Former Justice Breyer Thinks Marco Rubio And Pam Bondi Can Be Held In Criminal Contempt For Defying Court Orders – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)

There
was
a
sense
of
optimism
concerning
the
amount
of
havoc
Donald
and
Co.
could
feasibly
bring
about
before
something
would
give
and
regulate
their
behavior.
As
early
as

February
of
this
year
,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
shared
her
belief
that
legal
norms
and
the
rule
of
law
were
those
stoppage
points.
What,
it’s
not
like
they’d
just
straight
up
ignore
judicial
orders
or
anything,
right?
About
that…
apparently
the

Executive
has
the
authority
to
find
court
orders
“erroneous.”


Sotomayor
changed
her
tune
by
March
.
She
even
went
on
to
lay
some
of
the
blame
at
the
feet
of
law
schools
not
doing
their
jobs
properly.
We’re
at
a
strange
point
in
history
where
the
recognition
that
the
Executive
is
stepping
all
over
due
process
and
the
rule
of
law

has
become
bipartisan
.
As
we
collectively
search
for
checks
and
balances
for
Executive
overreach,
former
Justice
Stephen
Breyer
floated
around
an
idea
that
could
rein
in
the
reign:
lock
their
asses
up.
From

The
Crimson
:

Former
U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
Stephen
G.
Breyer
said
the
Trump
administration
could
be
held
in
criminal
contempt
over
Kilmar
Abrego’s
deportation
at
a
Harvard
Law
School
speaker
event
on
Friday,
expressing
optimism
that
Courts
would
hold
the
White
House
accountable.

Breyer
said
that
was
“quite
possible”
that
high-ranking
officials
in
the
Trump
administration,
including
Marco
Rubio,
Kristi
Noem,
and
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi,
could
be
held
in
criminal
contempt
for
the
refusal
to
comply.

And
while
the
line
of
reasoning
is
colorable,
law
professor
Jack
Goldsmith
brought
up
a
very
practical
monkey
wrench
for
the
plan:
the
only
official
with
the
power
to
enforce
criminal
contempt
would
be
the
Attorney
General.
I’m
not
a
betting
man,
but
I’m
going
to
assume
that
Pam
Bondi
probably
doesn’t
see
the
issue
the
same
way
that
the
former
Justice
does.

For
what
its
worth,
Breyer
told
the
crowd
that
he
still
has
confidence
in
the
rule
of
law.
It
seems
couched
in
the
assumptions
that
people
are
willing
to
advocate
for
the
rule
of
law
and
that
the
government
will
heed
their
petitions.
It’s
a
little
early
to
tell
if
the
given
solution
is
common
sense
or
a
dressed-up
thoughts
and
prayers
for
our
country.
The
Supreme
Court’s

recent
decision
to
block
deportations
under
the
Alien
Enemies
Act

is
a
silver
lining,
but
things
will
get
worse
if
the
Administration
uses
this
as
an
opportunity
to
up
the
ante
and
double
down
on
ignoring
court
orders.


Earlier
:

DOJ
Lawyer
Tells
Court
It
Will
Comply
With
Order…
DOJ
Writes
Back
‘We’ve
Decided
To
Violate
It
Instead,
Thx
Bye.’


Sonia
Sotomayor
Wildly
Out
Of
Touch
With
Trump’s
America


Justice
Sotomayor’s
Optimism
For
The
Rule
of
Law
Under
Trump
Only
Lasted
A
Month


Maybe
Don’t
‘Both
Sides’
Disappearing
People
To
Foreign
Gulags,
OK?



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.

Legal Ethics Roundup: DOJ Attacks Law Firm Mansfield Rule, Conflicts For $1B EO Payments, Lawyer Wellbeing & More – Above the Law



Ed.
note
:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.


Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.

Late
last
year
I
had
a
conversation
with David
Weisenfeld
 of
the ABA
Journal
 about
when
it
is
appropriate
for
a
judge
to
address
public
criticism,
sparked
by
the
California
Judicial
Ethics
Committee’s
November
2024 formal
opinion
 on
judges
responding
to
criticism
during
a
judicial
election
or
recall
campaign.
His
article
is
now
out
in
the
April/May
print
edition
of
the
ABA
Journal.
Here’s
a
glimpse:

Media
appearances
might
be
beneficial,
depending
on
the
circumstances,
according
to
ethics
professor Renee
Knake
Jefferson
,
who
teaches
at
the
University
of
Houston
Law
Center.

“It
may
very
well
be
that
a
judge
commenting
in
a
major
news
outlet
is
what
is
needed
to
correct
misinformation
so
that
the
public
can
be
informed
when
they
go
to
vote
in
a
judicial
election
or
recall,”
she
says.

Read
the
full
article,
including
observations
from Scott
Cummings
 (UCLA)
and Gabe
Roth
 (Fix
the
Court) here.


And
now,
let’s
dive
into
the
headlines.

Highlights
from
Last
Week –
Top
Fifteen
Headlines


#1
“Trump’s
$1
Billion
Law
Firm
Deals
Are
the
Work
of
His
Personal
Lawyer.”
 From
the Wall
Street
Journal
:
President
Trump
 has
reached
around
$1
billion
in
deals
with
the
country’s
top
law
firms
in
the
past
month,
using
the
full
weight
of
his
presidency
to
threaten
their
business.
To
do
these
deals,
Trump
has
turned
to
a
lawyer
who
doesn’t
work
for
the
government.
Trump’s
personal
lawyer Boris
Epshteyn
,
who
has
been
indicted
in
Arizona
on
charges
related
to
Trump’s
2020
election
loss,
has
emerged
as
the
face
of
the
Trump
administration’s
campaign
against
large
law
firms
that
it
views
as
hostile
to
the
president
and
his
causes,
according
to
lawyers
at
seven
of
the
firms
and
White
House
officials.
In
a
series
of
meetings
and
phone
calls,
Epshteyn
has
extracted
large
commitments
of
pro
bono
work
for
Trump-supported
causes
and
changes
to
the
law
firms’
hiring
practices
to
Trump’s
preferences,
the
lawyers
and
officials
said.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
In
addition
to
being
indicted
in
Arizona,
Epshteyn
was
one
of
the
co-conspirators
named
in
the
federal
indictment
against
Trump
that
has
now
been
dismissed

revisit LER
#2
 for
more
on
that
history.



#2
“As
Big
Law
Folds
to
Trump,
Some
D.C.
Firms
are
Fighting.”
 From Axios:
“The
big
picture:
Some
of
America’s
most
prestigious
law
firms
have
agreed
to
provide
almost
$1
billion
worth
of
legal
work
to
Trump 
and
that
total
will
probably
grow,
according
to Axios’
Sam
Baker
.
What
we’re
watching: It
remains
unclear
what
millions
of
dollars
of
pro
bono
work
will
entail

Trump
has
hinted
at
everything
from
helping
the
coal
industry
to
fighting
antisemitism

whether
he
can
legally
force
firms
to
undertake
projects,
and
what
it
means
reputationally
for
the
firms
that
folded.
As
is
often
the
case
with
Trump,
firms
are
in
uncharted
territory.
The American
Lawyer
 points
out,
Trump’s
definition
of
pro
bono
significantly
differs
from
the
legal
norm.
As
one
legal
ethics
professor
told
the
publication:
‘What
President
Trump
is
talking
about
is
more
accurately
described
as
free
legal
work
for
the
government.
He
has
been
talking
about
these
agreements
like
he
has
received
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
of
free
work
in
his
personal
piggy
bank.’”
Read
more here.




#3
Initial
Victory
for
Susman
Godfrey
Blocking
President’s
Executive
Order.
 From
the New
York
Times
:
“A
federal
judge
on
Tuesday
blocked President
Trump
 from
punishing
the
law
firm Susman
Godfrey,
 calling
the
retribution
campaign
he
has
waged
from
the
White
House
against
the
nation’s
top
firms
‘a
shocking
abuse
of
power.’
Ruling
from
the
bench, Judge
Loren
L.
AliKhan
of
the
Federal
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia
 said
that
the executive
order
 Mr.
Trump
signed
last
week
targeting
the
firm
stemmed
from
a
‘personal
vendetta.’

