Category: News Feeds

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.

“This
time,
the
anti-Trump
resistance
is
in
the
courts,
not
in
the
streets;
As
the
president
issues
orders
that
critics
say
disregard
the
law,
a
haphazard
group
of
opponents
is
filing
lawsuits
—
and
it’s
starting
to
work”: Naftali
Bendavid
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.

And
in
commentary,
online
at
The
Washington
Post,
columnist
Ruth
Marcus
has
an
essay
titled
“Can
the
courts
—
can
anyone
—
stop
Trump?
Despite
my
expectation
of
mixed
success
in
legal
battles
with
the
president,
there
are
reasons
for
tempered
optimism
here.”

“Trump
Is
Testing
Our
Constitutional
System.
It’s
Doing
Fine.
The
president’s
flurry
of
illegal
actions
have
been
stopped
by
the
courts.
That’s
how
it
is
supposed
to
work.” Law
professor Noah
Feldman has this
essay online
at
Bloomberg
Opinion.

And,
in
response,
online
at
Balls
and
Strikes,
Jay
Willis
has
an
essay
titled
“Our
Constitutional
System
Cannot
Be
‘Fine’
When
It
Is
Also
On
Fire;
The
possibility
that
a
judge
might
someday
declare
Trump’s
actions
illegal
does
nothing
to
stop
the
pain
and
suffering
that
the
legal
system
allows
Trump
to
inflict
in
the
meantime.”

“At
the
Supreme
Court,
at
the
White
House
and
at
his
house,
Clarence
Thomas
is
the
go-to
justice
to
swear
in
Trump’s
Cabinet”: Joan
Biskupic
and
Jeff
Zeleny
of
CNN
have this
report.

“The
Most
Indefensible
Aspects
of
DOJ’s
Briefs
in
the
Birthright
Citizenship
Cases”: Marty
Lederman
has this
post at
the
“Just
Security”
blog.

“Eighteen
‘Pro-Life’
States
Demand
the
Freedom
to
Persecute
American
Babies”: Mark
Joseph
Stern
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

Seattle-based
district
court
Judge
John
Coughenour
—
appointed
to
the
federal
bench
by
noted
lefty
President
Ronald
Reagan
—
is
already
on
record
that
he
is

not
at
all
a
fan
of
Donald
Trump’s
unilateral
effort
to
rewrite
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
and
end
birthright
citizenship.
He’s
overseeing
a
case
to
stop
Trump’s
executive
order
brought
by
four
states
and
individual
pregnant
immigrant
plaintiffs.
The
initial
restraining
order
Coughenour
issued
on
the
enforcement
of
the
executive
order
was
set
to
expire,
but
yesterday
the
judge
granted
the
states’
effort
to
block
the
EO
with
a

preliminary
injunction.

Coughenour

isn’t
the
first
to
enjoin
the
order
ahead
of
its
February
18th
effective
date,
but
he
made
a
stirring
statement
in
defense
of
the
rule
of
law
and
against
the
“clearly
unconstitutional”
effort
of
Trump
to
amend
the
constitution
“under
the
guise
of
an
executive
order.”
As

reported
by
Law360:

“It
has
become
ever
more
apparent
that
to
our
president
the
rule
of
law
is
but
an
impediment
to
his
policy
goals,”
Judge
Coughenour
said
at
a
hearing
Thursday.
“The
rule
of
law
is,
according
to
him,
is
something
to
navigate
around
or
simply
ignore,
whether
that
be
for
political
or
personal
gain.

“Nevertheless,
in
this
courtroom
and
under
my
watch,
the
rule
of
law
is
a
bright
beacon
which
I
intend
to
follow,”
the
judge
said.
“…
I
refuse
to
let
that
beacon
go
dark
today.”

Judge
Coughenour
continued,
“We
are
all
citizens
subject
to
the
rule
of
law.”
Adding,
“No
amount
of
policy
debate
can
change
that.
And
the
fact
that
the
government
has
cloaked
what
is
effectively
a
constitutional
amendment
under
the
guise
of
an
executive
order
is
equally
unconstitutional.”

“If
the
government
wants
to
change
the
exceptional
American
grant
of
birthright
citizenship,
it
needs
to
amend
the
Constitution
itself.
That’s
how
the
Constitution
works,
and
that’s
how
the
rule
of
law
works,”
the
judge
said.
“Because
the
president’s
order
attempts
to
circumscribe
this
process,
it
is
clearly
unconstitutional.”

Powerful
stuff
—
particularly
coming
from
a
Republican-appointed
judge.

---

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].

