Deciding Whether To Travel For Clients – Above the Law

Last
year,
I
wrote
an
article
about
how
it
often
makes
sense
to
hire
local
counsel
rather
than
to
travel
for
clients
in
some
circumstances. Travel
time
can
add
costs
for
clients,
and
if
a
lawyer
is
not
admitted
in
a
given
jurisdiction,
it
might
be
better
to
have
local
counsel
handle
a
case
rather
than

pro
hac

into
a
jurisdiction
and
handle
a
matter
in
a
faraway
forum. However,
in
some
circumstances,
it
might
make
sense
for
a
lawyer
to
travel
several
hours
to
complete
work
for
a
client
rather
than
task
local
counsel
with
a
given
matter.


Administrative
Issues

Whenever
a
client
hires
a
new
lawyer,
administrative
issues
need
to
be
hashed
out
before
a
lawyer
can
take
a
case. One
sticking
point
is
that
a
new
lawyer
usually
will
require
an
advance
retainer
payment
even
if
the
new
lawyer
simply
needs
to
make
a
quick
court
appearance
for
a
client
or
complete
some
other
simple
task. Of
course,
it
makes
sense
that
a
lawyer
would
not
trust
that
a
new
client
would
pay
the
lawyer’s
bills
and
insist
that
an
advance
retainer
be
paid.

However,
clients
often
do
not
like
to
pay
advance
retainers.
Even
though
retainer
payments
are
often
refundable
if
they
are
not
used
on
legal
fees,
clients
know
that
lawyers
find
a
way
of
justifying
why
they
spent
enough
time
to
keep
the
retainer
payments. Depending
on
how
much
a
local
counsel
wishes
to
charge
for
an
advance
retainer
payment,
a
client
might
be
willing
to
pay
their
usual
lawyer
for
travel
costs
associated
with
completing
a
legal
task
a
few
hours
away.


Urgency

In
certain
circumstances,
clients
do
not
have
much
notice
before
they
need
to
appear
in
court
or
attend
to
some
legal
matter. Some
exigent
legal
proceedings,
including
stays
and
some
eviction
matters,
require
action
immediately,
and
clients
may
only
give
lawyers
a
day
or
two
of
notice
that
a
legal
matter
needed
to
be
handled. In
such
circumstances,
a
client’s
typical
lawyer
may
need
to
handle
a
matter
since
there
is
simply
not
enough
time
to
onboard
local
counsel.

Before
a
lawyer
can
handle
a
case,
they
typically
need
to
do
conflicts
checks
to
make
sure
that
a
matter
does
not
conflict
with
other
work
handled
by
a
firm. Although
this
should
be
an
easy
process,
some
larger
firms
have
numerous
clients
they
need
to
cross-check,
and
this
can
take
time. Also,
it
can
take
time
for
a
retainer
payment
to
clear,
and
some
lawyers
may
not
work
on
a
matter
until
they
know
that
a
payment
has
cleared. In
such
circumstances,
a
client’s
usual
lawyer
may
need
to
jump
on
a
matter
even
though
excessive
travel
time
is
involved.


Institutional
Knowledge

Some
clients
use
one
law
firm
for
all
of
their
work
spread
across
multiple
jurisdictions.
Indeed,
my
own
law
firm
handled
work
all
across
the
states
in
which
we
practice
for
our
clients
so
that
the
client
only
has
one
lawyer
they
need
to
deal
with
for
all
of
their
legal
work. It
can
sometimes
be
difficult
to
bring
new
lawyers
up
to
speed
on
a
matter
so
that
they
can
be
as
effective
as
possible
in
court.

In
such
circumstances,
it
might
make
sense
to
have
a
client’s
typical
lawyer
travel
to
a
court
appearance
to
advocate
on
a
client’s
behalf. The
additional
expense
associated
with
traveling
might
be
worth
it
since
bringing
a
new
lawyer
up
to
speed
would
also
come
at
a
cost. In
addition,
the
client’s
typical
lawyer
might
be
able
to
advocate
better
for
a
client
because
of
their
wealth
of
knowledge
about
a
client’s
affairs.

Personally,
I
always
handle
work
for
clients
if
the
travel
time
is
around
two
hours
or
less,
and
I’ll
handle
anything
within
driving
distance
in
some
circumstances. Certain
situations
might
require
the
involvement
of
a
client’s
typical
lawyer
rather
than
hiring
local
counsel
to
cut
down
on
transportation
costs.




Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of




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




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




jordan@rothm
an.law.

Amateur Comedian Judge Faces Ethics Complaints Over Groan-Inducing ‘Dad Jokes’ – Above the Law

There
are
only
two
responses
to
a
truly
phenomenal
dad
joke:
frustration
and
a
knee-slapping
gigglefest.
Don’t
believe
me?
Listen
to
this

Dad
Joke
compilation

with
your
office
door
open
and
see
what
happens.
That
said,
there
is
a
time
and
a
place
for
humor

the
courtroom
is
not
one
of
them.
A
lawyer
recently
got
in
trouble
for

watermarking
his
briefs
with
a
purple-suited
anthropomorphized
dragon
.
The
judge
took
him
to
task
for
making
light
of
the
seriousness
a
courtroom
should
be
approached
with.
Things
may
have
fared
better
for
the
Dragon
Lawyers
if
they
submitted
the
complaint
to
Judge
Gary
M.
Farmer
Jr.
He
seems
a
little
more
partial
to
some
levity
in
the
courtroom.
For
some,
that’s
the
problem.

ABA
Journal

has
coverage:

Judge
Gary
M.
Farmer
Jr.
of
Broward
County,
Florida,
said
in
May
6
response
 to ethics
charges
 his
remarks
were
intended
“to
lighten
tension,
reduce
stress
for
criminal
defendants
and
show
a
sense
of
humanity.”

The
response
acknowledged,
however,
that
some
comments
“were
somewhat
racy
and,
upon
reflection,
were
inappropriate.”
Farmer
said
he
takes
full
responsibility
for
the
remarks,
and
he
apologizes
for
them.
He
“has
taken
these
lessons
to
heart”
and
has
refrained
from
jokes
since
the
filing
of
the
ethics
complaint,
according
to
the
response.

Judge
Gary
framed
his
comments
as
G-rated
dad
jokes.
References
to
parentage
were
definitely
made,
but
he
may
want
to
brush
up
on
how
movies
get
rated.
Read
the
following
joke
he
made
to
a
defendant
with
three
kids
on
the
way
and
determine
for
yourself
if
it
would
look
out
of
place
in
Toy
Story
or
Finding
Nemo:

“You’ve
been
busy,”
Farmer
said.
“You
were
just
shooting
all
over
the
place.

I’m
going
to
order
that
you
wear
a
condom
at
all
times.
It’s
for
your
own
good.
Probation’s
gonna
check.
No,
I’m
kidding.”

This
joke,
along
with
many
of
the
other
ones
mentioned
in
the
complaint,
are
so
bad
that
I
wish
someone
would
just
tell
the
guy
to
focus
on
his
day
job.
Thankfully,
one
attorney
had
the
heart
to
do
it
on
our
behalf
in
this
exchange:

[Judge
Farmer]
asked
a
lawyer
whether
he
was
a
fan
of The
Flintstones
.
“They
don’t
like
it
in
Dubai,
though.
I
don’t
know,
but
the
people
of
Abu
Dhabi
do,”
Farmer
said.
The
attorney
replied,
“Don’t
give
up
your
day
job.”

I’m
sure
it
stings
for
a
series
of
ethics
complaints
to
be
how
you
discovered
that
you
aren’t
nearly
as
funny
as
you
thought
you
were,
but
the
message
appears
long
overdue.
If
you’re
going
to
be
a
comic,
have
enough
heart
to
do
it
at
a
venue
where
your
audience
doesn’t
have
to
worry
about
laughing
hard
enough
to
get
a
favorable
verdict.
As
for
everyone
else,
as
much
as
I
would
generally
recommend
going
the
extra
mile
and
reading
the
rest
of
the
jokes
in
question.
I
know
not
every
joke
can
be
a
winner,
but
with
the
number
he
told,
you’d
hope
that
at
least
one
of
them
would
be!
You’d
be
better
off
buying
a
small
container
of
Laffy
Taffys
and
committing
the
jokes
to
memory.


‘There
Was
In
Fact
A
Defendant
Named
Jaques
Strapp,’
Says
Judge
Defending
His
Corny
‘Dad
Jokes’

[ABA
Journal]



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, is
interested
in
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.

