
bowing
to
Donald
Trump’s
effort
to
silence
Biglaw,
the
White
House
feels
duly
emboldened
that
they
can
bully
lawyers
into
looking
the
other
way
when
it
comes
to
the
rule
of
law.
As
firms
give
in
to
his
threats,
he
successfully
sidelines
powerful
lawyers
that
might
otherwise
take
the
government
to
court
when
he
names
his
horse
Consul
for
Life
or
whatever
is
coming
next
month.
Now
they’ll
just
have
to
join
Signal
to
get
access
to
classified
documents.
WilmerHale
had
already
been
targeted
by
the
administration’s
bogus
EEOC
volley
—
and
this
order
cites
diversity
as
one
of
the
reasons
he’s
trying
to
gut
their
government
practice
—
but
the
real
reason
he’s
hot
for
WilmerHale
appears
as
the
final
bullet
point:
WilmerHale
rewarded
Robert
Mueller
and
two
of
his
colleagues
by
welcoming
them
to
the
firm
after
they
wielded
the
power
of
the
Federal
government
to
lead
a
partisan
“investigation”
against
the
President
and
others.
Mueller’s
investigation
epitomizes
the
weaponization
of
government.
What
a
weird
thing
to
be
mad
about
because
someone
told
me
Bob
Mueller’s
report
worked
out
great
for
Trump…
No
Collusion,
No
Obstruction,
Complete
and
Total
EXONERATION.
KEEP
AMERICA
GREAT!
Surely
Trump
wouldn’t
lie
about
a
thing
like
that.
The
order
takes
away
security
clearances,
terminates
government
work
with
the
firm
and
bans
agencies
from
hiring
Wilmer
alums
“unless
specifically
authorized.”
And
it
escalated
the
EEOC
threat
by
laying
out
a
future
Title
VII
case.
Will
WilmerHale
take
the
fight
to
the
courts
like
Perkins
Coie
or
cave
like
Paul
Weiss
and
Skadden?
It’s
March
Madness
time
and
yet
somehow
that’s
the
hottest
bet
going
right
now.
Fresh
off
shadow
president
Elon
Musk’s
chilling
warning
to
Skadden
Arps,
the
New
York
Times
is
reporting
the
#5
richest
Biglaw
firm
is
in
the
midst
of
negotiating
a
deal
with
the
Trump
administration.
The
Times
says
Skadden
is
seeking
to
avoid
one
of
the
increasingly
common
Executive
Orders
targeting
Biglaw,
and
the
tremendous
harm
that
can
bring.
While
many
firms
are
trying
to
lay
low
to
avoid
the
attention
of
Trump,
Skadden’s
pro
bono
work
against
Dinesh
D’Souza’s
“2000
Mules”
(a
film
and
book
that
contains widely
debunked conspiracy
theories
about
the
2020
election)
has
already
garnered
attention.
The
precise
terms
of
the
discussions
or
what
Skadden
may
ultimately
agree
to
are
unknown.
But
the
mere
existence
of
the
talks
is
a
major
development
and
signals
how
little
appetite
there
is
in
some
corners
of
Biglaw
to
defend
the
rule
of
law.
The
talks
represent
an
extraordinary
turn
in
Mr.
Trump’s
campaign
against
law
firms
and
the
legal
system
more
broadly,
marking
what
appears
to
be
the
first
time
that
a
major
firm
has
tried
to
cut
a
deal
with
the
president
before
he
could
issue
an
executive
order.
Recent
orders
targeting
other
law
firms
have
restricted
the
work
they
can
do
with
the
federal
government.
The
Skadden
discussions
are
also
the
latest
example
of
how
large
law
firms,
afraid
of
a
protracted
battle
with
Mr.
Trump,
are
eager
to
strike
deals.
There
are
also
reports
of
other
Biglaw
firms
seeking
similar
preemptive
deals
amidst
Trump
crowing
about
his
power
over
some
of
the
largest
law
firms
in
the
nation.
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].
Legal
technology
platform
Law
Insider
announced
today
the
launch
of
its
AI-powered
contract
drafting,
review
and
redlining
tools
for
its
global
community
of
1.2
million
registered
legal
users.
