Today,
U.S.
District
Judge
John
deGravelles
issued
an
injunction
blocking
the
Louisiana
law
that
would
require
all
public
K-12
schools
and
colleges
to
display
posters
of
the
10
Commandments.
The
Obama
appointee
wrote
the
law
had
an
“overtly
religious”
purpose
and
was
“unconstitutional
on
its
face.”
As
a
matter
of
First
Amendment
jurisprudence,
this
does
not
seem
surprising
in
the
slightest.
The
plaintiffs,
a
coalition
of
parents
of
Jewish,
Christian,
Unitarian
Universalist,
and
nonreligious
backgrounds,
argued
displaying
the
religious
text
impeded
their
religious
freedoms
and
“sends
the
harmful
and
religiously
divisive
message
that
students
who
do
not
subscribe
to
the
Ten
Commandments
…
do
not
belong
in
their
own
school
community
and
should
refrain
from
expressing
any
faith
practices
or
beliefs
that
are
not
aligned
with
the
state’s
religious
preferences.”
And
that
is
certainly
how
generations
of
constitutional
law
scholars
understand
the
law.
As
Heather
L.
Weaver,
Senior
Staff
Attorney
for
the
ACLU’s
Program
on
Freedom
of
Religion
and
Belief,
said,
“This
ruling
should
serve
as
a
reality
check
for
Louisiana
lawmakers
who
want
to
use
public
schools
to
convert
children
to
their
preferred
brand
of
Christianity.
Public
schools
are
not
Sunday
schools,
and
today’s
decision
ensures
that
our
clients’
classrooms
will
remain
spaces
where
all
students,
regardless
of
their
faith,
feel
welcomed.”
But,
state
Attorney
General
Liz
Murrill
said
of
the
decision,
“We
strongly
disagree
with
the
court’s
decision
and
will
immediately
appeal,
as
H.B.
71’s
implementation
deadline
is
approaching
on
January
1,
2025.”
That
means
the
Fifth
Circuit
gets
to
weigh
in.
And
despite
how
clear
I
think
this
is
as
a
matter
of
law,
I
am
not
optimistic.
Above
the
Law
has
already
joked
about
the
case,
“Fifth
Circuit
to
rule
that
the
First
Amendment
protects
the
rights
of
people
of
all
religions
to
worship
Jesus
Christ.”
But
it
feels
a
lot
less
like
humor
and
a
lot
more
like
playing
Cassandra.
The
Fifth
Circuit
is
a
bastion
of
right-wing
legal
thought
that
has
repeatedly
shown
they
will
advance
legally
shallow
arguments
that
move
the
needle
for
conservative
goals.
And
they
aren’t
afraid
to
cite
Christian
beliefs
while
making
the
law.
It’s
a
sad
reality
that
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
decision
in
this
case
feels
like
a
foregone
conclusion,
placing
the
matter
on
a
collision
course
with
the
Supreme
Court.
Which
doesn’t
feel
great
for
fans
of
that
whole
“freedom
from
religion”
thing.
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].
It
has
been
widely
reported
that
law
firms
experienced
a
prosperous
start
to
2024,
with
momentum
from
a
strong
Q1
continuing
into
double-digit
revenue
growth
during
the
first
six
months
of
the
year.
Despite
these
positive
financial
figures,
challenges
remain
in
other
areas.
Recent
data
from
BigHand
highlights
ongoing
pressures
from
rising
client
attrition
and
talent
turnover,
exacerbated
by
changing
client
expectations
and
internal
resource
issues.
While
revenue
growth
is
important,
these
underlying
challenges
must
be
addressed
to
ensure
long-term
success.
In
this
article,
a
strategic
response
to
these
pressures
will
be
explored,
focusing
on
how
firms
can
leverage
technology
and
refine
talent
management
practices.
Client
Attrition
and
Evolving
Expectations
A
concerning
statistic
from
BigHand’s
report
reveals
that
96%
of
firms
lost
clients
in
the
past
year.
A
contributing
factor
to
this
trend
seems
to
be
the
shift
in
clients’
expectations.
The
report
shows
that
increasingly,
clients
prioritize
cost-efficiency,
with
33%
finding
cheaper
legal
services
elsewhere,
and
34%
reducing
the
number
of
firms
on
their
panels.
The
firms
that
remain
on
these
reduced
and
refocused
panels
are
likely
those
that
can
adapt
to
the
evolving
needs
of
their
clients.
Given
this
shift,
firms
should
be
especially
concerned,
as
failing
to
meet
these
changing
demands
could
lead
to
further
client
attrition
and
a
diminished
competitive
position
in
an
already
tightening
market.
We’re
also
seeing
clients
focus
on
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
(DEI),
with
33%
of
firms
reporting
client
losses
to
competitors
that
meet
their
DEI
criteria.
While
87%
of
firms
report
an
increase
in
client
requests
for
DEI
data
around
matter
staffing,
just
19%
say
DEI
is
a
priority
when
resourcing
matters,
and
47%
lack
the
tech
to
provide
reporting
on
DEI
across
matters
altogether.
This
data
shows
us
that
there
is
massive
room
for
improvement
when
it
comes
to
firms
delivering
on
this
demand
from
clients
–
it’s
now
more
important
than
ever
for
firms
to
prioritize
DEI
initiatives.