How Legal Ops Solves Your Real-World Challenges – Above the Law

Getty
Images

Legal
Ops
is
evolving

are
you
ready?

In
the
March
episode
of
the
UpLevel
View
podcast,
UpLevel
Ops
CEO
Stephanie
Corey
is
joined
by
two
standout
leaders
from
The
L
Suite

Greg
Raiten,
co-founder,
and
Shaun
Sethna,
general
counsel

for
an
honest
conversation
about
the
evolving
relationship
between
general
counsel
and
legal
operations.

Together,
they
explore
why
legal
ops
is
no
longer
just
a
support
function
but
a
strategic
partner
in
building
agile,
scalable
legal
teams.


Navigating
Economic
Uncertainty

Corporate
legal
departments
have
maintained
a
steady
focus
on
legal
operations
throughout
different
economic
cycles,
Shaun
notes.
Here,
he
shares
why
he
sees
that
durability
in
this
profession.


Becoming
More
Strategic

General
counsel
universally
strive
to
become
better
aligned
with
their
organization’s
business
strategy.
Here,
Greg
describes
how
a
legal
operations
focus
can
bring
about
that
outcome.


Showing
Your
Work

Legal
operations
particularly
demonstrates
its
value
when
it
comes
to
turning
your
strategy
into
reality.
Here,
Stephanie
notes
how
a
legal
ops
professional
can
create
the
processes
that
will
drive
success

from
creating
efficiency
to
demonstrating
your
department’s
value
to
your
organization.


Hear
the
Full
Discussion

Feel
free
to
listen
to
the
full
episode
of
the
UpLevel
View
podcast
below.

Sonia Sotomayor Encourages Lawyers To Stand Up And ‘Fight This Fight’ Against The Government – Above the Law

(Photo
by
ERIN
SCHAFF/POOL/AFP
via
Getty
Images)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


[The
legal
profession]
is
poised
to
show
its
greatness.
I
tell
law
students
if
you’re
not
used
to
fighting
losing
battles,
don’t
become
a
lawyer.
Our
job
is
to
stand
up
for
people
who
can’t
do
it
themselves.
Our
job
is
to
be
the
champion
of
lost
causes.
But
right
now
we
can’t
lose
the
battles
we
are
facing.
We
need
trained
and
passionate
and
committed
lawyers
to
fight
this
fight.
With
all
the
uncertainty
that
exists
at
this
moment,
this
is
our
time
to
stand
up
and
be
heard.
For
me,
being
here
with
you
is
an
act
of
solidarity.




Justice

Sonia
Sotomayor
,
in

remarks

delivered
before
an
audience
of
more
than
400
lawyers
and
judges
at
the
American
Bar
Association’s TIPS
10th
Annual
Section
Conference
, held
earlier
this
week
at
the
Smithsonian
Museum
of
African
American
History
&
Culture
in
Washington,
D.C.


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.

Trump Taps Judge Jeanine For Key DOJ Role After Consulting Evening Cable Lineup – Above the Law

Ed
Martin
really
went
on
a
journey
yesterday.
First,
he
learned
that
he’d
officially
be

yanked
from
the
DC
US
Attorney
job

search
after
a
whirlwind
four
months
of

pretending
he
already
had
the
job
.
Then
he
got
spit
on.

And
then
Trump
named
the
hapless
hack
to
head
up
the
administration’s
new
Weaponization
Working
Group.
In
a
sense,
Ed
is
already
a
smashing
success

since
politicized
harassment
of

government
officials
,

Wikipedia
,
and

random
medical
journals

are
all
down
a
whopping
100
percent
since
he
left
his
US
Attorney
role.
Meanwhile,
Trump
is
also
putting
Martin
in
charge
of
deciding
who
gets
pardons,
a
fitting
role
for
the
attorney
whose
claim
to
fame
was
representing
January
6
defendants

up
to
and
including
using
his
interim
DOJ
role
to

free
his
own
clients
.

But
this
left
Trump
with
the
problem
of
finding
a
new
interim
appointment
to
run
prosecutions
in
DC,
preferably
with
a
chance
in
hell
of
getting
confirmed.
After
a
deep,
serious
vetting
process
involving
turning
on
Fox
News
yesterday,
Trump
settled
upon
Jeanine
Pirro.

