Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
a
new
report
from
the
Department
of
Justice,
what
percentage
of
federal
judges
are
not
enrolled
the
U.S.
Marshals
Service’s
home
security
program?

Hint:
The
report
recommends
seeking
input
directly
from
judges
to
boost
participation.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

In
notable
news
for
the
e-discovery
industry,
the
legal
software
and
services
provider

Elevate
has
acquired

Redgrave
Data,
a
consulting
firm
that
provides
services
and
software
for
e-discovery
and
data
analytics.

Redgrave’s
founders
Mollie
Nichols,
Scott
Culbertson,
Dave
Lewis,
Mark
Noel,
and
Lindsey
Worth
will
all
join
Elevate’s
management
team.

Redgrave
Data
was
formed
in
2022
as
a
spin-off
from
the
law firm Redgrave
LLP,
which
specializes
in
e-discovery
and
information
law,
with
the
goal
of
providing “innovative
services
and
solutions
centered
at
the
intersection
of
the
law,
technology,
and
science.”

Nichols,
who
had
been
Redgrave
Data’s
CEO,
is
a
former
Redgrave
partner
and
e-discovery
expert
who,
prior
to
founding
Redgrave
Data,
was
head
of
advanced
client
data
solutions
at
Hogan
Lovells.

Other
founding
members
of
the
leadership
team
included Scott
Culbertson,
who
previously
served
in
senior
management
roles
at
several
data
analytics
and
discovery
solutions
companies; Dave
Lewis,
who
was
previously
executive
VP
for
AI
research,
development,
and
ethics
at
Reveal-Brainspace; Mark
Noel,
previously director
of
advanced
client
data
solutions
at
Hogan
Lovells,
leader
of
Stroz
Friedberg’s
advanced
technology
consulting
practice,
and
managing
director
at
Catalyst,
where
he
helped
develop
machine
learning
tools
and
workflows; and Lindsey
Worth,
a
former
litigator
who
was
most
recently
senior
manager,
Americas, for
advanced
client
data
solutions at
Hogan
Lovells.

Redgrave
Data’s
primary
focus
is
on
providing
innovative
and
defensible
technology
strategies,
insights,
services,
and
solutions
to
customers
who
face
challenges
with
electronically
stored
information
in
a
legal
context.

In
a
2022
interview
with
LawSites,
Nichols
told
me
that
she
believed
Redgrave
Data’s
“special
sauce”
was
its
team
of
lawyer-technologists
who
are
able
to
look
at
a
problem
and
come
up
with
a
solution
—
often
building
the
solutions
themselves
if
no
commercial
product
fits
the
bill.

It
has
particularly
expertise
in
technology-assisted
review,
artificial
intelligence,
generative
AI,
analytics,
robotic
process
automation,
and
data
visualization.

In
fact,
I
recently
interviewed
three
Redgrave
Data
scientists,
including
cofounder
Lewis,
for
my
LawNext
podcast
on
the
question
of

whether
generative
AI
is
the
new
paradigm
for
TAR
in
e-discovery.

“We
founded
Elevate
to
integrate
expertise
and
technology
to
innovate
and
transform
work
with
a
legal
and
business
dimension
that
needs
to
be
done
every
day,
often
at
scale,
and
sometimes
urgently,”
Liam
Brown,
Elevate’s
chairman
and
CEO,
said
in
a
statement
announcing
the
acquisition.
“We
recognized
how
Redgrave
Data
‘run
a
different
race’
to
tackle
the
world’s
thorniest
legal
data
and
technology
issues
strategically,
efficiently,
and
effectively.”

Nichols,
in
the
same
announcement,
said,
“Joining
our
strengths
to
those
of
another
Chambers
Band
1
NewLaw
company
is
going
to
expand
our
ability
to
provide
outstanding
services
to
our
clients.
Teaming
up
with
Elevate
will
provide
a
global
platform
to
support
our
international
clients
more
effectively.
Elevate’s
resources
will
also
allow
us
to
accelerate
the
development
of
our
innovation
projects
more
efficiently
and
at
scale.”

Short-form
video
content
is
becoming
a
must
for
law
firm
owners
who
focus
on
content
marketing. 

Considering
the
fleeting
attention
spans
of
modern
(legal)
consumers,
one
of
the
best
ways
to
get
your
message
across
—
and
to
gain
the
trust
of
potential
clients
—
is
to
thrust
your
speaking
image
upon
the
screen
and
let
them
get
to
know
your
most
authentic
self. 

Of
course,
this
is
a
challenge
for
lots
of
lawyers,
who
are
a
bit
shy
about
putting
themselves
out
there
like
that.
So
how
do
you
overcome
it?

To
find
out,
we
brought


Sarah
Parker,
of


Hope
Immigration
Law,
onto
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast,
to
talk
about
how
she
built
a
video
marketing
campaign
that
really
rocks.

Sarah
kicked
things
off
by
listing
her
favorite
coffee
shops
in
and
around
Boston
&
Cambridge,
in
case
you
need
a
shot
of
caffeine,
and
happen
to
be
in
the
area
.
.
.
(1:31). 