The
new
AI
suite
will
be
integrated
directly
into
Microsoft
Word
and
Law
Insider’s
web-based
platform,
making
it
accessible
across
multiple
workspaces
for
attorneys
and
legal
professionals.
The
company
will
begin
rolling
out
these
tools
to
its
10,000+
Pro
and
Premium
subscribers
in
April,
with
a
free
version
planned
for
its
broader
user
base
of
1.2
million
registered
users.
Law
Insider’s
AI
contract
tools
will
be
bundled
into
existing
subscription
plans
starting
at
$29
per
month
for
individuals
and
$49
per
month
for
team
users,
positioning
it
as
one
of
the
more
affordable
AI
legal
solutions
in
the
market.
“Hundreds
of
legal
tech
vendors
are
chasing
AI-driven
contract
automation,
but
most
are
focused
on
expensive
solutions
for
the
Fortune
500,”
said
Preston
Clark,
cofounder
of
Law
Insider
and
CEO
of
SimpleDocs.
“We’re
taking
a
different
approach
—
leveraging
our
global
community
of
solos,
small
firm,
and
in-house
attorneys
to
make
AI-powered
contracting
more
accessible.”
The
AI
contract
suite
was
developed
in
partnership
with
SimpleDocs,
a
company
specializing
in
AI-powered
contract
automation.
It
aims
to
provide
enterprise-grade
capabilities
to
a
broader
legal
audience,
specifically
targeting
solo
practitioners,
small
law
firms,
and
in-house
counsel
who
may
not
have
access
to
enterprise-level
budgets.
Key
features
of
the
new
AI
tools
include
contract
review
and
redlining,
a
benchmarking
system
called
Law
Insider
Index
Score
to
compare
contract
clauses
against
industry
standards,
AI-assisted
clause
drafting
with
validation
from
Law
Insider’s
contract
database,
and
customizable
AI
playbooks
for
contract
review.
“We’re
not
just
launching
a
tool;
we’re
empowering
a
global
community
of
legal
professionals
to
work
smarter
with
contracts,”
said
Electra
Japonas,
chief
legal
officer
at
Law
Insider.
“AI
should
be
accessible
to
every
attorney,
not
just
those
in
large
firms
with
enterprise
budgets.”
An
early
access
program
is
currently
available
for
select
Law
Insider
community
members,
with
the
global
launch
scheduled
for
April
8,
2025.
These
tools
will
be
available
to
all
Pro
and
Premium
subscribers
as
part
of
their
existing
subscription
plans.
Law
Insider
currently
maintains
a
database
of
millions
of
legal
agreements
and
serves
a
community
of
1.2
million
registered
legal
users
worldwide.
When
states
began
to
legalize
the
production
and
sale
of
weed,
people
were
quick
to
try
and
make
a
quick
buck
off
the
blunts
being
passed
around.
2020
was
a
big
year
for
lawyers
and
their
burgeoning
cannabis
practices.
Between
consumer
demand
and
the
legal
ambiguities
of
weed
being
legal
in
some
states
while
also
being
a
Schedule
1
drug
federally,
the
clear
legal
ambiguity
put
dollar
signs
in
many
a
lawyers’
eyes.
For
example,
DLA
Piper
made
headlines
when
they
announced
their
cannabis
practice.
Biglaw
firms
weren’t
the
only
ones
that
wanted
a
slice
of
the
leaf.
One
attorney’s
attempt
to
cash
in
on
the
cash
crop
earned
him
decades
behind
bars.
My
News
LA
has
coverage:
Mark
Roy
Anderson,
70,
who
was
living
in
Beverly
Hills
while
on
supervised
release
after
serving
more
than
11
years
in
federal
prison
in
the
earlier
case,
pleaded
guilty
in
April
2024
to
two
federal
wire
fraud
counts,
according
to
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office. … [He]
was
sentenced
Wednesday
to
25
years
behind
bars
for
duping
investors
out
of
about
$18.4
million…by
falsely
claiming
that
his
companies
invested
in
high-profit
hemp
farms
and
cannabis-infused
retail
products
as
well
as
a
sham
bottling
business.