As
“surprising”
picks
go,
let’s
just
say
this
isn’t
like
an
American
Pope.

In
2018,

Pirro
eyed
the
Attorney
General
role


or
at
least
the
Deputy’s
seat.
Part
of
the
Federalist
Society’s
move
from
running
the
GOP
judicial
nomination
process
from
the
shadows
to
running
it
out
in
the
open
was
the
overriding
fear
that
Trump
would
try
to
put
Pirro
on
the
Supreme
Court
based
upon
her
qualifications
as
“someone
who
talks
about
law
on
TV.”

Pirro
may
not
land
in
any
of
those
loftier
roles,
but
the
US
Attorney
gig
in
DC
is
not
a
bad
consolation.

Sure,
she’s
the
sort
of
former
county
judge
with

a
lead
foot


police
claiming
they
clocked
her
down
119
on
Route
17
(she
would
plead
to
95)

and
a
penchant
for

racking
up
defamation
claims
.
She
even
managed

to
get
involved
in
the
massive
Dominion
&
Smartmatic
cases

that

ended
up
costing
the
network
a
fortune
.
But
just
because
she
might
struggle
to
follow
the
law
doesn’t
mean
she
can’t
arbitrarily
enforce
it
upon
others!


Earlier
:

Trump
Dumps
Ed
Martin
In
Favor
Of
‘Shit
Sandwich
Senate
Will
Eat’




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
.

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the Law




Ed.
Note
:

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

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


“David
H.
Souter,
Republican
Justice
Who
Allied
With
Court’s
Liberal
Wing,
Dies
at
85;
He
left
conservatives
bitterly
disappointed
with
his
migration
from
right
to
left,
leading
to
the
cry
of
‘no
more
Souters’”:
 The
New
York
Times
has
published this
obituary
 written
by
Linda
Greenhouse.


“Dan
Markel
murder:
Charlie
Adelson
files
appeals
brief
seeking
new
trial.”
 Jeff
Burlew
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report
.


“Judge
VanDyke
Mulls
More
‘Skin
in
the
Game’
In
Nationwide
Orders;
Judge
Lawrence
VanDyke
questioned
‘middle’
of
extreme
positions;
Trump
appointee
speaking
at
conservative
conference”:
 Suzanne
Monyak
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report
.


“Trump
replaces
D.C.
U.S.
attorney
Ed
Martin
with
Fox
News
host
Jeanine
Pirro;
The
president
yielded
to
Senate
Republican
criticism
of
Martin’s
support
for
Jan.
6
riot
defendants
accused
of
assaulting
police,
including
one
rioter
with
Nazi
sympathies”:
 Spencer
S.
Hsu,
Patrick
Svitek,
and
Keith
L.
Alexander
of
The
Washington
Post
have this
report
.


“El
Salvador
wants
America’s
prisoners.
And
its
tourists.
Bukele’s
government
sees
surf
tourism
and
mass
incarceration
as
growth
opportunities.”
 Natalie
B.
Compton
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report
.


“America
Needs
More
Judges
Like
Judge
Myers;
He
did
the
right
thing
in
North
Carolina’s
Supreme
Court
fight,
and
he
deserves
praise”:
 Law
professor Richard
L.
Hasen
 has this
essay
 online
at
The
Atlantic.

Climbing Through The Law Firm Ranks To Become Managing Partner  – Above the Law

In
this
episode
of
The
Jabot,
I
chat with

Cayce
Lynch
,
the
new
national
managing
partner
at
Tyson
&
Mendes.
Discover
Cayce’s
inspiring
journey
from
paralegal
to
managing
partner,
the
unique
culture
at
her
firm,
and
how
they’re
innovating
in
defense
law.
An
uplifting
listen
for
aspiring
legal
professionals!


Highlights

  • Deciding
    to
    go
    to
    law
    school.
  • Mentors
    and
    law
    school
    experience.
  • Discovering
    a
    passion
    for
    civil
    procedure.
  • Moving
    to
    California
    and
    taking
    the
    bar.
  • Discovering
    the
    right
    firm
    by
    chance.
  • Why
    Tyson
    &
    Mendes
    is
    the
    perfect
    fit.
  • Growth
    and
    transition
    to
    managing
    partner.
  • Going
    into
    the
    business
    side
    of
    law.
  • Breaking
    the
    glass
    ceiling
    in
    the
    legal
    industry.
  • Maintaining
    firm
    culture
    during
    expansion.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!