The
judge’s
decision
temporarily
blocks
the
Trump
administration
from
carrying
out
many
of
the
order’s
punishments,
including
one
directing
agencies
to
turn
the
firm’s
lawyers
away
from
federal
buildings
and
another
aimed
at
terminating
any
federal
contracts
Susman
Godfrey
holds.

Judges
elsewhere
have
issued
temporary
orders
blocking
much
of
Mr.
Trump’s
executive
orders
targeting
two
major
law
firms
that
participated
in
investigations
of
him, Jenner
&
Block
 and WilmerHale.”
Read
more here (gift
link).



#4
“Legal
Ethics
Nerds
Weigh
In.”
 From
the Civil
Discourse
with
Joyce
Vance
:
“Last
Friday,
with
little
fanfare,
the
heavyweights
of
the
legal
ethics
world
weighed
in.
In
a
case
brought
by
the
law
firm WilmerHale challenging Donald
Trump’s
 executive
order
that
forbids
federal
agencies
from
doing
business
with
the
firm,
ethics
professors
filed
an amicus brief,
advising
the
court
on
legal
issues
as
‘friends
of
the
court.’
It’s
just
lawyers,
you
might
be
thinking
right
now.
And
that’s
true,
this
is
about
the
executive
orders
Trump
is
using
to
try
and
extract
obedience
from
the
legal
profession.

But
the
issue
matters
beyond
the
big
law
firms.
… Amici have
to
ask
the
court
for
permission
to
file
a
brief
with
the
court.
They
do
so
here,
explaining
that
their
brief
is
offered
by
law
professors
who
are
“scholars
dedicated
to
studying
the
ethical
questions
that
arise
when
lawyers
weigh
their
duties
to
clients,
the
courts,
and
society
writ
large—and
teachers
who
introduce
aspiring
lawyers
to
ethical
rules
and
norms.”

The
five
law
professors
are George
M.
Cohen
 at
UVA, Susan
P.
Koniak
 at
Boston
University, Jonah
E.
Perlin
 at
Georgetown, Mitt
Regan
 at
Georgetown,
and Bradley
Wendel
 at
Cornell
Law
School.
They
make
three
simple,
but
devastating,
arguments:
The
law
firms
that
gave
in
to
Trump’s
demands
to
avoid
his
executive
orders
have
created
a
conflict
of
interest
for
their
lawyers.

Those
firms
may
have
violated
federal
anti-bribery
laws.

Trump’s
gamesmanship
threatens
the
historic
independence
of
the
legal
profession
and
the
rule
of
law.”
Read
more here.
Read
the brief
here
.
 (Side
note: Nancy
Rapoport
 at
UNLV
is
also
listed
as
one
of
the
amici
though
her
name
doesn’t
appear
in
the
Vance
post.)



#5
Unions,
Groups
Launch
Pro
Bono
Legal
Network
for
Federal
Employees.
 From
the Reuters:
“A
coalition
of
labor
unions
and
left-leaning
groups
on
Wednesday
announced
an
initiative
aimed
at
providing
free
legal
advice
to
federal
employees
who
lose
their
jobs
or
believe
their
legal
rights
were
violated
amid
the
Trump
administration’s
purge
of
the
government
workforce.
The
project
led
by
the AFL-CIO,
the
largest
U.S.
labor
federation,
and We
The
Action
,
which
connects
volunteer
lawyers
with
nonprofits,
will
recruit
and
train
thousands
of
lawyers
to
consult
with
federal
employees
about
their
legal
options,
the
groups
said
in
a
joint
release.”
Read
more here.



#6
Law
Student
Ethics. 
Two
headlines
for
#6.
First: “We Need
Law
Students
to
Clean
the
Stain
on
the
Legal
Profession.”
 From Lauren
Stiller
Rikleen
 (Lawyers
Defending
American
Democracy)
in Bloomberg
Law
:
“Now
that
nine
of
the
largest
firms
in
the
US
have
chosen
their
own
financial
interests
over
protecting
the
rule
of
law,
leverage
in
the
form
of
courage
remains
hard
to
find.
But
law
students
may
offer
some
hope.”
Read
more here.
Second: “Law
Students
Sue
to
Oppose
Trump
Administration’s
Ongoing
Assault
on
Legal
Profession.”
 From Democracy
Forward
:
“A
group
of
law
students
responding
to
the
Trump
administration’s
ongoing
assault
on
the
legal
profession
and
attempt
to
turn
civil
rights
laws
on
their
head
has
filed a
new
lawsuit
,
which
asks
a
federal
court
to
stop
the
handover
of
sensitive
personal
data
for
attorneys
who
work
or
applied
to
work
at
20
law
firms
currently
being
targeted
by
the
Trump
administration.
The
suit, Doe
1
et.
al.
v.
EEOC
,
was
filed
by
Democracy
Forward
in
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia.”
Read
more here.



#7
“Law
Firm
Executive
Orders
Create
a
Legal
Ethics
Minefield.”
 From Law360:
“Over
the
past
few
weeks,
the
White
House
has
issued
a
series
of
unprecedented
executive
orders
and
memoranda
that
target
both
specific
law
firms
associated
with President
Donald
Trump’s
 opponents,
as
well
as
the
legal
profession
more
broadly.
These
executive
actions
not
only
raise
constitutional
questions,
but
also
create
potential
ethical
dilemmas

and
even
possible
civil
or
criminal
liability

for
government
attorneys
implementing
them,
and
perhaps
also
for
private
attorneys
whose
firms
choose
to
comply
with
administration
demands.
This
article
addresses
some
of
these
risks.
As
always,
following
orders’
is
no
excuse;
most
relevant
ethical
rules
and
statutes
apply
even
to
those
acting
at
the
direction
of
superiors,
including
the
president.”
Read
more here (full
article
courtesy
of Buchalter).



#8
“New
Research
on
Lawyer
Wellbeing
Informs
Pathway
for
Systemic
Change.”
 From
the Victoria
Legal
Services
Board
(Australia)
:
“The Lawyer
Wellbeing,
Workplace
Experiences
and
Ethics
Report
 examines
how
the
perceptions
of
organisational
ethical
climate,
experiences
of
workplace
incivility,
and
the
presence
of
workplace
supports
influence
the
wellbeing
of
lawyers.
Around
2,000
lawyers
practising
under
the
Uniform
Law
Scheme
in
New
South
Wales,
Victoria,
and
Western
Australia
took
part
in
the
research.”
Read
more here (H/T Julian
Webb
 –
University
of
Melbourne).



#9
Discipline
for
Failure
to
Update
Bar
Application.
 From
the Board
of
Professional
Responsibility
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Tennessee
:
“On
April
16,
2025, Robert
Andrew
Pope
,
an
attorney
licensed
to
practice
law
in
Tennessee,
received
a
Public
Censure
from
the
Board
of
Professional
Responsibility
of
the
Tennessee
Supreme
Court.
Mr.
Pope
was
terminated
by
the
Tennessee
Department
of
Corrections
in
March
2024
while
his
application
for
bar
admission
was
still
pending.
Mr.
Pope
failed
to
supplement
his
pending
bar
admission
application
to
disclose
this
material
fact.
By
this
act,
Mr.
Pope
has
violated
Rule
of
Professional
Conduct
8.1(b)
(misrepresentation
to
a
bar
admission
authority
)
and
is
hereby
Publicly
Censured
for
these
violations.”
Read
full
order here (H/T Legal
Profession
Blog
).



#10
Unauthorized
Practice
of
Law
Case
Against
LegalZoom
Heads
to
Arbitration.
 From Law360:
“A
suit
accusing
online
legal
services
provider LegalZoom of
engaging
in
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law
will
head
to
arbitration,
after
a
New
Jersey
federal
judge
ruled
the
claims
fall
within
the
scope
of
an
enforceable
arbitration
agreement.
In
an
opinion
issued
Tuesday, U.S.
District
Judge
Julien
Xavier
Neals
 stayed
the
case
and
sent
the
parties
into
arbitration,
finding
that
when
plaintiff Ryan
Erasmus
 purchased
services
from
the
website,
he
was
given
‘reasonable
notice
of
the
terms
of
service,’
which
included
the
mutual
arbitration
clause.