After
that,
Sarah
discussed
how
she
started
her
firm
straight
out
of
law
school
(4:03)
and
why
she
decided
to
focus
on
immigration
law
(5:57).
Next,
Sarah
talked
about
why
she’s
focused
on
social
media
marketing
(7:14)
and
how
she
began
to
create
authentic
videos
about
her
life
and
work
(8:44),
including
how
she
dips
her
toe
into
non-legal
subject
matter
to
better
engage
her
audience
(13:25). 

Sarah
also
discussed
how
she
chose
the
social
media
platforms
she
uses
(10:55),
and
how
and
when
she
repurposes
content
(9:35). 
Sarah
then
laid
out
her
process
for
how
she
creates
videos,
including
logistics
and
tech
(14:17),
including
how
she
draws
inspiration
from
popular
creators
(16:51). 

Finally,
Sarah
covered
how
she
launched
her
marketing
platform
(18:52),
and
selected
her
brand
name
(21:16).

If
you
were
hoping
to
learn
something
about
video
marketing
in
a
law
firm
environment,
we’ve
built
your
checklist. 

So,
give
a
listen
to
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast
to
make
your
social
media
presence,
a
whole
lot
more
eventful.

Feel
free
to
also
check
out
our CRM
Buyers
Guide at
the
Non-Event
for
more
on
the
latest
resources
to
grow
your
business.
(The
Non-Event
is
supported
by
vendor
sponsorships.)

The
greatest
challenge
for
the
in-house
lawyer
today
is
reconciling
the
role
of
being
a
corporate
business
partner
with
the
role
of
being
the
corporate
guardian.
Balancing
these
roles
can
be
fraught
with
ethical
pitfalls.
To
navigate
these
pitfalls,
it
is
important
for
the
in-house
lawyer
to
know
and
understand
the
ethical
rules
that
have
been
adopted
to
guide
their
work
and
why
they
have
been
adopted
in
the
first
place.

Background

The
modern
corporate
in-house
counsel
faced
significant
criticism
during
the
early
21st
century
in
the
wake
of
scandals
that
involved
the
collapse
of
corporate
giants
like
Enron
and
WorldCom.
The
failures
of
in-house
lawyers
during
this
period
were
largely
the
result
of
their
inability
to
effectively
serve
as
ethical
gatekeepers,
a
responsibility
that
should
have
helped
prevent
the
fraudulent
activities
that
led
to
these
catastrophic
corporate
downfalls.

The
Wave
Of
Scandals

Enron’s
collapse
was
a
result
of
widespread
fraud,
particularly
through
the
manipulation
of
accounting
practices
and
the
creation
of
off-balance-sheet
entities
to
hide
debt.
The
in-house
lawyers
at
Enron
failed
in
several
critical
ways:

• 
  Failure
  To
  Challenge
  Questionable
  Practices.
  Despite
  clear
  evidence
  of
  unethical
  and
  illegal
  practices,
  such
  as
  the
  creation
  of
  complex
  financial
  structures
  designed
  to
  mislead
  investors
  and
  regulators,
  the
  in-house
  lawyers
  did
  not
  take
  meaningful
  steps
  to
  challenge
  or
  stop
  these
  practices.
  In
  fact,
  the
  in-house
  lawyers
  often
  worked
  to
  facilitate
  these
  schemes,
  interpreting
  the
  law
  in
  ways
  that
  allowed
  the
  company
  to
  conceal
  its
  financial
  problems.
• 
  Conflicted
  Loyalties.
  The
  general
  counsel
  (GC),
  as
  a
  senior
  executive,
  had
  a
  duty
  to
  the
  board
  and
  shareholders
  to
  protect
  the
  integrity
  of
  the
  company.
  However,
  the
  GC
  at
  the
  time
  appeared
  to
  prioritize
  the
  interests
  of
  the
  CEO
  and
  other
  senior
  executives
  over
  the
  interests
  of
  shareholders
  and
  the
  company’s
  long-term
  health,
  creating
  a
  conflict
  of
  interest.
• 
  Ethical
  Blind
  Spots.
  The
  in-house
  lawyers
  failed
  to
  recognize
  or
  act
  on
  the
  broader
  ethical
  implications
  of
  the
  company’s
  actions,
  focusing
  on
  legal
  technicalities
  rather
  than
  the
  spirit
  of
  the
  law
  or
  the
  company’s
  ethical
  responsibilities.

WorldCom’s
scandal
involved
the
fraudulent
inflation
of
assets
by
$11
billion,
which
led
to
the
largest
bankruptcy
in
U.S.
history
at
the
time.
The
failure
of
WorldCom’s
in-house
lawyers
highlighted
similar
issues:

• 
  Lack
  Of
  Oversight.
  WorldCom’s
  in-house
  lawyers
  failed
  to
  establish
  or
  enforce
  appropriate
  oversight
  mechanisms
  within
  the
  company
  where
  the
  fraud
  was
  taking
  place.
• 
  Failure
  To
  Protect
  Whistleblowers.
  Employees
  who
  had
  suspicions
  about
  WorldCom’s
  financial
  practices
  found
  little
  support
  from
  the
  in-house
  lawyers
  who
  were
  responsible
  for
  ensuring
  that
  whistleblower
  protections
  are
  enforced.
  This
  lack
  of
  support
  contributed
  to
  a
  culture
  of
  silence,
  which
  allowed
  the
  fraud
  to
  grow
  unchecked.