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].

Interpreting The 2025 CLOC In-House Survey Results – Above the Law

(Image
via

CLOC
)

I
attended
a
fascinating
presentation
at
this
year’s CLOC
Global
Institute
 which
focused
on the
results
from
the most
recent CLOC
in-house
survey,
which
for
the
first
time
was
conducted
in
collaboration
with Harbor,
a
provider
of
legal
services
supporting
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments.

The
findings
from
the
survey
were
published
in
the 2025
CLOC
State
of
the
Industry
Report
,
which
was
released
in
February
2025. The survey,
now
in
its
21st
year,
serves
as
an important
benchmarking
resource
for
legal
departments
worldwide, and
provides insights
into
legal
spending,
staffing,
operations,
and
technology
trends.  

The
survey
itself
offers
important
insights,
but
the
panel
discussion
stood
out
for
what
they
chose
to
highlight
in
just
45
minutes and
how
they
interpreted
the
data
made
it
a
fun (think
Steve
Harvey
meets
State
of
the
Industry) and
engaging
conversation
with
the
audience.

The
panel
itself
was
a
diverse group consisting of Kevin Clem,
Chief
Growth
Officer,
Harbor Legal; Lauren Chung, Practice
Group
Leader,
Harbor
Legal; Farrah
Pepper
, Chief Legal Innovation
Officer, Marsh
McLennan; and Oyango Snell,
Executive Director, CLOC. 


Key
Insight:
Demand
for
Legal
Services
Will
Rise

First
the
survey
itself:
65%
of
the participants were
with Fortune
500 companies,
188 companies that
participated were
primarily
billion-dollar-plus organizations, and the
Survey
looked
at some
400
different
metrics.
What
the
panel
decided
to
focus
on
was
important.

The
number
one
highlight
from
the
Survey
which illuminates
and
informs
the
other
metrics:
83%
of
those
surveyed
expect
increased
demand
for
legal
services.
I
have discussed the
possible reasons for
this before, but
it
is
still
pretty
amazing
given the
proliferation
of
AI
tools
that
can
do
many
of
the
tasks
that
legal professional have
in
the
past
done. In addition, 77%
of
legal
departments
expect
to
prioritize
or
increase
legal
ops
headcounts.


Responses
To
Increased
Demand
for
Legal
Services

In
any
event,
given
this,
the
first
question and
brought up
by
the panel
was what are
the
options available to
handle
this
expected
increase.
Here
is
what
the
Survey
said
were
the
top
five
results:

• Increasing
workload
of
existing
internal
resources
(39%)

• Increasing
use
of
current
technology
(36%)

• Reengineering
work
processes
(36%)

• Automating
routine
tasks
(34%)

• Increasing
use
of
outside
counsel
(33%)

The
results
are
a
bit surprising and,
on
its
face, should strike
fear
in
the
hearts
of legal
professionals in
house
legal departments
since
it
seems
to
suggest
a
never-ending
“do
more
with
less” mentality.
But Pepper made
an
interesting
comment.
The
findings
don’t
necessarily
mean
that
as
much
as
suggesting
that
there
are
tools
like
automation,
AI,
and
GenAI
that
will
enable
in
house legal departments to
in
fact
do
more high-value
work. Chung added
that
new
ways
of
working
may
enable
more
to
be accomplished


Top
Use
Cases
Legal
Ops
Can
Address

The
next
question
selected
by
the
panel
to discuss
was the
areas
that
legal
ops
professional
can
best
address
and
improve.
Here
are
the
top
five
findings:

• Outside
counsel
management
(95%)

• Technology
strategy
(91%)

• Technology
administration
(88%)

• Program/project
management
(84%)

• Financial
management
(80%)

Okay,
but
here’s
an
interesting
point
that
the
panel
brought
up.
The
2024 findings were roughly the
same
as before, but
a couple
of
additional
areas
gained
significant
ground. Citation of
business
intelligence as
something
legal
ops
could
contribute
increased from
58%
to
65%,
which
suggest
that participants are
continuing
to search for
ways
to
get
more
and different value
out
of
data
and
are
using
AI
tools
to
get
there. 