So,
how
can
firms
effectively
show
their
value
and
reduce
client
attrition?
The
answer
lies
in
data.
Tech-driven
firms
lead
the
pack,
with
64%
showcasing
efficiency
gains
through
technology
in
RFIs.
This
stat
tells
us:
Firms
embracing
technology
are
achieving
efficiency
gains.
They’re
responding
to
changing
client
expectations.
Technology
gives
them
a
clear
way
to
demonstrate
value
to
clients.
Top
Talent
on
the
Move
It’s
not
just
clients
that
firms
need
to
be
concerned
about
losing—
the
bullish
lateral
hire
market
continues
to
present
challenges,
with
movement
at
senior
levels
reported
by
53%
of
firms.
A
commonality
between
client
and
talent
attrition:
a
change
in
expectation.
Lawyers
are
being
drawn
increasingly
toward
firms
offering
a
better
work-life
balance,
hybrid
work
options,
and
clear
paths
for
career
advancement.
This
is
supported
by
data:
25%
of
equity
partners
have
identified
the
absence
of
hybrid
work,
while
23%
have
cited
insufficient
professional
development
as
the
main
reasons
for
leaving
their
firms.
Firms
should
take
note,
because
failing
to
meet
these
expectations
could
lead
to
further
movement
of
top
talent,
weakening
both
their
workforce
and
competitive
edge.
Flexible
work
arrangements,
transparent
career
pathways,
and
opportunities
for
professional
development
must
be
provided
to
ensure
employees
feel
valued
and
satisfied.
The
targeted
use
of
technology
can
provide
visibility
to
an,
at
times,
opaque
process.
For
instance,
BigHand
Resource
Management
can
be
used
to
align
workloads
with
career
goals
and
skill
sets,
ensuring
top
talent
remains
engaged
with
meaningful
work.
In
addition
to
the
visibility
of
workloads,
leveraging
technology
enables
the
hybrid
work
environment
that
many
new
hires
expect.
Firms
with
better
attrition
rates
have
set
the
expectation
that
utilizing
such
tools
is
essential
for
retaining
their
talent
and
maintaining
productivity
in
a
competitive
market.
Operational
Efficiency
and
the
Role
of
Support
Staff
Talent
attrition
is
not
limited
to
senior
staff;
over
two-thirds
of
firms
have
reported
losing
support
staff,
which
has
negatively
impacted
both
productivity
and
profitability.
Operational
efficiency
depends
heavily
on
making
the
most
of
support
staff,
yet
many
firms
continue
to
struggle
with
proper
work
delegation.
For
example,
12%
of
lawyers
spend
over
five
hours
a
week
on
non-billable,
client-facing,
or
internal
administrative
tasks
(and
this
figure
may
be
even
higher
at
several
firms).
This
creates
a
gap
in
utilization.
While
such
tasks
are
essential
to
client
service,
they
should
ideally
be
handled
by
support
staff,
allowing
lawyers
to
focus
on
billable
work,
where
their
skills
are
most
valuable.
Without
proper
support
systems,
lawyers
are
often
left
with
no
choice
but
to
manage
administrative
tasks
on
their
own.
Centralized,
data-driven
support
models,
enabled
by
workflow
technology,
are
key
to
improving
both
service
delivery
and
resource
allocation.
By
using
these
tools,
firms
can
ensure
that
tasks
are
appropriately
assigned,
giving
lawyers
the
necessary
support
to
maximize
their
productivity.
This
technology
also
offers
crucial
visibility
into
task
delegation,
something
that
is
especially
challenging
in
larger
firms.
In
fact,
68%
of
firms
have
acknowledged
that
greater
visibility
into
the
activity
of
support
staff
improves
understanding
of
their
contribution
to
lawyers’
work.
Such
visibility
is
essential
for
the
efficient
allocation
of
resources,
which
in
turn
strengthens
productivity
and
profitability.
As
firms
contend
with
the
difficulties
of
client
and
talent
attrition,
those
that
embrace
technology
are
positioned
to
maintain
a
competitive
edge.
By
integrating
tech
solutions,
resources
can
be
optimized,
client
retention
can
be
improved,
and
operational
efficiency
can
be
enhanced. For
those
interested
in
further
insights
on
how
legal
talent
retention
and
resource
utilization
can
be
improved
to
deliver
value-driven
services
and
boost
profitability,
you’ll
find
plenty
more
valuable
findings
in
BigHand’s
benchmark
report,
available
now.
HARARE
–
Former
Mashonaland
West
Minister
of
State
Reuben
Marumahoko
has
been
arrested
on
allegations
of
defrauding
Agricultural
Rural
Development
Authority
(ARDA)
US$37,950
worth
of
farming
inputs.
In
a
statement,
Zimbabwe
Anti-Corruption
Commission
(ZACC)
said
the
Zanu
PF
top
official
allegedly
applied
for
inputs
under
the
Agricultural
and
Rural
Development
Authority
(ARDA)
commercial
farmers’
joint
venture
programme
claiming
to
have
the
capacity
to
plant
200
hectares
of
maize
crop
on
irrigated
land.