The
current
meta
for
scamming
people
for
millions
is
running
for
office
and
launching
a
bitcoin,
but
Anderson’s
scamming
happened
between
2020
and
2021.
Selling
snake
oil
back
then
would
have
been
a
little
too
on
the
nose,
but
the
booming
CBD
and
Delta
8
markets
easily
lended
themselves
to
swindling
investors
greedy
for
quick
returns
out
of
their
cash.
Anderson
is
ultimately
responsible
for
45
investors
losing
~$18.4
million
by
working
with
him.
You
can
shame
him
for
frauding
his
investors
and
ending
up
in
the
big
house
—
you
probably
should
—
but
you’ve
gotta
give
him
credit
for
at
least
going
big.
Remember:
there’s
a
line
between
getting
paid
to
zealously
represent
your
clients
and
using
your
law
degree
to
siphon
people’s
bank
accounts.
Make
sure
you
and
your
clients
know
which
side
you’re
on.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
For
those
of
us
dinosaur
lawyers
or
students
of
modern
American
history,
that
was
how
the
House
Un-American
Activities
Committee
(HUAC)
grilled
witnesses
whom
it
suspected
of
possibly
being,
well,
un-American
during
the
witch
hunts
(yes,
Salem
was
not
the
only
one)
of
the
late
1940s
and
1950s.
Using
my
Wayback
Machine
(apologies
to
Mr.
Peabody),
in
the
early
1950s,
a
group
called
the
Hollywood
Ten
defied
HUAC
and
refused
to
answer
the
question
of
whether
they
were
then
or
had
ever
had
any
association,
however
brief,
with
the
Communist
Party.
For
their
refusals,
they
were
imprisoned
and
blacklisted
for
decades.
But
others
named
names
to
save
their
own
skins
and
careers.
Today,
the
DEI
ban
is
operational.
Haven’t
women
and
minority
lawyers
been
chosen
on
merit,
that
we
were
the
best
candidate
for
the
particular
job?
It
wasn’t
just
that
we
had
the
credentials,
the
pedigree,
the
knowledge,
the
understanding.
Also
(and
I
don’t
think
that
people
chat
about
this
in
the
context
of
DEI
but
perhaps
they
should),
the
emotional
intelligence,
the
best
EQ
to
connect
with
workplace
colleagues
and
the
best
to
connect
with
the
clients,
both
present
and
future.
(By
the
way,
isn’t
it
ironic
that
March
has
been
Women’s
History
Month,
while
February
was
Black
History
Month.
What
do
you
think
will
happen
to
those?)
How
do
we
feel
now
knowing
that
we
may
have
only
been
tokens,
that
the
best
qualified
candidate
for
the
particular
position
was
obviously
a
white
man
who
has
been
deprived
of
his
rightful
place
in
the
legal
hierarchy?
How
do
we
feel
knowing
that
while
all
of
us
tried
our
best
to
do
our
best
work,
the
best
work
(also
known
as
lucrative
work)
was
done
and
should
have
been
done
in
the
men’s
locker
rooms,
on
the
golf
courses,
in
venues
that
were
previously
men-only
worlds
and
may
be
again?
How
does
it
feel
to
feel
like
the
outcast,
the
excluded
one,
once
again?
Been
there,
got
the
T-shirt.
And
what’s
worse
is
the
not
knowing,
the
not
knowing
whether
we
were
hired,
promoted,
or
whatever
on
the
basis
of
merit,
or
whether
we
were
hired,
promoted,
or
whatever,
merely
to
check
some
boxes
on
various
forms
submitted
to
various
government
agencies
at
various
times.
Depressing?
For
women
and
minority
lawyers,
it
haunts
and
plants
seeds
of
doubt.
Was
I
truly
the
best
candidate?
Why
was
I
selected
over
others?
Why
was
I
not
selected
over
others?
Hiring
should
not
be
just
an
algorithm.
It
wasn’t
in
the
years
when
I
was
being
hired.
It
remains
both
an
external
and
internal
decision.
What
if
the
“best
qualified”
doesn’t
have
the
necessary
people
skills
that
are
an
essential
part
of
the
job?
What
if
the
“best
qualified”
looks
fabulous
on
paper,
but
has
the
personality
of
a
dweeb?