Erasmus
brought
a
proposed
class
action
against
LegalZoom
in
New
Jersey
state
court
in
June,
accusing
the
company
of
violating
New
Jersey
law
by
offering
and
providing
services,
including
document
filing,
that
meet
the
definition
of
the
‘practice
of
law.’
Erasmus
asked
the
court
to
declare
LegalZoom’s
offerings
constituted
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law
and
sought
damages
under
the
Consumer
Fraud
Act.”
Read
more here



#11
670+
AmLaw
200
Firm
Partners
Form
Group
to
Oppose
Attacks
on
Lawyers
and
Firms.
 From LinkedIn:
Law
Firm
Partners
United
 (‘LFPU’)
is
an
informal
association
of
over
500
partners
at
law
firms
often
described
as
the
‘AmLaw
200.’
Bound
by
a
commitment
to
the
rule
of
law
and
opposition
to
fundamental
constitutional
attacks
against
lawyers
and
law
firms,
LFPU
is
nonpartisan,
and
its
members
are
acting
in
their
individual
capacities
and
not
as
law
firm
partners.
LFPU’s
members
represent
a
broad
range
of
practices
and
every
quartile
of
the
AMLAW
200
and
have
served
as
firm
chairs,
global
practice
group
leaders,
office
managing
partners
and
equity
partners,
and
many
are
globally
recognized
leaders
in
their
field.”
Read
more here (H/T Neel
Chatterjee 

Goodwin)
and here.



#12
“A
Higher
Standard
for
the
Highest
Court:
The
ABA’S
Push
for
Enforceable
Ethics
Code.”
 From
the Legal
Intelligencer
:
“Every
federal
judge
in
the
United
States
is
bound
by
a
written
and
enforceable
code
of
conduct.
Every
judge,
that
is,
except
those
who
sit
on
the
Supreme
Court.
More
than
a
year
after
the
court
adopted
a
code
of
conduct
for
itself

a
historic
first

critics
argue
the
code
lacks
a
critical
element:
enforcement.
Now,
the American
Bar
Association
 has
renewed
its
efforts
to
change
that.”
Read
more here.



#13
“Lawyer
Up?
Increasingly,
Americans
Won’t,
or
Can’t.” 
From
the New
York
Times
:
“It’s
dangerous
to
go
to
court
without
legal
representation

but
more
Americans
are
going
it
alone.

‘We
should
change
the
underlying
assumption,’
says Ben
Barton
,
a
scholar
at
the
University
of
Tennessee
College
of
Law
whose
work
focuses
on
people
who
represent
themselves.
‘If
we’re
taking
the
time
and
money
to
change
the
system,
why
set
up
a
self-help
center
so
you
can
navigate
a
complicated
system
with
a
lot
of
rigmarole
on
the
front
end?’
he
asks.
‘Instead,
try
and
put
it
together
in
a
way
that’s
better
for
normal
people.’”
Read
more
of
this
lengthy
feature
on
the
plight
of
the
unlawyered here (gift
link),
including
commentary
from Rebecca
Sandefur
 (ASU)
and Jessica
Steinberg
 (George
Washington).



#14
“A
74-Year-Old
Needed
a
Lawyer,
So
He
Used
an
AI
Avatar
in
Court.
It
Didn’t
Go
Well.” 
From Entrepreneur:
“A
New
York
courtroom
came
face-to-face
with
artificial
intelligence
last
month
when
a
plaintiff
attempted
to
use
an AI-generated
avatar
 to
present
a
case. Jerome
Dewald
,
74-year-old
plaintiff
 in
an
employment
case, submitted
an
AI-generated
video
 for
his
argument
without
telling
judges
beforehand.
The
video
featured
an
AI-created
person
who
didn’t
exist and
was
used
to
speak
in
his
place.”
Read
more here.



#15
“Mansfield
Rule
Widely
Adopted
By
BigLaw
Faces
DOJ
Scrutiny.”
 From Law360:
“A
system
for
sourcing
job
candidates
used
by
the
vast
majority
of
large
U.S.
law
firms
called
the
Mansfield
Rule
was
highlighted
by
the U.S.
Department
of
Justice 
in
a
court
filing
accusing Perkins
Coie
LLP
 of
discriminatory
hiring
practices.
However,
employment
law
experts
say
the
program
appears
to
comply
with
federal
antidiscrimination
laws.

The
rule
asks
participants
to
consider
‘a
broader
pool
of
qualified
talent’
when
making
selection
and
promotion
decisions.
Participating
firms
aim
to
consider
at
least
30%
qualified,
underrepresented
candidates
before
determining
final
slates
for
hiring
certain
positions,
according
to
Diversity
Lab,
the
organization
that
operates
the
program.

The
Mansfield
Rule
has
been
adopted
by
more
than
350
law
firms
in
the
U.S.,
Canada
and
the
U.K.”
Read
more here


Where’s
the
Rest
of
the
Roundup?

Revisit
the “Welcome
Back
Edition”
 for
an
explanation
of
the
new
format.
And
keep
an
eye
out
for
next
month’s
“First
Monday
Edition”
with
reading
recommendations,
analysis,
reforms
watch,
jobs,
events,
and
much
more.


Get
Hired

Did
you
miss
the
100+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.


Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.



Looking
for
the
Legal
Ethics
&
Democracy
Tracker?

You’ll
find
it here.


Keep
in
Touch




Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup
.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social

Ranking The Wealth Of Biglaw’s Best: Is Your Law Firm ‘Super Rich’? (2025) – Above the Law

After
the
whirlwind
that
the
legal
profession
experienced
in
2024

a
year
where
large
law
firms
really
had
the

urge
to
merge

and

nonequity
partnership
ranks

continued
to
expand —
your
Biglaw
firm
may
be
doing
quite
well
financially…
but
is
it
among
the
Am
Law
100’s
Super
Rich?

What
qualifies
a
firm
to
be
designated
as
among
the
Super
Rich?
These
are
the
Biglaw
firms
that
have
at
least
$1.1
million
in
revenue
per
lawyer
(RPL)
and
$550,000
in
profits
per
lawyer
(PPL).
These
Biglaw
firms
are
rolling
around
in
cash,
and
they’re
not
afraid
to
flaunt
it
after
coming
through
ahead
of
peer
firms
last
year.
According
to
the American
Lawyer
,
in
2024,
the
Super
Rich
list
is
now
the
largest
of
the
last
decade,
increasing
by
three
to
reach
41.
Here
are
some
additional
details
on
why
the
once-exclusive
Super
Rich
firms
club
keeps
growing
larger
and
larger:

Because
larger
law
firms
have
an
advantage
in
competing
for
talent,
and
given
that
recent
financial
performance
has
been
very
strong
for
many
firms,
it’s
not
surprising
that
the
Super
Rich
list
keeps
growing,
and
is
approaching,
at
41
firms,
close
to
half
of
the
entire
Am
Law
100,
[Kent]
Zimmermann[,
a
strategic
adviser
with
Zeughauser
Group,]
said.

The
Super
Rich
firms,
he
added,
are
now
striving
to
strike
a
more
balanced
portfolio
when
it
comes
to
focus,
given
that
some
practice
areas
are
cyclical,
while
others
are
counter-cyclical.

While
rate
increases
were
likely
a
factor
in
growing
the
Super
Rich
list,
demand
was
also
up
for
many
firms
across
many
practice
areas
in
2024,
so
it
was
a
“perfect
storm”
of
accelerating
performance
industry-wide,
Zimmermann
said.

Before
we
get
to
the
members
of
the
2025
Super
Rich
list,
we’ll
let
you
know
that
one
firm
is
making
a
return
this
year

Dechert

while
two
firms

Cadwalader
and
Jenner
&
Block

are
first
timers
on
this
year’s
list.
Not
one
single
firm
dropped
from
the
list
this
time
around,
but
one
very
high-profile
firm

Cravath

was
elbowed
out
of
the
Top
5.