It
is
the
State’s
case
that
as
a
result
of
the
misrepresentation,
the
former
minister
was
given
2.5
metric
tonnes
of
maize
seed,
1,300
bags
of
Compound
D
fertiliser
and
chemicals.
It
is
further
alleged
that
after
receiving
the
inputs,
Marumahoko,
who
has
also
served
as
Foreign
Affairs
Deputy
Minister,
planted
46
hectares
of
maize
crop
instead
of
200
and
disposed
of
the
remaining
inputs,
resulting
in
ARDA
suffering
prejudice
of
US$37,950.
His
wife,
Andy
Maririmba,
is
on
remand
over
a
similar
offence,
following
her
arrest
and
court
appearance
on
9
November
2024.
The
former
minister
was
set
to
appear
at
the
Chinhoyi
Magistrates’
Court
this
Tuesday,
12
November
2024.
After
weathering
the
economic
catastrophe
brought
on
by
a
global
pandemic
and
lockdown
by
notching
record
profits,
law
firms
have
regressed
a
tad
over
the
last
couple
years,
but
those
days
look
to
be
over
with
law
firm
financial
figures
humming.
The
Thomson
Reuters
Q3
2024
Law
Firm
Financial
Index
is
out
and
the
last
quarter
couldn’t
have
turned
out
better
for
law
firms.
While
we’ve
seen
firms
turn
out
consistently
positive
quarters
for
a
while
now,
there’s
usually
a
hefty
reliance
on
increased
rates
(which
is
fair,
as
they’ve
historically
lagged
behind
inflation)
as
demand
remained
sluggish.
But
that’s
not
an
issue
this
quarter,
with
demand
up
3.6
percent.
Litigators
and
real
estate
practices
drove
that
growth
last
quarter,
with
all
practice
areas
citing
improvement
except
intellectual
property,
which
had
an
almost
imperceptible
decline.
And
with
good
economic
news
came
good
hiring
news,
with
every
segment
except
the
Am
Law
50
(who
stopped
shrinking
slightly)
upping
hiring,
but
none
more
than
the
midsized
firms.
Hiring
is
up…
and
productivity
with
it.
This
reverses
the
last
couple
years
where
hiring
growth
corresponded
with
productivity
dips.
It’s
2024,
so
obviously
there’s
an
AI
angle
to
all
of
this:
“The
continued
climb
in
law
firm
average
productivity
–
in
stark
contrast
to
previous
years
–
is
a
key
factor
boosting
law
firm
profitability,”
said
Raghu
Ramanathan,
president
of
Legal
Professionals,
Thomson
Reuters.
“Law
firms
that
not
only
invest
in
new
technology
but
also
adopt
AI
and
generative
AI
solutions
to
streamline
workflows
and
improve
the
efficiency
and
quality
of
their
work
will
be
best
positioned
to
improve
client
satisfaction
and
experience
sustained
productivity
growth.”
As
the
report
notes,
the
good
times
aren’t
likely
to
get
much
better
in
2025,
diplomatically
described
as
“latent
challenges
that
might
erupt.”
But
even
if
someone
were
to,
I
dunno,
decimate
the
construction
market
by
arresting
half
its
workforce
or
obliterate
the
manufacturing
supply
chain
by
driving
up
the
cost
of
overseas
components,
firms
appear
to
be
on
solid
footing
and
“not
looking
to
experience
the
overheating
and
corresponding
two-year
hangover
which
beset
them
after
2021.”
The National
Electoral
Commission
declared
Frelimo’s
Daniel
Chapo
the
winner,
sparking disputes
and
political unrest.
The
opposition
party
PODEMOS,
led
by
Venacio
Mondlane,
is
accusing
Frelimo
of
electoral fraud.
Speaking
with
South
African
State
broadcaster
Southern
Africa
Human Rights
Lawyers
High
Commissioner,
Talent
Rusere
fingered
President
Mnangagwa
and
Zanu
PF
in
the
chaos
ensuing
in
Mozambique.
“We
have
launched
an
investigation
to
find
out
what
exactly
conspired
in
Mozambique
which
is
something
that
also
led
us
to
understand
that
there
has
been
interference
by
the
Zimbabwean
President
and
the
ruling
party
which
has
been
sending
people
to
vote
from
the
Zimbabwean
side
during
the
Mozambican
elections,”
said
Rusere.
Over
50
people,
including
several
prominent
figures,
have
been
killed
in
the
post-vote
unrest.
Videos
circulating
online
show
Zimbabwean
nationals
voting
in
the
Mozambican
elections
which
Rusere
believes
may
have
influenced
the election
outcome.
Added
Rusere,
“Well
it
is
not
the
first
time
that
the
Zimbabwean
President
and
ruling
party
is
trying
to
interfere
with
the
neighbouring
elections
and
that
is
not
a
secret.
We
have
some
videos
where
Zimbabweans
were
given
voter
IDs
to
vote
for
Frelimo
and
testified
in
those
videos
that
they
had
voted
for
Frelimo.”
–
NewZimbabwe.com
Noting
the
profound
traditional
friendship
between
China
and
Zimbabwe,
Xi
Jinping
said
that
in
recent
years,
under
their
joint
guidance,
the
two
countries
have
continued
to
deepen
political
mutual
trust
and
achieved
remarkable
results
in
cooperation,
setting
a
good
example
of
solidarity
and
coordination
among
developing
countries.