How
will
hiring
managers
justify
decisions
made
if
the
best
qualified
fits
into
one
or
more
the
DEI
candidates?
What
will
be
the
tests
and
who
will
decide
what
those
tests
are
and
their
measurements?
What
does
“merit”
even
mean
in
the
hiring
context?
And
the
DEI
ban
extends
not
just
to
the
federal
government,
but
to
those
who
work
within
it,
or
have
clients
within
the
federal
government,
or
who
represent
clients
who
are
federal
contractors.
(By
the
way,
you
know
that
Alina
Habba’s
appointment
as
interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
New
Jersey
was
obviously
merit
based.)
Meanwhile,
there’s
been
plenty
of
reporting
about
the
Paul
Weiss
cave-in
to
the
administration.
It’s
just
one
piece
of
the
Trump
revenge
and
retribution
tour.
Among
the
myriad
of
executive
orders,
the
president
has
now
ordered
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
to
seek
Rule
11
sanctions
for
what
the
DOJ
calls
“frivolous
litigation”
going
back
as
far
as
eight
years.
If
my
math
is
right,
that
takes
us
back
to
the
good
old
days
of
2016.
Don’t
Rule
11
sanctions
require
proof?
Is
this
the
best
use
of
the
DOJ’s
resources?
Of
judicial
resources?
If
Paul
Weiss
caved
so
easily,
what
does
that
mean
for
so
many
other
Biglaw
firms
who
already
are
or
soon
will
be
in
the
government’s
cross-hairs?
It’s
now
Jenner
&
Block’s
turn
in
the
barrel.
So,
how
are
other
Biglaw
firms
going
to
respond
to
the
administration’s
various
and
sundry
EOs?
What
are
they
going
to
say?
What
are
they
going
to
do?
Just
like
in
Nazi
Germany,
silence
today
is
complicity.
If
lawyers
don’t
speak
out
in
defense
of
our
profession
and
the
rule
of
law,
then
what
hope
do
we
have
for
either?
We
should
not
forget
the
oath
we
all
took
to
protect
and
defend
the
Constitution.
It
still
exists,
at
least
right
now.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].
For
the
most
part,
what
in-house
lawyers
want
is
their
client
to
be
zealously
represented
on
a
level
playing
field
with
all
the
other
firms.
I
think
Paul
Weiss
has
addressed
that.
I
think
the
storm
will
pass,
but
in
a
way
this
redefines
the
Paul
Weiss
brand.
They
have
been
a
leader
in
standing
up
for
constitutional
rights
and
human
rights.
They
backed
away
this
time.
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.
In
consultation
with
my
therapist,
I
recently
upped
my
Lexapro
dosage.
There
is
no
trigger
I
can
point
to,
but
the
increase
in
familiar
feelings
of
hopelessness
was
there.
Usually
more
intense
in
the
morning,
then
dissipating
into
the
early
afternoon.
Not
immense
lows,
but
unlike
depressive
bouts
of
years
earlier,
I
have
a
better
understanding
of
my
body
and
mindset.
I
have
mental
health
tools.
We
made
some
medication
adjustments
and
figured
out
that
maybe
I
was
focusing
too
much
on
my
mortality
rather
than
my
purpose
moving
forward
in
my
60s. It
passed,
and
I’m
good,
but
there
are
lessons.
In
dealing
with
chronic
depression,
there
won’t
always
be
a
readily
identifiable
trigger
and
billboard
signals
to
the
people
around
us.
The
lows
won’t
always
be
the
drastic
lows
that
are
easy
to
spot.
In
2005,
it
wasn’t
good,
but
easier
for
family
and
friends
to
see
what
was
happening.
There
was
a
gun
—
statements
of
self-harm
and
known
drug
and
alcohol
problems.
An
episode
I
don’t
talk
about
much,
and
the
last
time
I
had
true
suicidal
ideation,
was
in
2010.
I
was
almost
three
years
sober
but
still
learning
to
adjust
to
dealing
with
intense
feelings
of
worthlessness
and
insecurity
without
the
aid
of
cocaine
and
booze.
There
were
intense
feelings
of
worthlessness
and
insecurity.