Without
further
ado,
here
are
the
top
10
firms
on
the Super
Rich
list:

  1. Wachtell
  2. Susman
    Godfrey
  3. Sullivan
    &
    Cromwell
  4. Ropes
    &
    Gray
  5. Kirkland
    &
    Ellis
  6. Cravath
  7. Davis
    Polk
  8. Paul
    Weiss
  9. Skadden
  10. Quinn
    Emanuel

Click here to
see
the
complete
list
of
41
firms.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
it
into
the
Super
Rich
club
in
2024!
If
your
firm
performs
well
enough,
2025
could
be
your
year
to
shine

after
all,
almost
half
of
the
Am
Law
100
is
already
here!


Rich?
These
Law
Firms
Are
Getting
‘Super
Rich’

[American
Lawyer]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

An Apologist For Law Firm Capitulation? – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Michael
M.
Santiago/Getty
Images)

Stop
foaming
at
the
mouth.

I
know
that
many
of
the
country’s
largest
and
most
prestigious
law
firms
have
capitulated
in
the
face
of
President
Donald
Trump’s
executive
orders
(or
threats
of
executive
orders)
punishing
the
firms
for
having
taken
action
against
the
administration’s
interests.

But
I’m
here
to
tell
you
that
capitulation
is
not
crazy.

Exhale.  

Think
about
this. 

You’re
the
managing
partner
of
a
fancy-pants
law
firm. Trump’s
executive
order
threatens
to
revoke
the
security
clearances
of
your
lawyers,
deny
your
lawyers
access
to
federal
courthouses,
and
cancel
your
clients’
government
contracts. Security
clearances
may
not
matter
to
your
firm,
depending
on
your
firm’s
work,
but
access
to
federal
courthouses
is
vitally
important
to
litigators,
and
the
ability
of
clients
to
contract
with
the
government
is
a
big-ticket
item
for
fancy-pants
law
firms.

Thus: If
the
government’s
executive
order
is
upheld,
your
law
firm
is
out
of
business.

Should
you
fight
the
executive
order,
or
should
you
settle?

Remember
that
this
calculus
changes
over
time.
For
Paul
Weiss,
the
first
firm
to
settle
with
Trump,
the
future
was
a
blank
slate. Paul
Weiss
couldn’t
be
certain
that
the
executive
order,
if
challenged,
would
be
struck
down. Paul
Weiss
also
didn’t
know
whether
later
firms
would
settle
with
Trump

thus
spreading
the
shame
of
capitulation

or
fight
the
government
and
win

making
Paul
Weiss’s
decision
to
settle
look
terribly
weak.

For
Paul
Weiss,
what
were
the
chances
that
the
executive
order
would
be
upheld? I,
at
least,
would
have
viewed
it
as
very
unlikely
that
Trump’s
executive
order
could
withstand
judicial
scrutiny. The
odds
of
victory
in
a
case
challenging
an
executive
order
attacking
a
law
firm
change
over
time,
as
courts
create
precedents
when
early
challengers
win
or
lose
their
cases. But
let’s
say
that
your
firm
was
one
of
the
early
ones
to
be
attacked
by
Trump,
and
the
odds
that
you
would
win
a
lawsuit,
and
have
the
order
struck
down,
are
as
good
as
the
strongest
case
that
I
ever
saw
in
private
practice: You
have
a
90%
chance
of
winning.

There
are
of
course
no
100%
cases;
there’s
always
a
chance
that
you
lose. In
a
case
challenging
the
executive
order,
your
case
might
be
assigned
to
Aileen
Cannon
or
some
other
Trump-appointed
judge
looking
to
be
elevated
to
the
Supreme
Court.
If
so,
you
lose. Your
judge
might
have
an
entirely
different
view
of
the
Constitution
than
the
conventional
wisdom. If
so,
you
lose. Your
judge
might
have
a
bad
day. If
so,
you
lose.

But,
as
I
said,
suppose
your
chances
of
winning
are
extraordinarily
good: 90%.

You
could
settle
with
the
Trump
administration
and
eliminate
the
10%
chance
that
your
firm
will
be
out
of
business. Against
that,
however,
you
must
weigh
three
drawbacks
to
settling.

First,
there’s
the
matter
of
principle:
Law
firms
shouldn’t
capitulate
to
an
over-reaching
government! But
it’s
fiendishly
difficult
to
put
a
dollar
value
on
matters
of
principle.

Second,
you’ll
have
to
agree
to
devote
$40
million,
or
$100
million,
or
$125
million
(depending
on
when
you
settled)
of
pro
bono
hours
to
causes
endorsed
by
the
Trump
administration.
I’m
just
guessing
here,
but
I’d
bet
that,
for
many
big
American
law
firms,
$100
million
in
pro
bono
hours
is
not
that
much
more
than
the
firm
is
currently
contributing
to
pro
bono
causes. The
amount
that
firms
commit
to
pro
bono
varies
by
the
size
of
the
law
firm,
the
firm’s
commitment
to
pro
bono,
the
press
of
paying
work,
and
a
bunch
of
other
things.
But
big
firms
might
commit
close
to
$100
million
to
pro
bono
whether
the
firms
settle
with
Trump
or
not. If
you
settle,
you
probably
don’t
have
to
substantially
increase
the
amount
of
pro
bono
work
that
you
provide,
so
you’re
not
taking
a
big
financial
hit.

If
you
settle,
the
government
will
influence
your
selection
of
pro
bono
cases. You
can,
of
course,
continue
to
represent
indigent
criminal
defendants,
and
outfits
advocating
for
affirmative
action,
and
the
like,
with
your
pro
bono
hours
above
the
$100
million
subject
to
your
settlement. You
might
have
to
reduce
the
help
you
give
to
preexisting
causes,
but
you
need
not
abandon
them
entirely.

As
to
the
hours
subject
to
government
approval,
I
bet
the
conversation
with
the
government
goes
something
like
this:

Firm: We’d
like
to
advocate
for
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion.

Trump
administration: Screw
that! You’re
going
to
advocate
on
behalf
of
coal
companies
that
want
to
spew
more
pollution
into
the
air!

Firm: Why
don’t
we
compromise? We’ll
represent
veterans
who
were
improperly
denied
veterans’
benefits.

Trump
administration: Okay.

That
wasn’t
so
hard,
was
it?

What
else
do
you
lose
by
settling?

The
third
big
disadvantage
of
capitulation
is
that
your
firm
will
take
a
short-term
reputational
hit. George
Conway,
and
Andrew
Weissmann,
and
columnists
at
Above
the
Law,
and
the
rest
will
scream
that
you’re
a
wimp

you’ve
capitulated! 
Those
screams
will
probably
last
for
a
month
or
two,
and
then
we’ll
be
on
to
the
next
Trump
administration
outrage. You
can
surely
survive
that.

Clients
might
leave
your
firm
because
you’ve
capitulated
to
the
government. That
could
hurt,
but
it’s
pretty
unlikely
to
happen. Clients
work
with
individual
lawyers,
and
clients
probably
don’t
blame
those
lawyers
for
the
firm’s
decision
to
settle. Moreover,
the
firm
settled
in
part
to
protect
clients

to
permit
clients
to
contract
with
the
federal
government. Why
would
you
fire
a
law
firm
that
acted
to
help
you?
Beyond
that,
if
you
fire
your
existing
counsel

fancy-pants
law
firm
No.
1

where
would
you
go
for
legal
services? It’s
true
that
Paul
Weiss
capitulated
to
the
government,
but
so
did
Kirkland,
and
Latham,
and
a
bunch
of
others. The
more
firms
that
capitulate,
the
harder
it
is
to
find
alternative
representation.
(And
the
more
sensible
it
looks
for
firms
to
have
capitulated
in
the
first
place. There’s
safety
in
numbers: Everyone’s
capitulating;
we’re
just
one
of
the
crowd.)