A second noteworthy finding: knowledge
management
went
from
71%
to
&79%,
suggesting
AI
tools
and
data
may
enable
legal
ops professionals to
play
a
greater
role
here, potentially
reducing
reliance
on
traditional
law
librarian
roles.


Most
Widely
Implemented
Technologies

Next
question:
What
are
the
most widely implemented technologies
by
legal
ops professionals?

• E-billing
(84%)

• Matter
management
(72%)

• Document
management
(72%)

• Legal
hold
(71%)

• Contract
management
(62%)

Like most
of
the
audience,
I
was surprised at
where
contract management ranked
since
that
seems
to
be
such
a
hot
topic. Perhaps some
early
adopters
are
heading
back
to
the
market,
looking
for
CLM
tools
that
better
meet
today’s
needs.


Planned
Technology
Implementations

But
let’s
look
at
the
results
of
the
next
survey
question:
What
technologies
are
participants
planning
to
implement
in
the
next
year.

• AI
(54%)

• Legal
service
request/intake
(33%)

• Workflow
automation
(33%)

• Contract
lifecycle
(30%)

• Document
management
(14%)

Lots
to
unpack
here.
AI
did
not crack the
top
5
for
tools
already in
use but
54% say
they
will implement it
in the
next
year. Frankly,
that
sounds
like
a
low
number given all
the
discussion
and
promise
of
AI. 

But Clem suggested
that
lots
of
departments
are waiting to
see
what
the
tools
they
already
have
can
do
with
the
addition of
AI
functions
and
to
see
what
the overall business
AI
goals
and
implementation
plan are.
He believes
there
will
be
lots
of
movement
here
in
the next year. Pepper noted that
AI
tools
will
be
integrated more
and
more
in
tools
already
being
used
to
make
them
better
and enhancing
their functionality.
As
she put it,
in
house
legal
“will
not
be
asking
for
AI
tools
but
expecting
it
to
be integrated in
other
products.”


Top
Outside
Counsel
Management
Initiatives

The
panel
then
turned
to
a
review
of
the responses to
the question what the
top
outside
counsel
management
initiatives that in
house
legal
has implemented.
The
top
five
results:

• More
consistent
use
of
matter
planning
and
budgeting
(50%)

• Structured
review
of
annual
rate
increases
(48%)

• Use
of
alternative
fee
arrangements
(47%)

• Tougher
enforcement
of
outside
counsel
guidelines
(45%)

• Keeping
more
work
in-house
(41%)

Again, the
panelists
had
lots
of insights on these numbers.
Chung
suggested
that
the
findings
indicate
that
in-house
legal
is
demanding more
visibility
and transparency in
their relationships with
outside
counsel.
For example,
a key
theme
is
more
structure
and governances to
things
like
rate
increase
requests. Pepper added
that
use
of
the
team
guidelines
should
be
changed
to policy, procedures, or processes to reflect that
need
for alignment of
business
interests with
outside
counsel. 

Finally, Clem
brought
up
an
interesting
point:
rates
may
continue
to
go
up
but
not
as a
matter of
rote.
Rather
rates
will
increase
based
on value that
a lawyer can provide.
More
routine
work
will
be
done
by
AI
tools
and
thus
the
time
spent
doing
work
that
AI can’t do
will
be
more valuable.
To obtain
a
rate
increase,
value
most
be
documented.
By
way
of example,
Clem
informally surveyed
the audience:
the
highest
hourly
rate requested the
past
year
was
$2,850
an hour
which
represented
a
30%
increase over
the
past
year.


The
Final
Word

The
panelists were
asked
for
a
final
word
on
what
the
take
aways
from
the survey.
Here
is
what
they
shared:

Chung:  Lean
into
data

benchmark
and
build
from
there.

Pepper:  Go
deeper
into
context
before
drawing
conclusions.

Clem: Visualize
and
present
data
clearly
to
support
decisions
and
engagement.

All
three panelists
didn’t
focus
on
specific
tools
or
use
cases
in
their
final
remarks.
Instead,
they
all
emphasized
process

how
legal
departments
use
data,
visualize
it,
and
engage
with
it
to
drive
real
transformation.




Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads
,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law
.