Despite
the
intense
feelings
of
worthlessness
and
insecurity,
I
discontinued
my
medication
(without
telling
my
doctor),
thinking
that
I
would
do
it
on
my
own.
My
depression
got
progressively
more
consuming
until
one
evening,
I
was
listening
to
the
radio
—
the
Texas
Rangers
baseball
team
had
declared
bankruptcy
—
and
my
older
brother,
Mark,
was
one
of
the
parties
bidding
to
purchase
them.
(He
didn’t
win.)
Suddenly, I
started
bawling
and
contemplating
scenarios
to
end
my
life.
First-world
privilege
problems,
right?
I
was
sober
with
a
nice
roof
over
my
head.
There
was
food
in
the
fridge.
Yet
somehow,
this
event
that
would
have
no
meaningful
impact
on
my
life
triggered
the
same
feelings
of
hopelessness
that
had
led
to
my
first
trip
to
a
psychiatric
facility.
It,
of
course,
wasn’t
about
the
Rangers
or
Mark.
It
was
my
journey
to
deal
with
the
same
feelings
that
had
plagued
me
since
my
early
teens.
The
journey
to
healing
a
little
boy
who
had
been
fat-shamed
at
home
and
school,
physically
assaulted
over
his
excess
weight,
and
saw
a
monster
every
time
he
looked
in
the
mirror.
There
would
be
those
moments,
even
sober,
until
I
healed
that
little
kid
and
told
him
none
of
it
was
his
fault.
Weirdly,
decades
later,
I’m
still
on
that
journey.
Triggers
often
come
from
where
you
least
expect
them.
Adjustments
are
OK.
If
you’re
a
law
student
or
lawyer
and
struggling
with
depression,
here
are
some
resources:
Brian
Cuban
is
an
attorney,
author,
and
advocate
for
mental
health
awareness
and
recovery.
He
has
spoken
at
law
firms,
conferences,
non-profit
events,
colleges,
and
universities
across
the
United
States
and
Canada.
He
also
writes
extensively
on
these
subjects.
His
books,
columns,
and
quotes
have
appeared
on
CNN.com,
Foxnews.com,
The
Huffington
Post,
The
New
York
Times,
and
online
and
print
newspapers
worldwide.
He
is
also
the
author
of
the
best-selling
book
The
Addicted
Lawyer,
Tales
of
The
Bar,
Booze
Blow
&
Redemption.
His
debut
novel,
The
Ambulance
Chaser,
was
released
as
the
#1-selling
debut
paperback
thriller.
His
follow-up
crime
thriller,
The
Body
Brokers
is
now
available
wherever
books
are
sold
and
at
www.briancuban.com.
This
morning,
a
county
clerk
in
New
York
told
Texas
Attorney
General
Ken
Paxton
to
pound
sand,
refusing
to
domesticate
a
judgment
under
the
Empire
State’s
abortion
shield
law.
The
case
involves
a
$130,000
fine
levied
in
absentia
against
Dr.
Margaret
Carpenter,
the
founder
and
director
of
the
Abortion
Coalition
for
Telemedicine.
Texas
alleges
that
the
doctor
mailed
mifepristone
to
a
20-year-old
woman
in
Collin
County,
Texas,
who
was
later
turned
in
by
her
romantic
partner.
Dr.
Carpenter
is
also
under
criminal
indictment
in
Louisiana
for
helping
a
woman
there.
Under
New
York’s
shield
law,
passed
in
2023
after
the
Dobbs
decision,
the
state
will
not
cooperate
with
out-of-state
civil
or
criminal
process
relating
to
abortion
(as
well
as
gender-affirming
care).
Last
month,
the
state
denied
a
demand
to
extradite
the
doctor
to
Louisiana,
and
now
it’s
refusing
to
register
the
civil
judgment
against
her.
“Today,
I
informed
Texas
State
Attorney
General
Ken
Paxton
that
the
Ulster
County
Clerk’s
Office
will
not
be
filing
a
summary
judgment
against
a
New
Paltz
physician
who
is
facing
charges
in
Texas
for
providing
mifepristone
via
telehealth
to
a
Texas
resident,”
Acting
Clerk
Taylor
Bruck
said
in
a
statement
on
the
county’s
website.