Your
law
school
recruiting
efforts
might
be
hurt
because
you
capitulated
to
Trump. Law
students
are
noble;
perhaps
they
won’t
take
jobs
at
firms
that
do
ignoble
things. ‘

But
what’s
the
effect
of
this? Even
if
some
law
students
will
now
refuse
to
go
to,
say,
Paul
Weiss,
plenty
of
other
law
students
will
take
those
jobs. Endless
streams
of
law
students
itch
to
work
at
fancy
firms,
with
great
reputations,
high
pay,
and
sophisticated
work.
Maybe
the
replacement
students
won’t
be
as
good
as
the
folks
Paul
Weiss
wanted
to
recruit,
but
how
long
will
it
take
the
world
to
notice
that
the
quality
of
a
law
firm’s
work
is
now
a
little
bit
worse
than
it
was
10
years
ago? Most
firms
probably
lost
quality
as
they
expanded
through
the
early
2000s

greater
size
means
less
quality
control

and
I
don’t
think
anyone
ever
noticed
the
change.

Lawyers
may
leave
your
firm
because
they’re
outraged
by
your
capitulation.
Maybe

but
not
that
many. The
lawyer
has
to
be
truly
outraged
by
your
decision
to
settle,
and
most
lawyers
won’t
be. The
10%
chance
that
the
executive
order
would
be
upheld,
and
your
firm
forced
out
of
business,
makes
the
settlement
decision
rational. The
outraged
lawyer
must
also
make
a
financial
difference
to
your
firm. It’s
true
that
some
associates
and
senior
counsel
have
left
law
firms
in
recent
weeks. Those
departures
make
for
good
press,
but
they
don’t
injure
the
firm. A
partner
with
$30
million
in
portable
business
might
matter,
and
I
haven’t
yet
seen
any
of
them
move.  

Part
of
the
reason
for
partner
inertia
is
institutional: If
a
client
works
with
many
lawyers
at
a
firm,
and
only
one
lawyer
is
outraged
by
the
settlement
with
Trump,
then
the
outraged
lawyer
could
change
firms,
but
the
client
might
not. The
partner’s
business
was
thus
not
truly
“portable.” Changing
firms
would
hurt
the
lawyer
who
changed
jobs
but
wouldn’t
matter
to
the
original
law
firm.

Part
of
the
reason
for
partner
inertia
is
the
fluidity
of
the
situation: Many
big
firms
other
than
yours

firms
with
good
reputations
and
the
ability
to
support
your
clients

have
also
settled
with
Trump. Yet
more
firms
might
settle
in
the
future. If
you’re
a
partner
about
to
jump
ship
from
your
current
employer,
you’d
better
find
a
good
alternative
ship
on
which
to
land.

But
part
of
the
reason
you
haven’t
yet
seen
partner
moves
is
that
transitioning
laterally
between
law
firms
takes
time: Folks
transitioning
laterally
must
interview
with
the
new
firm. They
must
clear
conflicts. They
must
otherwise
assess
whether
they
fit
with
the
new
place. I
wouldn’t
expect
those
moves
to
occur
within
a
week
or
two
of
a
firm’s
settlement
with
the
Trump
administration. Give
this
time,
and
perhaps
a
few
significant
partners
will
choose
to
leave
their
current
law
firms. Perhaps
firms
will
pay
some
price
for
having
capitulated. But
you
don’t
know
that
in
advance. We’ll
see
what
happens.

There
are
other
aspects
of
the
reputational
risk
caused
by
having
settled
with
Trump. There
is,
for
example,
Trump
himself. Trump
loves
to
boast
that
important
people,
or
institutions,
or
countries,
kissed
his
ass. Trump
may
say
that
about
your
firm.

You
can
live
with
that.

I’m
not
yet
done
with
the
forms
of
humiliation
you’ll
suffer. In
the
past,
you
always
liked
to
bray
about
courage
at
your
firm’s
partners’
meetings. You’d
puff
up
your
chest
and
explain
how
fierce
and
courageous
your
law
firm
was. But
now,
when
push
came
to
shove,
you
folded
like
a
cheap
suit. Of
course: A
principle
isn’t
a
principle
until
it
hurts. Now
we
know
your
true
principles. But
you’ll
get
over
that
humiliation,
too.

Ultimately,
put
everything
in
the
balance: Weigh
a
10%
chance
of
your
firm
going
out
of
business
against
a
small
tilt
in
a
portion
of
your
pro
bono
commitment
and
some
short-term
public
relations
problems.

Does
capitulation
prove
that
you,
the
professed
lion,
is
in
fact
a
pussy
cat? Sure.

But
it
would
look
a
whole
lot
worse
if
the
10%
chance
of
loss
came
through
and
your
firm
went
out
of
business.
You’d
look
like
a
complete
idiot,
and
a
lot
of
people
would
be
out
of
work.

Is
it
easier
to
fight
the
government
today
than
it
was
a
month
ago? Yes. More
firms
are
fighting
(there’s
safety
in
numbers),
and
several
firms
have
won
decisions
striking
down
part
or
all
of
the
executive
orders.

Am
I
terribly
disappointed
in
the
firms
that
have
capitulated? I
am. Shame
on
them. I
wish
them
ill.

But
do
I
understand
the
decision?

Absolutely. Leaders
at
Biglaw
firms
may
be
cowards,
but
they’re
generally
not
stupid.



















Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of 
The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law
 and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy
 (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at 
[email protected].

Willy Wonka’s In-House Counsel Is The Best Lawyer Parody You’ll Watch Today – Above the Law

If
you’re
one
of
those
lawyers
toiling
away
at
the
firm
and
dreaming
of
a
nice
in-house
job,
consider
the
plight
of
this
chief
legal
officer.
Sure,
serving
the
Willy
Wonka
chocolate
factory
was
a
dream
job
for
a
lot
of
years,
but
then
one
day
the
boss
decided
to
run
that
Golden
Ticket
contest
and
everything
went
off
the
rails
from
there.

Minor
Character
Theater
has
a
mockumentary
profiling
a
trying
time
in
the
life
of
Rutgers
Law
grad
Brian
Finklebar,
former
general
counsel
to
the
Wonka
company.

This
is
only
the
first
of
a
six-part
series.
You
can

check
out
the
whole
run
over
on
TikTok
,
including
an
inside
look
at
the
creation
of
the
company’s
infamous
waiver,
Oompa
Loompa
overtime,
and
what
Willy
Wonka
learned
from

Succession
.

(Also,
if
you’re
in
law
school
and
think
you
can
create
content
like
this,
you
have
the
rest
of
this
week
to

enter
the
Law
Revue
contest
.)




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

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

Bluesky

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

It’s Time To Submit Your Entries For Above The Law’s 16th Annual Law Revue Video Contest! – Above the Law

Spring
has
sprung,
and
you
know
what
that
means:
we’re
now
seeking
submissions
for
our
annual

law
revue
video
contest
.
As
far
as
last
year’s
submissions
are
concerned,
some
of
them
were
funny,
some
of
them
were
“meh,”
and
some
of
them
made
us
want
to
close
our
heads
inside
of
our
laptops.
Trust
us
when
we
say
you
do
NOT
want
to
be
in
the
last
category.

If
you
think
you
can
carry
a
tune
or
tell
a
joke,
we
ask
that
you
send
us
your
very
best
law
revue
videos
so
that
we

and
the
Above
the
Law
audience

may
pass
judgment
upon
them.
Prepare
for
the
worst,
but
hope
for
the
very
best.

Those
responsible
for
the
winning
video
will
get
Above
the
Law
prizes
and
the
pleasure
of
knowing
they’re
the
envy
of
their
law
school
peers.
As
always,
there
will
be
complete
and
total
exoneration
for
the
losers.
There’s
always
next
year.

Before
you
start
sending
us
your
videos,
we’ve
got
some
rules.
As
future
members
of
the
legal
profession,
we
hope
you’ll
be
able
to
follow
them.