The
Enron
and
WorldCom
cases
were
emblematic
of
a
broader
crisis
of
corporate
governance,
where
in-house
lawyers
failed
in
their
role
as
ethical
stewards.
Several
common
factors
contributed
to
these
failures:

• 
  Overemphasis
  On
  Legalism
  Over
  Ethics.
  In-house
  lawyers
  during
  this
  era
  tended
  to
  focus
  on
  what
  was
  legally
  permissible
  rather
  than
  what
  was
  ethical
  or
  in
  the
  best
  long-term
  interest
  of
  the
  company
  and
  its
  stakeholders.
  Many
  of
  the
  financial
  maneuvers
  used
  by
  companies
  like
  Enron,
  WorldCom,
  and
  others
  might
  have
  been
  legally
  defensible
  but
  were
  deeply
  unethical
  and
  unsustainable.
• 
  Weak
  Or
  Compromised
  Independence.
  In
  many
  companies,
  in-house
  lawyers
  were
  heavily
  influenced
  by
  the
  executive
  team
  and
  did
  not
  have
  the
  independence
  necessary
  to
  stand
  up
  to
  improper
  or
  unethical
  demands
  from
  CEOs
  or
  CFOs.
  This
  compromised
  their
  ability
  to
  serve
  as
  independent
  guardians
  of
  corporate
  integrity.
• 
  Lack
  Of
  Communication
  With
  The
  Board
  Of
  Directors.
  In-house
  lawyers
  often
  failed
  to
  adequately
  communicate
  legal
  and
  ethical
  risks
  to
  the
  board,
  either
  because
  they
  were
  sidelined
  or
  because
  they
  downplayed
  risks
  in
  favor
  of
  short-term
  financial
  performance.
  In
  some
  cases,
  in-house
  lawyers
  were
  complicit
  in
  keeping
  boards
  in
  the
  dark
  about
  major
  red
  flags,
  such
  as
  significant
  off-balance-sheet
  liabilities
  or
  aggressive
  accounting
  practices.

Response
To
The
Wave
Of
Scandals

The
Enron
and
WorldCom
scandals
prompted
the
American
Bar
Association
(ABA)
to
tighten
its
ethical
rules
by
clarifying
the
in-house
lawyer’s
duty
to
the
organization,
strengthening
reporting
obligations,
and
emphasizing
the
in-house
lawyer’s
role
in
preventing
corporate
fraud.

Impact
Of
These
Changes

Prevention
Of
Future
Scandals.
The
ABA
sought
to
prevent
lawyers
from
becoming
complicit
in
corporate
fraud
by
imposing
clearer
reporting
duties
and
enabling
in-house
lawyers
to
break
confidentiality
in
certain
cases.

• 
  Increased
  Accountability.
  The
  ABA
  sought
  to
  hold
  in-house
  lawyers
  more
  accountable
  for
  addressing
  and
  preventing
  misconduct
  within
  organizations.
• 
  Stronger
  Ethical
  Culture.
  The
  ABA’s
  rule
  changes
  were
  part
  of
  a
  broader
  movement
  toward
  enhancing
  the
  ethical
  culture
  within
  both
  the
  legal
  profession
  and
  corporate
  America,
  emphasizing
  transparency,
  integrity,
  and
  the
  in-house
  lawyer’s
  role
  as
  a
  gatekeeper.

In-house
lawyers
play
a
crucial
role
in
driving
business
success,
but
they
also
bear
the
weighty
responsibility
of
safeguarding
the
organization’s
ethical
integrity.
While
it
is
essential
to
support
innovation
and
growth,
the
in-house
lawyer
has
an
ethical
duty
to
protect
the
company,
a
duty
that
can
never
be
compromised.
In-house
lawyers
must
always
remain
vigilant,
ready
to
speak
up
when
legal
or
ethical
boundaries
are
crossed.
When
necessary,
in-house
lawyers
must
even
speak
out
to
ensure
the
organization’s
long-term
health
and
compliance.
Staying
grounded
in
the
ethical
rules
is
not
just
a
professional
obligation
—
it’s
a
critical
safeguard
for
the
organization
and
the
lawyer’s
career.
Ultimately,
failing
to
uphold
these
responsibilities
could
result
in
more
than
just
a
business
failure
—
it
could
cost
you
your
bar
license.

If
you
are
interested
in
hearing
more
on
this
topic

check
out
Ethics
for
In-House
Counsel:
Navigating
the
Ethical
Responsibilities
of
In-House
Counsel
to
the
Organization’s
President,
Board
of
Directors,
and
Employees,
available
only
via
IHC
On
Demand
(with
CLE!).

---

Lisa
Lang
is
an
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
who
is
passionate
about
all
things
in-house. 
She
has
recently
launched
a
website
and
blog
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com
)
to
serve
as
a
resource
for
in-house
lawyers. 
You
can
e-mail
her
at




[email protected]


,
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn 
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/)
or
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@lang_lawyer).