“In
accordance
with
the
New
York
State
Shield
Law,
I
have
refused
this
filing
and
will
refuse
any
similar
filings
that
may
come
to
our
office.”
The
Times
Union,
which
originally
reported
the
story,
interviewed
Bruck,
who
clearly
understands
that
he’s
about
to
be
in
middle
of
a
maelstrom
that
may
turn
him
into
the
Kim
Davis
of
the
left.
“Any
future
lawsuit
will
provide
the
answers
for
what
we
have
to
do
going
forward,
what
all
clerks
will
have
to
do
going
forward.
It
will
set
the
precedent,”
Bruck
told
the
local
paper.
“It’s
a
bit
nerve-wracking
just
because
of
the
unknown,
but
it’ll
be
good
to
get
some
answers
out
of
it.”
For
his
part,
Paxton
is
itching
to
sue,
and
his
office
has
already
called
multiple
times
demanding
an
update,
despite
the
state’s
30-day
window
to
domesticate
a
foreign
judgment.
He’s
got
to
run
again
next
year,
and
so
the
window
to
get
himself
in
front
of
the
Supreme
Court
taking
on
the
godless
libruls
in
New
York
is
tight.
But
unlike
Kim
Davis,
who
recently
lost
a
protracted
appeal
to
avoid
personal
liability,
Bruck
has
the
support
of
local
politicians
and
law
enforcement.
(And
New
York
AG
Letitia
James
is
not
exactly
afraid
of
the
spotlight
either.)
“The
anti-woman,
anti-abortion
zealots
are
at
it
again,”
Governor
Kathy
Hochul
said
this
morning,
thanking
Bruck
“for
his
courage
and
common
sense.”
“Texas
AG
Ken
Paxton
chose
the
wrong
community
to
mess
with,”
agreed
Bruck’s
US
Rep.
Pat
Ryan.
“The
Hudson
Valley
doesn’t
back
down
—
we
stand
for
freedom,
and
together,
we
will
win
this
fight.”
As
with
most
things
tech-related,
a
typical
law
firm
has
historically
trailed
a
typical
corporation
in
tracking
important
business
metrics
and
utilizing
them
in
decision-making.
But
there’s
another
trend
afoot:
The
legal
industry
is
catching
up.
That’s
because
advances
in
legal
technology
are
eliminating
challenges
that
have
traditionally
bedeviled
law
firms
looking
to
make
decisions
with
their
data.
The
practice
management
platform
MyCase,
for
example,
works
behind
the
scenes
to
track
and
surface
several
key
financial
insights
that
will
inform
better
decision-making.
For
most
firms,
acting
on
these
metrics
will
immediately
lead
to
increased
efficiency
and
profitability.
The
data
also
can
enable
you
to
effectively
pursue
broader
goals
like
expanding
in
a
new
practice
area.
If
you’d
like
to
try
it
out,
feel
free
to
do
so
here.
You
can
also
read
on
for
more
on
the
possibilities
surrounding
law
firm
financial
reporting
with
today’s
technology.
Beating
the
Blockers:
The
Challenges
of
Manual
Data
Processing
Law
firms
have
traditionally
faced
several
challenges
in
implementing
data-driven
decision-making.
Law
school,
of
course,
does
not
teach
financial
management,
and
lawyers
who
are
driven
by
a
desire
to
help
their
clients
may
focus
less
on
profitability.
Then
there’s
the
challenge
of
manual
data
analysis
—
a
time-consuming
task
that
requires
you
to
gather
and
interpret
information.
Many
law
firms
have
fragmented
systems
to
manage
their
operations,
and
juggling
multiple
data
sources
adds
difficulties
to
this
process.
Manual
data
processing
can
also
introduce
errors,
and
it’s
the
opposite
of
scalable
—
more
clients
will
equal
more
work.
Finally,
even
if
a
firm
overcomes
these
challenges
and
effectively
tracks
and
analyzes
its
business
metrics,
it
must
still
have
a
clear
business
plan
to
guide
its
decision-making.
Though
this
may
all
seem
daunting
and
time-consuming,
there’s
good
news:
Advances
in
legal
technology
allow
you
to
overcome
each
of
these
hurdles
with
almost
no
additional
work.