Next
year
will
mark
the
45th
anniversary
of
the
establishment
of
diplomatic
relations
between
the
two
countries.
Further
consolidating
and
deepening
the
ironclad
friendship
between
China
and
Zimbabwe
meets
the
common
expectations
of
the
two
peoples.
The
two
sides
should
uphold
the
original
aspiration
of
friendship,
establish
a
“five-star
ironclad”
cooperation
framework
underpinned
by
politics,
economy
and
trade,
security,
culture,
and
international
cooperation,
and
work
together
to
build
a
high-level
China-Zimbabwe
community
with
a
shared
future.
Xi
Jinping
stressed
that
the
two
countries
and
the
two
parties
share
similar
views
and
solid
mutual
trust,
which
is
the
greatest
strength
of
China-Zimbabwe
relations.
China
supports
Zimbabwe
in
safeguarding
its
sovereignty,
security
and
development
interests,
and
opposes
external
interference
and
illegal
sanctions.
China
is
ready
to
strengthen
exchanges
of
governance
experience
with
Zimbabwe
and
continue
to
firmly
support
each
other.
China
is
ready
to
seek
greater
synergy
of
development
strategies
with
Zimbabwe,
expand
mutually
beneficial
cooperation
in
investment,
trade,
infrastructure,
energy
and
mineral,
clean
energy,
digital
economy
and
other
fields,
build
a
China-Africa
connectivity
network,
and
help
Zimbabwe
and
Africa
enhance
their
capacity
for
independent
development.
China
is
willing
to
continue
to
provide
scholarships
for
outstanding
Zimbabwean
students
to
study
in
China,
so
as
to
enhance
people-to-people
bonds.
China
highly
appreciates
Zimbabwe’s
support
for
various
global
initiatives
and
propositions
put
forward
by
China,
and
congratulates
Zimbabwe
on
assuming
the
rotating
chairmanship
of
the
Southern
African
Development
Community.
China
is
ready
to
strengthen
international
cooperation
with
Zimbabwe,
carry
forward
the
Five
Principles
of
Peaceful
Coexistence,
and
jointly
defend
international
fairness
and
justice.
Xi
Jinping
pointed
out
that
China
has
always
taken
developing
relations
with
African
countries
as
the
cornerstone
of
its
foreign
policy,
firmly
supports
African
countries
in
pursuing
independent
development
paths
and
supports
Africa
in
becoming
an
important
pole
in
the
world’s
political,
economic
and
civilizational
development.
FOCAC
is
the
most
important
platform
and
mechanism
for
strengthening
China-Africa
unity
and
cooperation,
and
has
become
a
banner
leading
international
cooperation
with
Africa.
China
is
ready
to
work
with
Africa
to
make
this
summit
a
new
milestone
and
a
grand
event
in
the
history
of
China-Africa
relations
and
define
the
direction
and
path
of
China
and
Africa’s
efforts
to
advance
modernization.
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
said
that
during
this
visit
to
China,
he
visited
Hunan,
Shenzhen
and
Nanjing,
and
he
was
greatly
encouraged
and
inspired.
Under
the
leadership
of
President
Xi
Jinping,
China
has
made
great
achievements
in
development,
and
many
Chinese
technologies
and
companies
are
taking
the
lead
in
the
world.
The
series
of
important
reform
measures
introduced
at
the
Third
Plenary
Session
of
the
20th
CPC
Central
Committee
will
not
only
further
improve
the
well-being
of
the
Chinese
people,
but
will
also
have
a
major
impact
on
the
future
of
the
Global
South
and
mankind.
He
thanked
China
for
its
valuable
support
for
Zimbabwe’s
economic
and
social
development,
including
the
fight
against
COVID-19.
China’s
help
and
cooperation
have
benefited
the
Zimbabwean
people
and
created
new
brands
of
Zimbabwe-China
friendship
in
the
new
era.
The
Zimbabwean
side
is
ready
to
strengthen
experience
exchange
with
China
on
state
governance
and
party
administration,
deepen
cooperation
in
infrastructure,
agriculture,
minerals,
new
energy
and
other
fields,
and
help
Zimbabwe’s
modernization
process.
The
Zimbabwean
side
thanks
China
for
speaking
out
for
Zimbabwe
on
international
occasions,
appreciates
China’s
constructive
role
in
international
and
regional
affairs
such
as
the
Ukraine
crisis
and
the
Palestinian-Israeli
conflict,
supports
a
series
of
global
initiatives
put
forward
by
President
Xi
Jinping,
and
is
willing
to
strengthen
multilateral
cooperation
with
China.
Zimbabwe
firmly
abides
by
the
one-China
principle
and
is
willing
to
continue
to
be
a
staunch
and
close
friend
of
China
in
Southern
Africa
and
work
with
China
to
push
for
greater
development
of
a
comprehensive
strategic
partnership
of
cooperation
between
Zimbabwe
and
China.
He
wishes
the
FOCAC
Beijing
Summit
a
complete
success
and
strategic
achievements
in
promoting
Africa-China
cooperation.