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

[Diddy]
has
a
big
house.
He
buys
in
bulk.
I
think
they
have
Costcos
in
every
place
where
he
has
a
home.
I
mean,
have
you
sat
in
a
parking
lot
of
a
Costco
and
see
what
people
walk
out
of
there
with?
I
don’t
think
it
was
a
thousand.
Let’s
just
say
it
was
a
lot.

I
mean,
there
is
a
Costco
right
down
the
street.
I
think
Americans
buy
in
bulk,
as
we
know.

—

Marc
Agnifilo
of
Agnifilo
Intrater,
in
comments
given
to

TMZ
and
the

New
York
Post,
concerning
his
client
Sean
“Diddy”
Combs’s
reportedly
overwhelming
supply
of
baby
oil.
During
a
raid
of
the
music
mogul’s
homes,
federal
prosecutors
claim
that
more
than
1,000
bottles
of
baby
oil
were
found.
“I
don’t
know
where
the
number
‘1,000’
came
from,”
Agnifilo
told
TMZ.
“I
can’t
imagine
it’s
thousands
[of
bottles
of
baby
oil
and
lube],
and
I’m
not
really
sure
what
the
baby
oil
has
to
do
with
anything.”
When
it
was
explained
that
the
oil
could
be
used
during
an
orgy,
Agnifilo
said,
“I
don’t
know
what
you
need
a
thousand
[for].
One
bottle
of
baby
oil
goes
a
long
way.
I
don’t
know
what
you
need
a
thousand
for.”
Agnifilo’s
firm
was
last
seen
making
a

cringeworthy
filing
error
in
Diddy’s
case.

---

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.

Backing
the
Blue
is
more
than
just
a
rallying
cry
to
support
the
police
—
it
is
an
ethos
that
retroactively
makes
right
any
previous
wrongs.
Reports
say
that

people
don’t
respect
officers
as
much
as
they
used
to?
Back
the
Blue.
Studies
show
that
the
police
have
a

low
public
confidence
rating
because
of
their
cruel
treatment
of
women
and
minorities?
Back
the
Blue.
Waves
of
really
bad
PR
after
viral
video
shows
a
cop
pushing
down
an
old
man
who
cracks
his
head
on
the
pavement,
only
for
another
officer
to
prevent
the
first
cop
from
rendering
aid?

They’ll
investigate
themselves
and
find
no
wrongdoing.
BACK
THE
BLUE.

As
if
to
stop
the
Executive
from
having
all
of
the
fun,
the
U.S.
Judicial
Conference
Committee
on
Financial
Disclosure’s
recent
rule
revision
looks
like
a
prime
example
of
Backing
the
Black
(robes,
that
is).
Yes
— 
Clarence
Thomas
is
the
figure
head
offender
— 
but
this
revision
extends
to
every
robed
gavel
getting
gifts
from
billionaires.

Reuters
has
coverage:

U.S.
Supreme
Court
justices
and
federal
judges
on
lower
courts
do
not
have
to
publicly
disclose
when
they
dine
or
stay
at
someone’s
personal
residence,
even
one
owned
by
a
business
entity,
under
a
revised
ethics
rule.

The
amended
policy
was
issued
on
Monday
by
the
U.S.
Judicial
Conference’s
Committee
on
Financial
Disclosure,
which
sets
rules
followed
by
the
nine
justices
and
other
federal
judges.
Critics
said
the
move
diluted
ethics
requirements.

If
you’re
thinking
that
this
change
retroactively
rights
a
bunch
of
Thomas’s
previous
gift
controversies,
you
aren’t
the
only
one.
Gabe
Roth
took
to

Fix
The
Court
to
break
down
some
of
the
prior
expenditures
SCOTUS
&
Co.
want
you
to
believe
don’t
warrant
a
second
look:

Here
are
some
places
with
corporate
ownership
where
Justice
Thomas
has
received
gifts
since
ascending
to
the
high
court:

•  Mill
  Creek
  Farm
  (multiple
  years),
  owned
  by
  CFH
  Mill
  Creek
  Company,
  L.P.,
  located
  in
  East
  Texas
  (unsure
  of
  corporate
  structure
  but
  Harlan
  Crow
  appears
  to
  control)
• Camp
  Topridge
  (multiple
  years),
  owned
  by
  Topridge
  Holdings,
  LLC,
  located
  in
  Upstate
  New
  York
  (Crow)
• The
  Michaela
  Rose
  (multiple
  years),
  owned
  by
  Crow
  Holdings,
  LLC,
  docked
  who
  knows
  where
  now
  (Crow)

Let’s
assume
each
counts
as
a
“personal
residence”
of
Crow
under
the
regs
since
Crow
spends
the
night
at
each
over
the
course
of
the
year,
and
assume
that
none
(save
the
Michaela
Rose
from
2003-15)
is
rented
out
to
the
public.

When
Justice
Thomas
stays
for
free
at
these
places,
does
he
now
get
to
avail
himself
of
the
personal
hospitality
exemption?
Seems
like
it.