Image
courtesy
of
MyCase.
Leveraging
Data
Automation
for
Better
Results
A
cloud-based,
unified
case
management
system
like
MyCase
works
behind
the
scenes
during
your
firm’s
day-to-day
operations,
tracking
everything
from
fee
allocation
to
aging
invoices.
Then,
it
automatically
analyzes
this
data
to
provide
actionable
business
insights
and
presents
it
to
you
in
an
intuitive
format
that’s
customized
to
your
goals.
In
other
words,
MyCase
users
don’t
just
get
another
dashboard
—
they
get
a
business
plan
baked
into
the
metrics
being
tracked.
Revenue
growth,
for
example,
can
be
measured
through
the
number
of
leads
you’ve
added,
converted,
or
failed
to
convert
over
a
set
period
of
time.
MyCase
also
will
track
billable
and
nonbillable
time
per
matter,
as
well
as
money
collected
versus
money
billed.
These
reports
will
often
reveal
inefficiencies
or
bottlenecks
to
revenue
collection
that
the
firm
can
address.
As
a
legal-specific
tool,
MyCase
will
segment
financial
performance
by
lawyer,
office,
and
practice
group.
These
filters
are
also
customizable.
The
end
result:
With
no
additional
work,
you’ll
be
presented
with
the
data
that
will
measure
how
well
you’re
generating
new
business,
billing
for
your
time,
and
collecting
accounts
receivable.
You’ll
get
insights
into
areas
for
improvement
that
directly
affect
your
bottom
line.
In
other
words,
you’ll
be
making
business
decisions
—
and
improving
profitability
—
based
on
data!
Going
Deeper:
Get
the
Most
Out
of
Your
Financial
Reporting
Of
course,
these
revenue
metrics
only
scratch
the
surface
of
what
MyCase
will
track.
The
system
ultimately
presents
you
with
a
holistic
picture
of
your
firm
and
its
performance.
For
example,
MyCase
uncovers
data
related
to
your
firm’s
productivity,
such
as
the
number
of
open
and
closed
cases
at
a
given
time.
Too
many
open
cases
may
reveal
work
inefficiencies,
leading
you
to
look
into
the
amount
of
time
spent
on
administrative
work
or
potential
problems
with
client
communication.
You
can
ultimately
automate
many
of
these
tasks
with
legal
technology,
letting
the
system
directly
increase
your
profits
by
working
behind
the
scenes
on
your
behalf.
Here
is
a
sampling
of
the
specific
reports
MyCase
Financial
Reporting
will
provide
—
along
with
an
example
of
how
each
could
be
put
into
action:
Fee
allocation
reports
measure
each
employee’s
financial
contribution
to
each
matter
at
your
firm.
Action:
These
can
be
used
to
guide
employment
decision-making.
Aging
invoice
reports
show
unpaid
invoices.
Action:
These
allow
you
to
address
problematic
client
collections
before
a
bill
balloons
out
of
control.
Time
and
expense
reports.
show
all
billable
and
non-billable
time
and
expenses
for
all
cases
and
employees
at
your
firm.
Action:
These
will
flag
cost
centers
that
can
be
closely
examined.
Trust
account
reports
track
trust
balances
to
reconcile
trust
retainer
accounts.
Action:
These
reports
allow
you
to
more
easily
comply
with
state
laws
and
simplify
your
bookkeeping
tasks.
Image
courtesy
of
MyCase.
Your
Financial
Future
While
a
lawyer’s
primary
focus
must
be
on
the
practice
of
law,
it’s
also
important
to
remember
that
law
firms
are
for-profit
businesses.
With
today’s
technology,
the
profitability
component
doesn’t
have
to
be
an
afterthought.
MyCase’s
reporting
makes
it
easier
than
ever
to
track,
analyze,
and
act
on
financial
data,
making
smarter,
bolder,
and
entirely
evidence-based
business
decisions.
If
you’d
like
to
see
how
MyCase’s
financial
reporting
tools
can
transform
your
firm,
find
more
information
here
or
sign
up
for
a
10-day
free
trial
to
give
it
a
spin.
Kathryn