After
the
talks,
the
two
heads
of
state
jointly
witnessed
the
signing
of
a
number
of
bilateral
cooperation
documents,
including
such
areas
related
to
Belt
and
Road
cooperation,
the
Global
Development
Initiative,
economic
and
trade
exchanges
and
cooperation,
avocado
export
to
China,
and
news.
The
two
sides
issued
a
Joint
Statement
Between
the
People’s
Republic
of
China
and
the
Republic
of
Zimbabwe
on
Deepening
and
Enhancing
the
Comprehensive
Strategic
Partnership
of
Cooperation
and
Building
a
High-Level
China-Zimbabwe
Community
with
a
Shared
Future.
Before
the
talks,
Xi
Jinping
held
a
welcoming
ceremony
for
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
at
the
North
Hall
of
the
Great
Hall
of
the
People.
A
June
2024
survey
of
data
privacy
professionals
found
that
the
rising
use
of
artificial
intelligence
is
the
number-one
privacy
risk
facing
companies
today,
according
to
a
story
in
Law360.
Concerns
about
data
privacy
and
data
security
are
especially
heightened
with
the
emergence
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(Gen
AI)
tools
in
the
legal
industry,
which
enables
legal
professionals
to
quickly
obtain
AI-generated
text
in
response
to
research
queries
or
requests
for
summaries
of
lengthy
documents.
These
are
the
types
of
concerns
that
have
led
many
in
the
industry
to
gravitate
toward
Legal
AI,
Gen
AI
tools
trained
for
the
legal
profession.
There
are
some
important
differences
between
the
commercially
available
Legal
AI
solutions
on
the
market,
so
prospective
buyers
of
these
tools
need
to
know
how
each
of
these
Gen
AI
models
approaches
data
privacy
and
security
considerations.
We
recently
published
“The
Definitive
Guide
to
Choosing
a
Gen
AI
Legal
Research
Solution,”
a
free
buyer’s
guide
that
details
what
law
firms
and
in-house
legal
departments
should
look
for
so
they
can
select
the
most
appropriate
solution
for
their
organization.
One
of
the
pillars
we
addressed
in
the
guide
is
the
importance
of
Privacy
&
Security.
Six
core
concerns
The
rise
of
powerful
Gen
AI
models
that
can
create
synthetic
media,
text,
code
and
other
content
raises
important
questions
around
privacy
and
security.
These
systems
leverage
large
datasets
and
can
mimic
existing
content
and
styles.
This
makes
it
essential
for
your
team
to
thoughtfully
address
certain
privacy
and
security
risks
that
can
threaten
the
safety
of
your
organization
and/or
clients.
Here
are
six
core
concerns
that
you
should
contemplate:
Data
privacy
—
Law
firms
operate
in
a
world
of
confidentiality
and
client
data
(e.g.,
financial
records,
strategic
plans,
etc.)
must
be
fiercely
protected.
You
need
to
know
how
training
data
for
the
Gen
AI
model
is
obtained
and
used. Attribution
—
It
is
crucial
that
any
source
materials
surfaced
by
the
Gen
AI
model
are
properly
credited.
Any
legal
document
must
be
attributed
to
a
human
lawyer
for
it
to
be
considered
ethically
acceptable
by
the
courts;
this
requires
that
users
have
sufficient
information
in
their
hands
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
all
AI-generated
content.
Data
bias
—
There
is
a
risk
of
perpetuating
unfair
biases
in
the
Gen
AI
model
training
data.
AI
algorithms
learn
from
the
data
they
are
fed,
so
if
that
data
contains
inherent
biases
the
Legal
AI
tool
may
incorporate
them
in
its
outputs.
Transparency
—
Understanding
the
reasoning
behind
an
AI
tool’s
answers
helps
lawyers
identify
and
mitigate
potential
biases
or
inaccuracies.
Beware
of
any
Gen
AI
model
that
provides
a
lack
of
detail
about
how
it
works.
Misinformation
—
All
legal
professionals
are
by
now
aware
of
the
risk
of
Gen
AI
models
in
creating
convincing
fake
or
misleading
content.
The
rules
of
professional
responsibility
dictate
that
lawyers
are
ultimately
responsible
for
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
their
legal
work
product.
Regulation
—
The
track
record
and
reliability
of
an
AI
developer
is
important
if
legal
practitioners
are
going
to
be
able
to
trust
their
knowledge
of
the
legal
domain.
Make
sure
your
Gen
AI
model
was
built
with
thoughtful
rules
and
governance
of
the
technology.
Questions
to
ask
about
privacy
and
security
When
evaluating
a
Legal
AI
solution,
you
need
to
ask
a
few
important
questions
about
how
the
model
is
trained
and
how
your
data
is
handled,
such
as
the
following:
Will
my
search
history
and
usage
information
be
stored
or
used
to
train
the
model?
How
does
your
Gen
AI
solution
address
the
security
concerns
related
to
ChatGPT?
How
does
your
Gen
AI
solution
protect
customers’
intellectual
property
and
your
own?
What
data
security
measures
are
in
place
for
any
original
generated
content?
What
safeguards
exist
to
prevent
exposure
of
privileged
or
confidential
client
information
through
AI-generated
content?