  1. Your
    video
    must
    be publicly
    available
    online
     somewhere.
    Send
    us
    the
    link
    at [email protected] with
    the
    subject
    line “Law
    Revue
    Video
    Contest
    Submission

    [School
    Name].”
     We’ll
    accept
    submissions
    of
    any
    videos
    posted
    after
    April
    26,
    2024
    (the
    deadline
    for
    our
    last
    contest).
  2. To
    avoid
    complaints
    from
    competitors
    (see,
    e.g., West
    Virginia’s
    2013
    winning
    entry
    ),
    your
    primary
    performers
    must
    come
    from
    within
    the
    law
    school
    community
    (but
    cameos
    from
    outsiders
    are
    okay).
    How
    do
    we
    define
    a
    “primary
    performer”?
    Don’t
    test
    us,
    gunners.
    We’ll
    know
    a
    violation
    when
    we
    see
    it.
  3. Send
    us
    your
    submission
    by FRIDAY,
    APRIL
    25,
    at
    5:00
    P.M.
     (Eastern
    time).
    That’s
    not
    a
    soft,
    law
    school
    deadline;
    it’s
    a
    hard,
    law
    firm
    deadline.
    (NO
    EXCEPTIONS
    ,
    so
    don’t
    even
    try
    pleading
    with
    us;
    if
    you’re
    reading
    this
    post
    after
    the
    deadline,
    you
    don’t
    read
    ATL
    frequently
    enough.)
  4. Your
    editors
    here
    at
    ATL
    will
    make
    a
    list
    of
    our
    favorites,
    the
    competition
    finalists,
    and
    post
    them.
  5. We
    will NOT watch
    videos
    longer
    than 5
    minutes
    .
    Use
    editing
    tools,
    people.
  6. Please
    submit no
    more
    than
    two
    entries
    per
    school
     (one
    per
    school
    is
    even
    better).
    Try
    to
    collaborate
    with
    your
    fellow
    students
    and
    submit
    no
    more
    than
    two
    entries.
    If
    the
    leadership
    of
    Law
    Revue
    can
    come
    up
    with
    “official”
    submissions,
    that
    would
    be
    ideal.
  7. ATL
    readers
    will
    then
    vote
    to
    choose
    the
    funniest
    of
    the
    finalists.
    The
    winning
    team
    will
    receive
    ATL
    prizes
    (limit
    five
    prizes).

Here
are
some
unofficial
rules:

  • Please
    send
    funny
    videos
    only.
  • You
    have
    no
    idea
    how
    short
    our
    attention
    spans
    are.
    If
    you
    use
    the
    full
    five
    minutes,
    it
    better
    be
    absolutely
    freakin’ HILARIOUS.
  • Gratuitous
    shout-outs
    to
    Above
    the
    Law
    are
    appreciated
    and
    encouraged.
  • Video
    quality
    matters.
    A
    shaky
    clip
    shot
    on
    a
    handheld
    from
    a
    third-floor
    balcony
    is
    probably
    not
    going
    to
    make
    the
    cut.
  • Don’t
    make
    us
    hate
    you.

Send
those
videos
in.
Best
of
luck

the
competition
will
be
even
fiercer
than
usual,
so
you’re
going
to
need
it!!!
We
look
forward
to
judging
you.


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

How Are Hospitals Bracing for Tariffs? – MedCity News

The
healthcare
industry
has
faced
a
flurry
of
sweeping
changes
at
the
federal
level
since
President
Donald
Trump
took
office.
In
recent
months,
healthcare
leaders
have
scrambled
to
come
up
with
strategies
to
address

proposed
Medicaid
cuts
,

slashed
research
funding

and
the

dismantling
of
the
country’s
public
health
infrastructure
.

Now,
the
Trump
administration’s
tariffs
are
the
latest
threat
to
further
destabilize
an
industry
already
grappling
with
mounting
financial
and
operational
pressures.
Even
though
Trump
paused
most
reciprocal
tariffs
for
90
days
last
week,
hospitals
are
still
bracing
for
the
effects
of
these
trade
regulations,
as
the
pause
won’t
last
forever.

It’s
also
worth
noting
that
many
essential
healthcare
products

including
active
pharmaceutical
ingredients,
medical
devices
and
personal
protective
equipment

are
manufactured
primarily
in
China.
The
Trump
administration
has
instated
a

145%
tariff

on
all
goods
imported
from
China

and
that
rate
is
not
a
part
of
the
pause.

Since
these
goods
are
all
must-haves,
hospitals
are
left
with
little
choice
but
to
deal
with
the
increased
costs

which
experts
warn
could
significantly
exacerbate
the
instability
of
hospitals’
bottom
lines.  

Tariffs
are
part
of
a
broader
strategy
to
bolster
domestic
manufacturing,
but
healthcare
leaders
say
it
would
take
decades
before
the
U.S.
could
onshore
the
majority
of
its
medical
supply
production.
In
the
meantime,
experts
believe
tariffs
could
worsen
hospitals’
already
shaky
finances,
as
well
as
compromise
their
ability
to
deliver
timely,
high-quality
care.


How
will
tariffs
impact
hospitals?

The
healthcare
supply
chain
has
always
been
fragile
and
complex,
noted
Akin
Demehin,
the

American
Hospital
Association
’s
vice
president
quality
and
safety
policy.

Domestic
disruptions
often
occur
after
natural
disasters
like
hurricanes

such
as
the
IV
fluid
shortage
caused
last
year
by

Hurricane
Helene
.
International
events
also
often
result
in
shipping
issues
and
shortages
of
raw
materials,
Demehin
explained.

Hospitals
have
had
to
routinely
adapt
to
supply
chain
disruptions
by
doing
things
like
redesigning
sourcing
strategies
and
pulling
data
to
manage
inventory
for
decades
now

but
the
Trump
administration’s
tariffs
take
supply
chain
challenges
to
a
new
level,
he
pointed
out. 

This
is
because
U.S.
healthcare
delivery
is
highly
dependent
on
foreign
goods.
For
instance,
the

majority
of
drugs

prescribed
to
Americans
are
produced
overseas,
primarily
in
China
and
India.
The
U.S.
also
imports
many
of
its
medical
devices

in
2020
alone,
the
country’s
medical
device
imports
totaled

nearly
$70
billion
.

Even
for
more
basic
supplies,
providers
in
the
U.S.
rely
heavily
on
foreign
manufacturing.
Take
surgical
gloves
and
syringes
for
example

the

vast
majority

of
these
products
are
manufactured
outside
North
America.

Tariffs
will
increase
the
costs
of
these
goods,
but
hospitals
have
no
choice
but
to
buy
these
essential
items.
These
added
costs
could
cause
major
financial
strain
on
hospitals,
as
many
of
them
operate
on
razor-thin
margins
they
are
already

struggling

to
maintain
amid
pressure
from
labor
costs
and
reimbursement
challenges. 

Demehin
is
also
concerned
that
increased
supply
costs,
combined
with
limited
domestic
production
capacity,
could
lead
to
shortages.
He
is
mainly
worried
about
how
these
shortages
will
affect
the
quality
of
care
hospitals
are
able
to
deliver
to
their
patients.

“The
expertise
of
clinical
teams
comes
together
with
a
wide
range
of
medical
devices,
drugs
and
other
supplies

and
all
that
has
to
come
together
at
the
right
time
to
deliver
the
best
care
possible,”
Demehin
explained.

Healthcare
has
a
lot
of
sequenced
treatment
pathways
that
require
a
constant
supply
and
are
especially
vulnerable
to
tariff-related
delays
or
cost
increases,
he
added.

“We
know
chemotherapy
treatments
rely
on
a
careful
schedule
of
the
delivery
of
those
drugs.
We
know
that
the
availability
of
antibiotics
is
incredibly
important
for
a
wide
range
of
patient
care
issues.
There’s
certain
cardiovascular
medications
that
often
are
sourced
internationally.
We
also
know
that
a
lot
of
devices
that
we
use
day
in
and
day
out
to
deliver
care
come
from
international
sources,”
Demehin
remarked.

Without
a
consistent
supply
of
these
types
of
goods,
providers
can’t
deliver
the
best
care,
he
noted. 

Not
only
is
care
quality
at
risk

but
workforce
protection
is,
too.
Demehin
pointed
out
that
much
of
the
personal
protective
equipment
used
to
protect
healthcare
workers,
such
as
masks,
gloves
and
respirators
comes
from
overseas.
With
tariffs,
these
products
become
at
risk
of
being
rationed
or
reused.