Here’s Everything Trump Is Doing To Protect Bad Cops, Make Things Worse For Crime Victims – Above the Law

Trump
was
never
about
law
and
order.
He
cozied
up
to
cops
and
praised
police
brutality,
but
when
push
came
to
literal
shove,
he
sat
back
and
watched
his
supporters
attack
law
enforcement
officers
and
commit
federal
crimes
for
the
sole
purpose
of
destroying
democracy
itself.

Now
that
he’s
back
in
office,
he’s
back
to
pretending
he
cares
about
law
and
order.
His
recent
executive
order
echoes
one issued
during
his
first
term
:
one
that
demands
people
start
respecting
cops
(even
if
he
and
his
followers
won’t
during
insurrections)
and suggests
there’s
a
police
state
 ahead
of
us
because
they
nation
can’t
be
saved
without trampling
all
of
our
rights
.

But
it’s
not
just
about
cops
or
law
and
order
demagoguery.
What
Trump
really
wants
is
zero
accountability
across
the
board.
That’s
why
his
DOJ
has
revamped
its
Civil
Rights
division
to
protect
only
the
rights
Trump
actually
cares
about.
Say
goodbye
to
the
First,
Fourth,
Fifth,
Sixth,
and
Fourteenth
Amendments.
Say
hello
to protecting
the
Second
Amendment
 and
shutting
down
anything
the
administration
thinks
might
protect
the
rights
of
anyone
but
the
whitest,
male-est
US
citizens.

The
Marshall
Project has
published
a
round-up
of
the
DOJ’s
actions
 during
Trump’s
ignominious
return
to
the
ultimate
position
of
power:
Leader
of
the
Free
World.
To
be
sure,
Trump
doesn’t
actually
want
a
“free
world”
any
more
than
he
wants
free
and
fair
elections.
What
he
does
want
is
the
erasure
of
everything
he
doesn’t
like,
even
if
it
means
doing
considerable
amount
of
damage
to
the
country
he
claims
to
be
making
great
again.

The
good
news
is…
well,
I
guess
there’s
not
really
any
of
that.


Last
week,
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
cancelled hundreds
of
Department
of
Justice
grants
 centered
on
crime
prevention
to
shift
its
focus
toward
illegal
drug
enforcement
and
the
eradication
of
DEI
policies.
On
Monday,
the
president
signed
executive
orders
to limit
police
reform
 and rescind
consent
decrees
 that
hold
police
agencies
accountable.
And recent
reporting
 details
how
the
department’s
Office
of
Civil
Rights
is
transitioning
from
enforcing
civil
rights
laws
to
bringing
cases
against
universities
and
cities
passing
liberal
policies,
leading
hundreds
of
attorneys
to
resign
in
protest
and
effectively
gutting
the
division.

If
Trump
were
an
unknown
quantity,
one
might
suspect
he
was
trying
to
get
fired
or,
possibly,
take
down
the
government
from
the
inside.
But
Trump
loves
Big
Government
architecture
and
its
insular
qualities.
That’s
why
he’s
converted
its
sharper
edges
to
weapons
to
be
deployed
against
all
the
stuff
he
hates.

His
blind
thrashing
at
anything
“woke”
is
just
brain
stem
responses
to
stimuli,
at
least
as
far
as
Trump
himself
is
concerned.
The
bigger
problem
is
that
blindly
lashing
out
has
resulted
in the
erasure
of
American
history
,
at
least
in
terms
of
women,
minorities,
and
LGBTQ+
citizens.
This
is
by
design,
but
probably
not
because
Trump
is
such
a
savvy
operator.
It’s
collateral
damage,
but
damage
his
supporters
are
not
only
willing
to
embrace,
but
leverage.

The
first
line
of
the
quoted
paragraph,
however,
highlights
the
hypocrisy
that
the
Trump
Administration
seems
to
believe
is
one
of
its
virtues.
This
president
has
spent
a
considerable
amount
of
time
claiming
this
country
is
constantly
under
attack
by
violent
criminals.
Yet,
when
given
the
chance,
he
has
chosen
to
strip
funds
from
crime
prevention
programs.
Worse, he
stripped
federal
funds
meant
to
help
crime
victims
,
as
well
as
police
personnel
actively
engaged
in
providing
this
assistance.


The
U.S.
Justice
Department
is terminating
$811
million
in
grants
,
including
some
impacting
victim
service
programs
ranging
from
trauma
centers
and
sign
language
interpretation
for
domestic
violence
victims
to
police
training,
according
to
internal
documents
and
two
sources.