Evaluate
Lexis+
AI
Lexis+
AI
is
our
breakthrough
Gen
AI
solution
that
we
believe
will
transform
legal
work
by
providing
a
suite
of
legal
research,
drafting,
and
summarization
tools
that
delivers
on
the
potential
of
Gen
AI
technology.
Lexis+
AI
pairs
our
unsurpassed
legal
content
with
breakthrough
Gen
AI
technology
in
a
way
that
could
redefine
the
way
that
legal
research
is
conducted
and
legal
work
product
is
created.
Its
answers
are
grounded
in
the
world’s
largest
repository
of
accurate
and
exclusive
legal
content
from
LexisNexis
with
industry-leading
data
security
and
attention
to
privacy.
Click
here
to
request
a
free
trial.
To
download
a
free
copy
of
The
Definitive
Guide
to
Choosing
a
Gen
AI
Legal
Research
Solution,
please
click
here.
Back
in
September,
we
reported
that
there
was
“heightened”
interest
in
transatlantic
mergers
between
U.K.
and
U.S.
firms
in
the
wake
of
the
A&O
Shearman
merger,
which
joined
U.K.
firm
Allen
&
Overy
and
U.S.
firm
Shearman
&
Sterling.
Now,
just
two
months
later,
we’ve
got
news
of
yet
another
major
merger
announcement
between
U.K.
and
U.S.
firms
—
and
this
merger
is
set
to
create
a
Biglaw
giant.
U.K.-based
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
—
No.
34
on
the
Global
200
—
and
New
York-based
Kramer
Levin
Naftalis
&
Frankel
—
No.
141
on
the
Global
200
—
have
jointly
announced
that
they’ll
be
combining
to
form
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
Kramer,
aka
HSF
Kramer.
The
merged
firm
will
have
2,700
lawyers
and
is
expected
to
have
at
least
$2
billion
in
revenue,
putting
it
on
track
to
rank
in
the
top
25
on
a
global
scale.
HSF
operates
in
16
countries,
while
Kramer
Levin
has
three
offices
in
the
U.S.
and
one
office
abroad,
in
Paris.
The
Paris
office,
however,
will
not
be
included
in
the
merger.
As
noted
by
Law.com
International,
here’s
what
the
firms’
leaders
had
to
say
about
the
monumental
decision
to
merge:
“This
is
transformational.
We
have
long
been
committed
to
expanding
our
offering
in
the
U.S.,
and
Kramer
Levin
is
the
perfect
fit,”
said
HSF’s
chair
and
senior
partner,
Rebecca
Maslen-Stannage.
“The
combination
delivers
immediate
growth
for
both
firms
from
day
one.”
…
“This
is
an
excellent
long-term,
strategic
move
for
our
firms,
our
clients
and
our
people—a
bold
opportunity
to
build
an
exciting
international
firm
together,
based
on
our
strong
cultures
of
collaboration,
superb
clients
and
people,
and
our
existing
areas
of
strength,”
said
HSF
CEO
Justin
D’Agostine.
“This
is
just
the
beginning.”
Kramer
Levin’s
co-managing
partner
Howard
T.
Spilko
said,
“Joining
forces
with
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
is
a
one-of-a-kind
opportunity
that
helps
us
achieve
our
vision
and
potential
for
strategic
growth.
The
combination
provides
us
with
a
significant
competitive
advantage
by
bolstering
our
destination
practices
with
a
deeper
bench,
broader
geographic
reach
and
sector
expertise,
while
providing
the
opportunity
to
collaborate
to
achieve
great
outcomes
for
clients
internationally.”
In
a
joint
statement,
HSF
and
Kramer
Levin
said
that
their
“close
cultural
alignment
and
shared
vision
for
the
future
significantly
bolsters
the
combined
firm’s
ability
to
attract
and
retain
the
very
best
talent.”
A
partner
vote
on
the
merger
is
expected
to
occur
at
both
firms
by
February
2025.
Congratulations
to
Herbert
Smith
Freehills
and
Kramer
Levin
on
their
impending
tie-up.
Best
of
luck
to
both
firms
as
their
merger
plans
unfold.
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.
Writing
style
is
clearly
important
to
the
Supreme
Court
justices.
Not
only
are
the
justices
cognizant
of
the
writing
styles
in
briefs,
but
they
are
also
attuned
to
the
writing
styles
of
other
judges
and
justices.
Justices
past
and
present
discussed
this
and
other
matters
in
interviews
with
legal
writing
specialist
Bryan
Garner
for
the
Scribes
Journal
over
a
decade
ago.
Some
of
the
key
takeaways
from
the
justices
were:
Roberts
“…Henry
Friendly
was
a
brilliant
writer
and
had
a
way
of
exposition
that
just
revealed
the
thought
and
decision
process.
If
you
ever
pick
up
one
of
his
opinions,
he
walks
you
exactly
through
how
he
reached
the
result.
He
says
you
begin
with
this,
whether
it’s
the
language,
and
it
raises
this
concern,
and
you
pick
up
this
case,
and
he
walks
you
through,
and
it’s
very
revealing
and
very
clear.
Justice
Rehnquist,
for
whom
I
clerked
—
to
some
extent
a
very
different
writing
style,
but
a
crisper
diction
to
his
language,
if
that
makes
sense,
and
the
written
word,
and
yet
the
same
clarity
—
also
taught
me
a
great
deal
about
writing.”