How
are
hospitals
reacting?

Tyler
Giesting,
director
of
healthcare
M&A
at
consulting
firm

West
Monroe
,
said
that
providers
are
actively
reviewing
their
supply
chains
and
preparing
contingency
plans
to
assess
and
mitigate
the
potential
impact
of
new
tariffs.

This
could
include
conducting
inventory
audits
to
identify
which
supplies
are
sourced
from
overseas,
modeling
cost
surges
under
various
tariff
scenarios,
and
exploring
alternative
vendors
or
domestic
manufacturers,
he
noted. 

Giesting
also
pointed
out
that
hospitals
are
in
discussions
with
their
group
purchasing
organizations
(GPOs)
to
understand
the
effects
tariffs
could
have
on
existing
contracts
and
supply
availability.

Leveraging
volume
to
drive
down
costs,
GPOs
negotiate
bulk
purchasing
contracts
for
medical
supplies
and
equipment
on
behalf
of
hospitals.
Giesting
is
concerned
about
the
enforceability
of
these
contracts
under
new
tariffs.

Tariffs
can
blow
up
GPOs’
contracts
by
dramatically
increasing
the
cost
of
imported
goods

and
therefore
triggering

force
majeure
clauses

and
rendering
fixed-price
agreements
financially
unsustainable,
he
explained.

This
could
lead
to
changes
in
GPO
contract
structures,
possibly
resulting
in
shorter
or
more
flexible
agreements,
Giesting
stated.
When
these
contracts
are
broken
or
renegotiated,
hospitals
are
typically
left
paying
more.

Overall,
hospitals
are
on
high
alert
over
tariffs,
he
said.
He
pointed
out
that
there
is
still
a
lot
of
uncertainty
surrounding
the
issue,
making
it
a
chaotic
time
for
hospitals’
leadership
teams.

“If
your
role
within
your
organization
involves
purchasing
or
supply
chain,
or
frankly,
finance,
it’s
probably
all
hands
on
deck
for
the
near
term,”
he
declared.

Another
healthcare
expert

Ron
Present,
partner
at
consulting
firm

Armanino


also
highlighted
the
uncertainty
hospitals
must
deal
with
when
it
comes
to
tariffs.

Providers
are
in
regulatory
limbo
due
to
ongoing
legal
challenges
to
executive
orders,
which
makes
strategic
planning
difficult,
Present
noted. 

Several
lawsuits
have
been
filed
arguing
that
the
tariffs
exceed
the
president’s
authority
and
lack
proper
justification.
For
instance,
a
group
of
small
businesses

recently
sued

the
administration,
claiming
that
the
tariffs
were
enacted
without
public
input
and
threaten
significant
economic
damage.
Additionally,
the

Trade
Review
Act
of
2025
,
a
proposed
bipartisan
bill,
seeks
to
reassert
Congressional
authority
over
trade
policy
decisions.

Present
stressed
the
importance
of
preparing
for
different
scenarios.

“I
think
that
what
all
the
providers
need
to
be
doing
is
focusing
major
attention
on
strategy
and
having
different
scenario
projections
of
what
they’re
going
to
do
based
upon
what
supplies
become
scarce.
When
it
becomes
financially
not
feasible
for
them
to
provide
services,
how
do
they
consolidate?
Which
services
will
they
cut?”
Present
remarked.

Some
providers
could
pass
on
added
costs
to
the
patient.
Black
Book
Research
released
a

report

last
week
based
on
survey
responses
from
81
hospital
executives
and
28
physicians
and
ancillary
practice
administrators

and
it
found
75%
CFOs
plan
to
shift
costs
to
patients
and
payers
to
cope
with
the
added
financial
pressure.

But
many
nonprofit
providers
can’t
just
raise
prices
to
cover
costs

especially
those
that
serve
a
lot
of
patients
on
Medicare
and
Medicaid,
Present
pointed
out.
Some
hospitals
will
have
to
cut
services
or
staff
instead,
he
said.

Black
Book’s
survey
found
that
29%
of
hospital
executives
are
considering
staff
reductions
and
wage
freezes
as
a
response
to
tariffs

and
94%
are
pausing
tech
modernization
projects.


How
will
hospitals
weather
this
storm?

In
the
eyes
of
Dee
Donatelli,
tariffs
are
just
one
piece
of
a
broader
and
ongoing
challenge
in
the
healthcare
supply
chain.

Donatelli
is
senior
director
of
spend
management
at
healthcare
software
company

Symplr
.
She
has
extensive
experience
in
healthcare
supply
chain
management,
having
held
executive
supply
chain
roles
at
several
healthcare
organizations
in
the
past,
including

Vizient

and
Kansas-based

Via
Christi
Health

She
thinks
the
real
problem
is
how
hospitals
and
other
providers
manage
the
total
cost
of
care,
not
just
the
unit
price
of
products
like
ventilators
or
gloves.
In
her
view,
the
U.S.
healthcare
system
tends
to
focus
too
much
on
shaving
prices,
but
it
fails
to
optimize
how
products
are
used
and
integrated
into
care
delivery.

Donatelli
also
pointed
out
that
few
hospitals
are
well-equipped
to
track
or
manage
the
total
cost
of
care.

“There
are
very
few,
if
any,
hospitals
that
do
that
well
because
there’s
so
many
disparate
data
points
that
have
to
be
brought
together
to
be
analyzed,
and
we
don’t
have
technology
to
do
that
for
us,”
she
declared.

Donatelli
expects
hospitals
to
respond
to
tariffs
similarly
to
how
they
reacted
to
the
Covid-19
emergency:
by
being
more
resourceful.
Items
like
masks,
gloves
and
face
shields

which
were
normally
single-use

had
to
be
reused
carefully
to
conserve
limited
stock,
she
said.

Hospitals
may
need
to
rethink
their
product
usage,
look
for
alternative
supplies,
and
try
to
stretch
their
limited
resources
creatively
and
safely,
she
stated.

“If
you’re
not
looking
at
the
total
cost
of
care,
and
you’re
not
looking
at
how
you
are
using
products,
then
you’re
missing
part
of
the
equation.
You
can
only
buy
so
much
if
you
only
have
a
limited
amount
of
money.
So
we’re
going
to
have
to
get
creative
again,
just
like
we
did
during
Covid,”
she
remarked.

Donatelli
said
providers
simply
have
no
choice
but
to
accept
this
reality

because
while
onshoring
medical
manufacturing
in
the
U.S.
is
a
noble
idea,
it
would
take
decades
to
achieve.
She
and
many
others
believe
Trump’s
overall
goal
of
bringing
back
manufacturing
to
the
U.S.
is

unrealistic
.

FDA
bottlenecks
have
historically
slowed
down
the
country’s
domestic
healthcare
manufacturing,
as
the
agency
imposes
rigid
regulations
on
facilities
producing
healthcare
products,
Donatelli
noted. 

The
sheer
volume
of
U.S.
healthcare
demand,
as
well
as
consolidation
in
the
supplier
market,
are
key
challenges
as
well.

“There’s
been
such
significant
mergers
and
acquisitions
within
drug
and
medical
product
manufacturers

there
are
so
few
of
them.
They
would
be
hard
pressed
right
now
to
pick
up
the
volume
necessary
to
provide
all
of
the
goods
and
services
required
in
the
United
States’
3,000
hospitals,”
Donatelli
said.

When
it
comes
to
tariffs,
she
believes
one
thing
is
certain

that
they
have
exposed
a
deep
vulnerability
in
the
U.S.
healthcare
system’s
reliance
on
global
supply
chains.
As
hospitals
brace
for
higher
expenses
and
potential
shortages,
they
are
being
forced
to
confront
longstanding
gaps
in
cost
management
and
sourcing
strategy. 

Donatelli
thinks
the
path
forward
will
likely
require
a
mix
of
creativity,
collaboration
and
difficult
decision-making,
all
while
trying
to
keep
patient
care
at
the
front
and
center.