Years
ago,
Thomas
lamented
that
being
a
judge
on
the
highest
court
meant
that

he
might
have
to
give
up
his
prestigious
six-figure
gig
for
a
more
lucrative
six-figure
gig.
The
“sure
would
be
a
shame-ing”
was
followed
by
him
receiving
millions
in
underreported
goodies
from
influential
millionaires
and
billionaires.
While
he
might
not
have
the
salary
his
heart
desired,
a
surplus
of
generous
donors
and
colleagues
that
can
codify
his
dependency
on
charity
are
just
as
good!
Let’s
take
a
moment
of
silence
to
honor
Clarence
and
the
Court’s
sacrifices.
Sure,

no
one
takes
them
seriously
anymore,
but
now
hundreds
of
judges
can
flock
to
monied
Crows
and
Crow
LLCs
without
fearing
transparency
guidelines
that
let
the
public
know
where
conflicts
of
interest
may
pop
up.

US
Supreme
Court
Justices,
Other
Judges
Can
Stay
At
Corporate-Owned
Homes
Without
Disclosure
[Reuters]

Judicial
Conference
Issues
New
Financial
Disclosure
Rule.
Who
Benefits?
[Fix
The
Court]

Earlier:

Paragon
Of
Virtue
Clarence
Thomas
Has
Been
Given
Half
Million
In
Value
Off
The
Record
And
It
Totally
Hasn’t
Impacted
His
Judging.
Not
One
Bit.
Nope.

Clarence
Thomas
Thinks
He
Was
Practically
Forced
To
Take
All
That
Under
The
Table
Money

Clarence
Thomas
Took
EVEN
MORE
Free
Trips
On
Private
Planes
That
He’s
Still
Not
Disclosed!

Clarence
Thomas
Turned
Supreme
Court
Service
Into
An
ATM
Machine

Harvard
Law
Professor
Argues
That
The
Supreme
Court
No
Longer
Cares
About
Its
Own
‘Legitimacy.’
What
Now?

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Legal
dramas
aren’t
just
confined
to
the
courtroom
or
our
favorite
TV
shows.
The
tech
startup
world,
brimming
with
secrecy,
scandal,
and
high-stakes
decisions,
provides
its
own
theater
of
legal
intrigue.
But
what
if
those
real-life
stories
—
often
whispered
behind
closed
doors
—
were
brought
to
the
stage?
Enter
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets:
Based
in
True
Startups,”

a
play
having
its

NYC
premiere
from
October
17
through
October
27,
2024.
The
show

marries
the
adrenaline
rush
of
startup
life
with
the
drama
of
legal
battles.
In
this
exclusive
interview,
I
sat
down
with
Sarah
Feingold,
co-creator
of
the
production
and
former
startup
GC,
to
dive
into
how
law
and
theater
collide,
creating
an
experience
that
entertains,
informs,
and
resonates
with
both
legal
insiders
and
tech
industry
veterans.

Olga
V.
Mack:
The
Legal
Twist:
What
inspired
you
to
combine
law
and
theater,
especially
the
tech
startup
world?
What
is
it
about
this
space
that
lends
itself
to
such
a
compelling
narrative?

Sarah
Feingold:
The
play
was
inspired
by
conversations
with
Michael
Weinberg.
Michael
and
I
are
both
former
startup
GCs,
and
we
share
a
love
of
the
theater.
We
love
diving
into
the
entertaining
and
heartbreaking
stories
that
startup
in-house
attorneys,
like
us,
are
forbidden
to
share.
We
wondered
if
we
could
combine
our
interests
and
create
something
unique.
We
put
out
a
call
for
anonymous
startup
legal-themed
stories,
and
we
were
floored
by
what
was
disclosed
to
us.
The
tales
were
theatrical!
That
spark
of
an
idea
led
to
the
play,
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets:
Based
in
True
Startups.”

OVM:
Art
Meets
Law:
You’ve
spent
years
as
an
attorney
and
legal
innovator
—
how
did
that
experience
influence
your
writing?
Did
you
find
yourself
processing
any
of
your
own
legal
career
through
this
project?

SF:
The
show
was
inspired
by
my
time
at
legal
departments
at
startups
(Etsy
and
Vroom)
and
my
years
of
laughing
and
commiserating
with
other
startup
attorneys.
When
things
go
wrong,
like
super
wrong,
the
lawyers
step
in.
Writing
is
cathartic
even
when
the
stories
are
not
mine.
I
feel
responsibility
to
those
who
trust
me
with
their
tales.

OVM:
Startup
Realities:
The
tech
startup
world
is
rife
with
drama,
secrecy,
and
scandal.
What
kind
of
real-life
situations
are
reflected
in
your
play?
How
much
of
this
production
is
based
on
your
own
experiences
or
things
you’ve
heard
in
the
industry?

SF:
The
show
is
based
on
real-life
startup
secrecy,
drama,
and
scandal.
Due
to
attorney-client
privilege,
my
startup
stories
must
stay
in
my
vault.
But
I
can
share
anonymous
tales
that
came
to
me
from
the
legal
industry.
And
those
stories
…
wow!

OVM:
The
Audience
Reaction:
You’ve
already
had
some
initial
shows.
How
have
audiences
responded
so
far?
Any
surprising
or
particularly
memorable
reactions
from
those
who
work
in
the
tech
or
legal
world?