“As
a
lawyer,
you
need
to
know
your
audience,
and
if
you
know
there’s
a
word
or
a
phrase
or
style
of
grammar
that’s
going
to
annoy
your
reader,
you
want
to
make
sure
you
don’t
put
it
in.”
Scalia
“Maybe
that’s
a
peculiar
part
of
my
own
style,
but
I
don’t
think
you’ll
often
find
sentences
of
mine
that
begin
with
However…”
Kennedy
“The
purpose
for
the
opinion
is
to
convince,
ultimately.
The
only
authority
our
Court
has
is
the
respect
that’s
accorded
its
judgments,
and
that
respect
is
based
on
what
we
write.
So
writing
is
of
immense
importance.”
“As
a
consumer
of
what
judges
write:
in
all
my
years
as
an
advocate
for
the
ACLU,
when
I
constantly
read
judicial
decisions
relevant
to
the
case
I
was
briefing;
as
a
law
teacher
writing
an
article
that
requires
reading
a
massive
decision.
I
try
to
write
an
opinion
so
it
will
be
what
I
would
have
liked
an
opinion
to
be
when
I
was
a
law
teacher
or
an
advocate.”
Ginsburg
Garner:
“Have
there
been
any
writers
outside
law
who’ve
been
major
influences
on
your
style
apart
from
your
own
teachers,
Cushman
and
Nabokov?”
RBG:
“I
can’t
say
that
there’s
a
direct
relationship
between
Jane
Austen’s
novels
and
my
writing.
Or
Tolstoy’s.”
Sophisticated
writing
software
with
AI
components
can
now
tell
you
how
to
write
like
particular
judges
by
engineering
writing
that
mirrors
stylistic
features
of
the
judges’
writings.
This
raises
a
few
interesting
questions.
First,
what
do
we
mean
by
writing
style?
Style
is
a
very
general
concept
that
encompasses
many
dimensions.
Measuring
style
is
somewhat
subjective
and
somewhat
objective.
There
are
features
of
style
which
most
writers
would
agree
on,
whether
they
be
word
choice,
sentence
length,
word
relationships,
etc.
Which
ones
are
more
and
less
important,
and
how
we
measure
them
is
somewhat
left
to
the
eye
of
the
beholder.
If
justices
think
they
write
well
(I
assume
most
do),
and
they
want
well
written
submissions
from
attorneys,
then
attorneys
might
gain
something
by
writing
in
the
style
of
the
justices.
A
roadblock
to
this
approach
though
is
that
there
are
nine
justices,
each
with
their
unique
style.
Usually
around
one-third
of
the
Court’s
opinions
are
unanimous
and
even
these
decisions
often
have
separate
concurring
opinions.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
it
is
tricky
to
pick
the
justice
that
will
likely
author
the
majority
opinion
of
any
given
case,
especially
at
the
point
of
drafting
the
brief
on
the
merits.
Still
some
attorneys
mimic
the
style
of
the
Court’s
majority
authors
better
than
others…
Methods:
I
have
seven
different
features
of
style
that
I
describe
below.
I
used
Python
to
measure
each
of
these
dimensions
with
the
briefs
for
the
arguing
attorneys
for
the
merits
parties
(not
amici)
for
each
case
taken
on
cert
during
the
2023/2024
Supreme
Court
Term.
I
then
looked
at
how
well
these
briefs
mirrored
the
majority
opinions
in
these
cases
along
the
same
dimensions.
After
calculating
these
brief/opinion
comparisons
across
the
seven
dimensions
I
generated
an
Index
(Style)
Score
for
each
brief
with
lower
index
numbers
relating
to
briefs
that
were
stylistically
more
proximate
to
the
majority
opinions
in
these
cases.
The
Scores
ranged
from
8.4
to
220
with
a
mean
of
61.
Each
of
the
measures
discussed
below
was
weighted
equally
in
deriving
the
Index.
Here
are
the
measures:
Average
Sentence
Length
The
average
sentence
length
is
a
key
measure
for
assessing
the
complexity
and
readability
of
a
text.
It
captures
the
typical
number
of
words
used
in
a
sentence,
giving
insight
into
the
density
of
information
and
potential
difficulty
level
of
the
language.
To
measure
average
sentence
length,
all
the
sentences
in
a
text
are
first
identified,
and
the
number
of
words
in
each
sentence
is
counted.
The
total
word
count
of
all
sentences
is
then
divided
by
the
number
of
sentences,
yielding
the
average
sentence
length.
Type-Token
Ratio
(TTR)
Type-Token
Ratio
(TTR)
is
a
measure
of
lexical
diversity,
capturing
the
proportion
of
unique
words
(types)
to
total
words
(tokens)
in
a
text.
A
high
TTR
indicates
greater
lexical
variety,
suggesting
that
the
author
uses
a
wide
range
of
vocabulary,
which
can
be
associated
with
an
advanced
or
nuanced
writing
style.
To
measure
TTR,
all
unique
alphabetic
words
are
counted
and
divided
by
the
total
word
count
in
the
document.
Trigram
Counts
Trigram
counts
measure
the
frequency
of
consecutive
three
word
pairs
in
the
text.