Photo:
FabrikaCr,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket – 04.21.25 – Above the Law

*
Surprise
twist!
Late
night
ruling
from
the
Supreme
Court
was
very
unusual
(in
lots
of
ways),
but
actually
good
for
those
that
care
about
the
constitution
and
due
process.
[Slate]

*
Sam
Alito
finally
drops
his
dissent
in
the
rendition
case,
and
he’s
big
mad
for
someone
on
the
bottom
of
a
7-2
decision.
[Law
360
]

*
Biglaw’s
lack
of
a
unified
response
to
attacks
from
Donald
Trump
has
left
a
black
eye
on
the
industry,
and
the
partner
lateral
market
might
be
to
blame.
[New
York
Times
]

*
Biglaw’s
cowardly
reaction
to
Trump’s
Executive
Orders
hasn’t
changed
partner
recruitment
much

yet.
[Law.com]

*
Bill
Barr’s
D.C.
litigation
boutique
is
growing.
[Bloomberg
Law
]

*
Cancer
screenings
and
other
preventative
care
under
the
Affordable
Care
Act
is
facing
scrutiny
at
the
Supreme
Court.
[Reuters]

The Intellectual Legal Right Is Coming For Trump – See Also – Above the Law

Lawyers
On
The
Right
And
The
Left
Agree:
What
the
Trump
administration
is
doing
is
deeply
disturbing.
More
Folks
Are
Quitting
The
Cowardly
Firms
That
Made
Deals
With
Trump:
Simpson
Thacher,
Latham
and
Kirkland
are
down
some
quality
attorneys

and
they
have
no
one
to
blame
but
themselves.
But
Not
Everyone
Is
Bending
The
Knee
To
Trump:
Law
school
faculty
is
taking
a
stand.
Susman
Godfrey
Is
Fighting
The
Good
Fight:
And
notching
an
early

and
important–
victory.
A&O
Shearman
Has
Never
Seen
The
Original
Star
Wars:
Because
they
think
Trump
will
respect
boundaries.

Maybe Don’t ‘Both Sides’ Disappearing People To Foreign Gulags, OK? – Above the Law

Every
so
often,
someone
pings
the
tipster
line
and
asks
some
variant
of,
“Why
aren’t
you
more
bipartisan?”
Many
times
this
is
couched
in
a
stream
of
expletives.
Often
it’s
technically
addressed
to

a
guy
that
hasn’t
worked
here
since
before
the
pandemic
.
I
don’t
know
if
these
people
just
don’t
know
that
Elie
Mystal
left
or
if
they
find
addressing
their
remarks
to
him
provides
a
better
hook
for
the
racial
slurs
they
want
to
drop.

In
any
event,
even
the
comparably
polite
versions
of
this
query
are
always
delivered
from
anonymous
burner
accounts
so
there’s
not
even
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
an
honest
dialogue.
Assuming
that’s
something
they
would
welcome
anyway.
So
let’s
deal
with
this
criticism
here:
why
does
Above
the
Law
in
2025
mostly
render
scorn
on
the
Trump
administration
and
its
Federalist
Society
minions?

There’s
a
lot
to
be
said,
but
the
short
version
is
that

as
writers
and
lawyers

we
have
dual
ethical
hangups
about
stopping
mid-article
to
say,
“But
on
the
other
hand,
consider
the
upsides
of
disappearing
citizens
into
foreign
slave
camps….”

The
Onion,
as
usual,
best
captures
the
“debate”
these
people
want


Historians:
Quibbling
Over
Exact
Definition
Of
Concentration
Camp
Sign
Of
Healthy
Society
.

As
I
often
quote,
Hunter
S.
Thompson
said
everything
that
needed
to
be
said
on
the
subject
of
objective
journalism:
“Don’t
bother
to
look
for
it
here—not
under
any
byline
of
mine.”
It’s
not
“neutrality,”
it’s
an
invitation
for
bad
actors
to
launder
talking
points
under
the
guise
of
“balance.”
Our
job
is
to
tell
it
as
it
is
based
on
what
we’ve
learned,
not
give
audiences
competing
press
releases
about
what
reality
might
be.
And
as
lawyers
we
have
obligations
not
to

facilitate
or
effectuate

efforts
to
undermine
the
rule
of
law.
If
a
law
school
professor
wouldn’t
have
entertained
this
shit
on
a
final
exam,
why
should
we
platform
it
in
a
news
cycle?

That
might
be
a
lot
of
high-minded
principled
talk
for
an
author
who
also
writes
about

lawyers
streaming
porn
in
their
offices
,
but
I’d
rather
be

making
fun
of
lawyers
going
to
hearings
naked

while
grounded
in
these
principles
than
being
so

adrift
from
any
core
value

that
I’d
turn
my
pro
bono
practice
over
to
the

ever-one-upping
whims

of
a
tinpot
dictator.

Look,
when
I
started
writing
for
Above
the
Law,
there’s
an
argument
that
the
two
most
thoroughly
and
reliably
right-wing
judges
in
the
federal
judiciary
were
the
Fourth
Circuit’s
J.
Harvie
Wilkinson
III
and
J.
Michael
Luttig.

Yesterday,

Wilkinson
threw
a
Molotov
cocktail
on
the
Trump
administration’s
deportation
regime
,
not
even
waiting
for
the
plaintiff
to
file
papers
before
dropping
a
withering
broadside
against
the
head
of
the
party
that
appointed
him.

The
government
is
asserting
a
right
to
stash
away
residents
of
this
country
in
foreign
prisons
without
the
semblance
of
due
process
that
is
the
foundation
of
our
constitutional
order.
Further,
it
claims
in
essence
that
because
it
has
rid
itself
of
custody
that
there
is
nothing
that
can
be
done.
This
should
be
shocking
not
only
to
judges,
but
to
the
intuitive
sense
of
liberty
that
Americans
far
removed
from
courthouses
still
hold
dear.

Judge
Wilkinson
was
the
judge
who
saw
no
problem
holding
enemy
combatants
indefinitely
without
access
to
lawyers
or
judicial
review

a
ruling
that
Scalia
and
Rehnquist
both
considered
wild
executive
overreach.
The
same
guy
wants
to
make
it
very
clear
that
Trump’s
policy
shocks
“the
intuitive
sense
of
liberty
that
Americans
far
removed
from
courthouses
still
hold
dear.”

Luttig
has
gone
even
further!
A
judge
who
mentored
a
generation
of
hardline
conservative
clerks

including
Solicitors
General
in
both
Trump
administrations
and

coup-coup-ca-choo
lawyer
John
Eastman


is
now
a
go-to
expert
for
the
#resistance.
He
said

this
week
:
The
President
of
the
United
States
of
America
is
at
war
with
the
Constitution
and
the
rule
of
law
.”

Those
were
the
furthest
right-wing
judges
I
could
think
of
back
in
the
day!

And
it’s
not
just
the
judiciary.
David
Brooks
is
out
here

citing
the
Communist
Manifesto

and
floating
a
mass
uprising!
Paul
Clement
is

defending
law
firms
against
Trump’s
authoritarian
demands
.
The

National
Review


THE
NATIONAL
FRIGGIN’
REVIEW

is
writing
A
test
of
the
rule
of
law
is
coming.
It
is
not
enough
to
write
about
this
phenomenon
with
clinical
detachment;
it
must
be
opposed
.”

George
W.
Bush’s
strongest
warriors
are
talking
tougher
about
stopping
Trump
than
Chuck
Schumer.
The
same
folks
who
gave
us
Gitmo
and
WMD
scavenger
hunts
are
now
the
last
line
of
defense
for

habeas
corpus
.

That’s
your
bipartisanship.
That’s
the
“both
sides”
right
now.
They
just
happen
to
be
all
lined
up
against
the
same
guy.
If
you’re
still
out
here
asking
me
to
present
“the
other
side,”
you’re
not
interested
in
hearing
from
the
intellectual
opposition,
you
just
want
a
platform
for
a
paranoid,
extralegal
clown
show
careening
toward
despotism.


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

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

Bluesky

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

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.