SF:
The
audience
fuels
me.
After
the
last
production,
I
received
generous
feedback
from
people
who
saw
the
show.
I
assumed
that
the
louder
and
more
absurd
stories
would
stick.
I
was
surprised
that
some
of
the
more
subtle
moments
have
staying
power.

OVM:
From
Vision
to
Reality:
What
has
been
the
biggest
challenge
in
bringing
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”
to
life?
As
someone
who
has
successfully
navigated
the
legal
world,
did
you
face
any
unique
legal
or
business
challenges
with
this
production?

SF:
Bringing
a
script
to
the
stage
feels
similar
to
bringing
a
startup
to
market.
You
must
believe
in
your
product
and
in
its
future.
Also,
you
need
thick
skin.
There
are
few
theaters
and
few
opportunities
for
new
playwrights.
Rejections
come
with
the
territory.
I
learned
so
much
about
the
entertainment
industry
and
the
ways
that
decisions
are
made.

OVM:
Looking
Ahead:
What
are
your
hopes
for
the
future
of
“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”?
Do
you
envision
it
expanding
beyond
New
York?
And
how
do
you
hope
it
will
impact
conversations
about
the
tech
startup
world
and
the
legal
profession?

SF:
I’m
hopeful,
delusional,
or
both.
Yes,
let’s
expand
this
production
beyond
our
run
from
October
17
–
October
27,
2024.
Let’s
expand
the
show
beyond
New
York.
I
hope
this
play
leaves
a
lasting
positive
impact
on
those
who
see
it.
I
hope
that
industry
insiders
help
to
propel
the
show
to
the
next
level.
We
are
also
having
talkbacks
to
dive
into
some
of
the
themes
in
the
show.
I
became
a
lawyer
because
of
my
belief
that
the
law
could
create
social
change.
I
learned
that
the
law
tends
to
be
clunky
and
slow.
Art
has
the
ability
to
break
through
the
noise
for
a
positive
impact.

“Dirty
Legal
Secrets”
runs
from
October
17
through
October
27
at
Room
52
in
New
York
City.
It
offers
more
than
just
a
glimpse
behind
the
curtain
of
tech
startups
—
it
challenges
us,
as
lawyers
and
professionals,
to
reconsider
the
untold
stories
lurking
in
our
own
industries.
It’s
a
reminder
that
law,
while
steeped
in
rules
and
confidentiality,
is
also
deeply
human
—
full
of
emotional
highs,
ethical
dilemmas,
and
moments
that
shape
careers
and
lives.
As
attorneys,
we
often
protect
the
most
delicate
narratives,
but
Sarah
Feingold’s
work
encourages
us
to
reflect:
What
would
happen
if
we
told
more
of
these
stories?
What
might
we
learn,
and
more
importantly,
how
might
we
grow?
The
law
isn’t
just
a
profession
—
it’s
a
stage,
and
each
of
us
has
a
part
to
play.
Are
you
ready
to
step
into
the
spotlight?

---

Olga
V.
Mack


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


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



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Litigation
continues
to
serve
as
much
of
the
legal
profession’s
bread
and
butter,
with

demand
trending
up
for
all
but
the
Am
Law
50.
Despite
the
fact
that
this
practice
area
is
moving
away
from
the
top
firms,
clients
still
want
the
very
best
when
it
comes
to
the
quality
of
work
on
their
litigation
matters.
According
to
a
ranking
from
BTI
Consulting
Group,
certain
firms
seem
to
be
doing
better
than
others
in
clients’
eyes
when
it
comes
to
their
grasp
on
complex
litigation
matters.
From

BTI’s
Mad
Clientist
blog:

More
litigation
complexity
equals
more
opportunity.
Today’s
market
is
filled
to
the
brim
with
complexity.

BTI
research
reveals
a
select
group
of
43
law
firms
boosted
their
reputation
—
and
delivery
—
to
move
upmarket
in
litigation.
This
is
down
from
54
BTI
Upmarket
Movers
last
year.
It’s
harder
to
move
up
the
market
than
last
year.

These
upmarket
firms
increased
their
status
as
clients
first
choice
and
preferred
providers.

These
BTI
Upmarket
Movers
know
clients
want
ideas
–
new
approaches
to
novel
matters
–
and
for
old
matters
as
well.
These
firms
are
becoming
more
aggressive
as
clients
face
more
demanding
opponents.
It
is
far
from
an
easy
world.