These
provide
a
deeper
look
at
word
pairings,
revealing
common
phrases
or
stylistic
patterns
that
contribute
to
the
flow
and
coherence
of
the
writing.
To
measure
these
counts,
the
text
is
divided
into
overlapping
word
trios,
and
each
trio
is
recorded.
The
frequency
of
each
unique
trigram
is
then
counted.
Average
Clause
Length
Average
clause
length
reveals
the
complexity
of
sentence
structures
within
the
text.
Longer
clauses
often
reflect
more
sophisticated
sentence
construction,
suggesting
a
higher
density
of
information
or
ideas,
while
shorter
clauses
tend
toward
clarity
and
simplicity
Clauses
are
defined
by
punctuation
markers,
such
as
commas
or
semicolons,
which
often
separate
individual
clauses
within
sentences.
By
calculating
the
number
of
words
in
each
clause
and
averaging
these
counts,
this
metric
provides
an
average
clause
length.
Subordination
Ratio
The
subordination
ratio
indicates
the
frequency
of
subordinate
clauses
relative
to
total
clauses,
which
is
a
marker
of
syntactic
sophistication.
Higher
ratios
reflect
more
complex
sentence
structures
with
embedded
subordinate
clauses,
a
common
feature
in
academic,
legal,
and
formal
writing.
Subordination
is
measured
by
identifying
subordinating
conjunctions
(for
example
“although,”
“because”)
within
the
text.
Each
conjunction
signals
a
subordinate
clause,
which
is
then
tallied.
The
ratio
is
obtained
by
dividing
the
count
of
subordinate
clauses
by
the
total
clause
count.
Modal
Verb
Ratio
Modal
verb
ratio
examines
the
presence
of
modal
verbs,
which
convey
degrees
of
possibility,
necessity,
or
intention
(for
example
“might,”
“must,”
“could”).
A
high
frequency
of
modal
verbs
can
imply
cautious
or
hypothetical
language,
while
a
low
frequency
may
suggest
definitive
statements.
Modal
verbs
are
counted
by
matching
each
word
in
the
text
against
a
predefined
list
of
modal
verbs.
Each
occurrence
is
recorded,
and
the
sum
is
divided
by
the
total
word
count
to
determine
the
modal
verb
ratio.
Nominalization
Rate
Nominalization
rate
assesses
the
use
of
nouns
derived
from
verbs
or
adjectives
(for
example
“discussion”
from
“discuss”).
High
nominalization
rates
can
create
a
dense,
formal
style,
as
nominalizations
make
language
more
abstract
and
informationally
packed.
This
rate
is
calculated
by
counting
nouns
derived
from
verbs
or
adjectives,
excluding
pronouns.
The
total
count
of
these
nominalizations
is
divided
by
the
word
count
to
find
the
nominalization
rate.
Findings:
The
distributions
for
each
of
the
measures
aside
from
trigram
ratios
(which
are
more
difficult
to
show
in
distribution
form
due
to
the
complexity
of
matching
the
trigrams
in
the
brief
with
the
trigrams
in
the
opinion)
are
given
below
with
the
mean
value
along
each
dotted
line:
Which
justices
were
most
accurately
mirrored?
Here
is
the
graph
of
average
Index
Score
by
justices
with
the
lower
scores
equating
with
more
closely
mirrored
opinions:
Here
we
see
that
Alito’s
style
was
mirrored
with
more
accuracy
than
the
rest
of
the
justices
while
Sotomayor’s
style
was
mirrored
least
effectively.
The
next
graph
shows
the
top
15
instances
of
lowest
Index
Score
(most
closely
mirrored)
opinions
by
attorney
for
the
past
term:
Paul
Clement
is
the
only
attorney
in
the
top
15
lowest
scores
more
than
once.
Several
of
the
attorneys
are
currently
in
the
Office
of
the
Solicitor
General
(OSG)
including
the
lowest
scoring
attorney,
Curtis
Gannon,
for
the
brief
in
Department
of
State
v.
Muñoz.
The
ways
these
attorneys
achieved
these
scores
though
are
quite
different
based
on
these
dimensions
as
the
graphs
below
show.
Concluding
Thoughts
If
one
were
to
come
up
with
a
hypothesis
of
what
to
expect
before
generating
these
measures,
OSG
attorneys
scoring
low
(more
closely
matching)
would
be
a
strong
initial
hypothesis
because
of
their
regular
interactions
with
the
justices
in
cases
argued
each
term.
Paul
Clement
and
Noel
Francisco,
who
is
also
on
the
list
of
the
lowest
15
scorings
briefs,
are
both
former
SGs,
also
indicating
the
importance
of
the
OSG
experience
in
writing
briefs
that
mirror
the
justices’
styles.
Still,
there
is
a
lot
of
randomness
and
luck
in
achieving
a
low
Index
Score.
If
you
write
more
like
one
justice,
you
may
write
less
like
another.
These
things
have
to
match
up
in
order
to
have
a
brief
that
closely
mirrors
the
style
of
the
majority
opinion.
With
that
said,
some
attorneys
were
more
adept
at
achieving
these
scores
than
others,
and
the
clusters,
especially
related
to
the
OSG
are
telling.
Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.