Every
cut
is
designed
to
favor
cops,
eliminate
accountability,
eradicate
transparency,
and
allow
people
with
access
to
power
to
abuse
it.

Say
goodbye
to
prison
rape
reporting
efforts
because
Trump
doesn’t
care
about
incarcerated
people
and
data
shows
a
sizable
percentage
of
this
rape
is
committed
by
prison
staffers.
Funding
for
gun
violence
studies
has
also
been
cut
off.

And,
while
demanding
the
DOJ
do
better
at
tracking
national
crime
rates,
the
administration
has
decided
criminals
who
happen
to
wear
cop
uniforms
shouldn’t
be
subject
to
the
same
sort
of
background
checks
regular
people
endure
pretty
much
any
time
they
go
looking
for
a
new
job.


In
2022,
the
Biden
administration
created
the National
Law
Enforcement
Accountability
Database
,
a
central
place
for
police
departments
to
search
for
information
about
federal
law
enforcement
officers
with
criminal
convictions
and
misconduct
violations.
Trump decommissioned
the
database
 on
his
first
day
in
office.

What’s
truly
insane
is
that
this
wasn’t
even
a
public-facing
database,
so
it
wasn’t
as
though
journalists
and
activists
were
using
this
to
propel
an
anti-cop
narrative.
This
was
solely
for
use
by
federal
and
local
law
enforcement
agencies
to
ensure
they
weren’t
just
hiring
troublemakers
who’d
already
been
shit-canned
for
violating
rights
or
engaging
in
egregious
misconduct.
Now,
these
agencies
are
going
into
the
hiring
process
blind.
And
while
many
might
be
fine
with
that,
this
gives
the
worst
agencies
that
are
willing
to
hire
the
worst
ex-cops
all
the
plausible
deniability
they’ll
need
to
respond
to
criticism
of
their
hiring
processes.

This
is
the
America
Trump
wants
and
one
his
fans
are
willing
to
support,
right
up
until
they
feel
the
need
to
bash
a
cop’s
head
in
with
a
fire
extinguisher
or
whatever.
And
while
it
may
work
for
them
(until
it
doesn’t),
the
rest
of
us
are
going
to
be
forced
to
live
with
it
and
its
consequences
for
years,
if
not
decades,
to
come.


Here’s
Everything
Trump
Is
Doing
To
Protect
Bad
Cops,
Make
Things
Worse
For
Crime
Victims


More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:


RFK
Jr.’s
Measles
Policy:
Deaths
Are
Expected
And
It’s
The
Victim’s
Fault


Greek
Authorities
Fail
In
Their
Attempt
To
Make
VPN
Founder
Personally
Responsible
For
The
Action
Of
An
Unknown
User


Intelligence
Community
Demolishes
Trump’s
Venezuelan
‘Invasion’
Claims
In
Record
Time…
Almost
Like
They
Want
Us
To
Know
He’s
Lying

Law Revue Video Contest 2025: The Winner! – Above the Law

Voting
has
closed
for
our
sixteenth
annual
Law
Revue
Video
Contest,
and
we’re
happy
to
announce
that
we
have
a
winner.
Which
law
school
is
the
best
of
the
best?
Which
law
school
deserves
Law
Revue
fame?

Before
we
get
to
the
honors,
let’s
review
the
winners
of
years
past:

So
which
law
school
will
go
on
the
list
of
champions
and
forever
be
remembered
in
the
pantheon
of
Law
Revue
greats?
Let’s
consult
the
votes:

With
42%
of
the
total
votes
cast,
GW
is
the
winner!
Congratulations
to
George
Washington
University,
which
prevailed
with
its
excellent
Oppenheimer
parody,
“Palsgrafheimer.”
For
those
who
haven’t
seen
it
yet,
here’s
the
winning
entry:

Out
of
all
of
GW’s
fantastic
law
revue
entries
over
the
years

from Drunk
Cases
 to Justice
Roboto
 —
this
is
the
school’s
second
win,
and
a
back-to-back
win
at
that!
Good
things
come
with
time,
and
GW
finally
cracked
the
code
to
win
this
competition.
Yay!

Please email
us
 regarding
your
prizes
for
winning
this
year’s
contest.

Congratulations
again
to
GW,
and
to
the
rest
of
the
finalists.


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.