So,
which
firms
are
at
the
top
of
their
game
from
the
most
important
point
of
view
of
all,
that
of
their
clients?
The
list
is
still
quite
long
—
43!
—
but
any
firm
that
made
the
list
is
likely
thrilled
to
be
here:

1. A&O
   Shearman
2. ArentFox
   Schiff
3. Axinn
4. Baker
   McKenzie
5. Benesch
6. Blakes
7. Bryan
   Cave
   Leighton
   Paisner
8. Buchanan
9. Burns
   &
   Levinson
10. Cleary
    Gottlieb
11. Coblentz
    Patch
    Duffy
    &
    Bass
12. Cozen
    O’Connor
13. Davis
    Wright
    Tremaine
14. Debevoise
15. Dechert
16. Dorsey
17. Fasken
18. Hinshaw
19. Levenfeld
    Pearlstein
20. Lewis
    Brisbois
21. Mayer
    Brown
22. Maynard
    Nexsen
23. McCarter
    &
    English
24. Morgan
    Lewis
25. Osler
26. Patterson
    Belknap
27. Poyner
    Spruill
28. Quinn
    Emanuel
29. Reminger
30. Sheppard
    Mullin
31. Sidley
32. Squire
    Patton
    Boggs
33. Thompson
    Hine
34. Trenam
35. Troutman
    Pepper
36. UB
    Greensfelder
37. Warner
    Norcross
    +
    Judd
38. Williams
    Mullen
39. Wilson
    Elser
40. Winston
    &
    Strawn
41. Womble
    Bond
    Dickinson
42. Woods
    Rogers
43. Zwillgen

Congratulations
to
all
the
firms
that
made
the
cut,
and
best
of
luck
to
them
as
they
stake
out
their
course
in
new
litigation
horizons.

43
Law
Firms
Moving
Upmarket
in
Richest
Litigation
Market
in
Years
[BTI
Consulting
Group]

---

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.

You
were
taught
many
skills
in
law
school,
like
how
to
think
like
a
lawyer
and
conduct
legal
research.
But
many
topics
were
likely
excluded
from
your
law
school
curriculum,
including
effective
client
communication
and
law
firm
management

After
you
hung
a
shingle,
these
gaps
may
have
become
more
evident,
requiring
significant
time
and
financial
investment
to
bridge
the
learning
curve.
From
marketing
and
client
intake
to
tracking
expenses
and
getting
paid,
you’ll
need
to
address
many
issues
to
unlock
law
firm
revenue
and
expansion
drivers.
Fortunately,
there
is
no
shortage
of
information
on
running
a
streamlined
law
firm,
from
CLE
courses
to
books
to
online
resources.

The
Value
Of
Industry
Benchmark
Data

One
way
to
get
up
to
speed
is
by
comparing
your
firm
to
industry
benchmarking
data.
By
understanding
how
other
lawyers
are
running
their
practices
and
achieving
success,
you
can
apply
what
you’ve
learned
to
your
law
firm’s
operations
to
increase
marketing
and
growth
opportunities.

For
this
type
of
data,
look
no
further
than
two
Benchmark
Reports
released
this
year
from
MyCase
and
LawPay:

Benchmark
Report
Part
1:
Law
Firm
Finances
and

Benchmark
Report
Part
2:
Getting
Clients.
These
reports,
based
on
anonymized
law
firm
data,
provide
a
wealth
of
marketing
and
financial
insights.

Client
Intake
Conversion
Data

One
important
client
intake
metric
addressed
in
these
reports
is
conversion
rates.
Comparing
your
firm’s
conversion
rates
with
those
of
firms
with
the
same
practice
areas
can
be
very
instructive
and
help
you
to
better
determine
whether
your
client
intake
processes
are
running
as
smoothly
as
possible.

Data
from
the
reports
indicates
that
the
practice
area
with
the
fastest
conversion
rates
is
personal
injury
law,
with
just
three
days
between
lead
intake
and
conversion
to
client,
while
bankruptcy
and
immigration
share
the
slowest
conversion
timelines
at
16
days.
These
disparities
highlight
the
varying
complexities
in
practice
areas
and
the
differing
expectations
of
potential
clients.
By
understanding
these
benchmarks,
you
can
set
realistic
goals
for
improving
your
firm’s
intake
processes
based
on
the
specific
needs
and
timelines
of
your
practice
areas.

Consultation
Appointments

Another
key
factor
influencing
conversion
rates
is
the
percentage
of
consultation
appointments
held
for
each
of
your
firm’s
practice
areas,
as
well
as
the
revenue
generated
from
consultation
fees.

Data
from
the
reports
showed
that
across
various
practice
areas,
an
average
of
14%
of
prospective
clients
attend
consultations
before
retaining
a
law
firm.
Trust
and
estate
clients
top
the
list,
with
27%
attending
consultations,
followed
closely
by
immigration
clients
at
21%.
In
contrast,
personal
injury
and
criminal
law
practices
see
the
lowest
rates
of
consultation
attendance,
at
7%
and
8%
respectively.

These
numbers
suggest
that
in
certain
practice
areas,
clients
are
more
likely
to
seek
legal
advice
before
deciding
to
hire,
making
consultations
an
important
touchpoint
in
the
conversion
process.
Firms
operating
in
high-consultation
areas
could
capitalize
on
this
by
offering
structured,
paid
consultation
packages,
while
firms
in
low-consultation
areas
may
want
to
focus
on
streamlining
intake
and
initial
contact
to
expedite
conversion.

Tracking
Consultation
Fee
Revenue

Tracking
consultation
fee
revenue
is
critical
to
optimizing
a
law
firm’s
marketing
strategy.
It
provides
insight
into
how
initial
client
interactions
directly
contribute
to
a
firm’s
profitability
and
highlights
areas
where
the
firm
may
be
leaving
money
on
the
table.
This
data-driven
approach
not
only
boosts
immediate
revenue
but
also
supports
long-term
business
growth.

When
it
comes
to
tracking
revenue
from
consultation
fees,
the
benchmark
data
showed
that
more
than
3,000
reports
analyzing
consultation-related
revenue
were
generated
within
a
two-week
period.
This
large
number
highlights
the
importance
of
understanding
how
these
initial
meetings
contribute
to
overall
profitability.

Referral
Sources
And
Lead
Forecasting
Reporting

Meanwhile,
analyzing
lead
referral
sources
allows
firms
to
pinpoint
which
marketing
channels
or
relationships
are
driving
the
most
business.
By
focusing
on
these
data
points,
law
firms
can
refine
their
marketing
efforts,
ensuring
resources
are
invested
in
the
strategies
and
channels
that
yield
the
highest
return.

Data
from
the
reports
also
indicates
that
lead
referral
sources
were
a
major
focus
for
firms,
with
over
1,000
reports
run
over
the
course
of
a
year
to
track
lead
origination.
In
comparison,
lead
forecasting
reports,
which
track
potential
future
revenue,
were
less
commonly
generated,
with
only
250
reports
run.
Nevertheless,
both
sets
of
reports
offer
valuable
insights
for
long-term
strategic
planning.
By
analyzing
these
trends,
you
can
better
allocate
resources
and
refine
marketing
strategies
to
plan
for
improved
growth
and
revenue
generation.

Expense
Tracking

Lastly,
when
examining
the
financial
landscape
across
practice
areas,
the
data
reveals
notable
differences
in
the
number
of
expenses
incurred
by
law
firms
in
one
year.
Family
Law
matters
lead
with
the
highest
expenses,
totaling
312,550,
followed
by
Personal
Injury
matters
at
181,064,
and
Trusts
and
Estates
at
164,817.

These
numbers
reflect
the
resource-intensive
nature
and
complexity
of
these
practice
areas.
In
contrast,
Employment
Law
and
Bankruptcy
matters
incurred
far
fewer
expenses,
at
33,624
and
28,713,
respectively.
Among
other
things,
these
lower
figures
suggest
less
overhead,
providing
important
insights
for
firms
looking
to
manage
costs
more
effectively.

If
your
firm
is
seeking
ways
to
enhance
growth
and
profitability,
these
reports
offer
a
valuable
roadmap
for
improving
financial
performance
and
strategic
decision-making.
By
analyzing
this
data,
you
can
refine
your
firm’s
marketing
strategies,
adjust
pricing
models,
and
allocate
resources
more
efficiently
to
optimize
profitability,
firm
growth,
and
overall
client
satisfaction.

---

Nicole
Black


is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Director
of
Business
and
Community
Relations
at



MyCase,
web-based
law
practice
management
software.
She’s
been



blogging


since
2005,
has
written
a



weekly
column


for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of



Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers,
co-authors



Social
Media
for
Lawyers:
the
Next
Frontier,
and
co-authors



Criminal
Law
in
New
York.
She’s
easily
distracted
by
the
potential
of
bright
and
shiny
tech
gadgets,
along
with
good
food
and
wine.
You
can
follow
her
on
Twitter
at



@nikiblack


and
she
can
be
reached
at




[email protected].

Last
night,

news
broke
that
New
York
City
Mayor
Eric
Adams
was
indicted.
And
today,
a
57-page
indictment
(available
below)
was
filed
by
Southern
District
of
New
York
prosecutors
alleging
a
decade’s
worth
of
corruption.
That
news
has
just
about
everyone
talking,
and
leaves
all
of
us
lawyerly
types
wondering…
who’s
going
to
represent
him?

Quinn
Emanuel
partner

Alex
Spiro
has

joined
the
mayor’s
legal
team.
Spiro
is

no
stranger
to
well-known
clients
(including

Elon
Musk,

Megan
Thee
Stallion,
and

Alec
Baldwin)
—
and
even
Adams
himself.
Spiro

reps
Adams
against
allegations
he
sexually

assaulted
a
woman
in
1993
(and
Adams
gave
taxpayers
the
Biglaw
bill,
arguing
since
he
was
a
cop
at
the
time
of
the
allegations,
the
city
should
foot
the,
admittedly

discounted,
bill).

This
morning,
the
FBI
searched
the
mayoral
residence,
Gracie
Mansion,
and
Spiro
was

quick
to
slam
the
action.

“Federal
agents
appeared
this
morning
at
Gracie
Mansion
in
an
effort
to
create
a
spectacle
(again)
and
take
Mayor
Adams
phone
(again).
He
has
not
been
arrested
and
looks
forward
to
his
day
in
court,”
Spiro
said.
“They
send
a
dozen
agents
to
pick
up
a
phone
when
we
would
have
happily
turned
it
in.”

Adams

denied
the
allegations,
saying
in
a
video
message
last
night
they’re
“entirely
false,
based
on
lies.
But
they
would
not
be
surprising.
I
always
knew
that
If
I
stood
my
ground
for
all
of
you
that
I
would
be
a
target—and
a
target
I
became.”

24CR556
SEALED
INDICTMENT
(1)

---

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].