WASHINGTON
—
As
information
sharing
between
allies
and
partners
becomes
increasingly
important
in
the
space
domain,
the
US
needs
to
create
a
uniform
set
of
cybersecurity
standards
for
its
space
systems,
government
officials
said
Tuesday. 

Right
now
there
are
several
entities
and
agencies
who
have
or
are
working
on
their
own
set
of
cybersecurity
standards
for
space
systems.
These
include
the

National
Institute
of
Standards
and
Technology,

the
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency,
OASIS
and
commercial
providers.
Additionally,
a


Biden-era
executive
order
mandated
practices
that
would
protect
commercial
satellite
systems
against
cyber
attacks.

But
if
all
of
these
standards
are
siloed,
it
will
be
more
difficult
to
share
them
with
international
allies
and
they
won’t
be
useful
in
protecting
space
systems
against
adversarial
threats,
Lauryn
Williams,
former

chief
of
staff
in
the
Office
of
the
Assistant
Secretary
of
Defense
for
Industrial
Base
Policy,
said
during
a
Washington
Business
Space
Roundtable
discussion
Tuesday. 

Williams
said
that a
meeting
with
Japanese
officials
during
her
stint
in
the
Office
of
the
National
Cyber
Director
prior
to
her
most
recent
post
was
her
catalyst
for
wanting
to
develop
a
clear
set
of
cyber
standards
for
space
systems.

“The
Japanese
government
turned
to
me
as
the
kind
of
cyber
person
sitting
at
the
table,
and
they
said,
very
straightforwardly,
‘What
is
your
cybersecurity
policy?
What
is
your
cybersecurity
standard?’
We
could
not
answer
that
question.
I
cannot
answer
that
question,”
she
said. 

“We
need
to
be
able
to
answer
that
question,
so
that
we
can
lead
because
that
was
the
indication
that
I
got,
was
that
the
Japanese
were
looking
to
us
to
be
able
to
say,
‘Here
it
is.’
So
that
they
and
many
of
our
other
international
partners
could
take
and
build
on
it,”
she
added.
“I
hope
that
we’ve
got
a
piece
of
that
answer
now,
not
the
entirety
of
it,
but
the
world
really
is
looking
to
us
on
this.” 

Erin

Miller,
executive
director
of
the
Space
Information
Sharing
and
Analysis
Center
(Space
ISAC),
echoed
Williams’
need
for
a
cohesive
set
of
cyber
standards.
She
noted
that
ideally
one
agency
would
be
in
charge
of
setting
these
standards;
for
example,
the

Department
of
Homeland
Security.
This,
however,
could
be
tricky
since
the
federal
government
tends
to
fall
behind
commercial
industry
in
terms
of
understanding
cyber
threats
to
space
systems.

“There’s
a
lot
of
[standards]
that
are
available
that
we
can
look
at.
We
actually
formed
a
task
force
in
Space
ISAC
to
look
at
all
of
these
different
standards
and
see
if
we
can
get
a
comprehensive
view
of
how
to
address
risks
for
space
systems,”
Miller
told
Breaking
Defense
on
the
sidelines
of
the
event.
“But
the
challenge
is
that
the
commercial
sector
can
do
that,
and
organically
we
can
come
to
a
conclusion
on
how
we’re
all
going
to
manage
sector
risk,
but
it’s
still
a
commercial
sector
that’s
driving
it.
We
need
a
complement
from
the
federal
government
side
to
drive
overall
sector
risk.” 

Both
Williams
and
Miller
made
clear
that
such
a
set
of
uniformed
cybersecurity
standards
would benefit
international
cooperation.
Miller
also
used
the
opportunity
to
make
her
argument
that
space
systems
should
be
considered
critical
infrastructure. 

With
this,
she
explained
that
another
benefit
to
having
the
DHS
in
particular
take
on
the
responsibility
of
creating
space
cyber
standards
would
be
allowing
space
systems
to
be
considered
critical
infrastructure,
something
the
space
community
has
been
advocating
for
for
several
years.
But
the
federal
government
maintains
these
systems
do
not
qualify
as
critical
infrastructure.

“Human
lives
depend
on
the
security
of
space
systems,
and
it’s
not
just
humans
in
the
US.
That’s
another
challenge,
is
that
DHS
has
primarily
been
responsible
for
critical
infrastructure
that
humans
in
the
US
rely
on,
and
so
risk
management
is
based
on
US
lives,
but
this
is
a
global
conversation,”
Miller
told
Breaking
Defense.
“People
across
the
whole
world
are
dependent
upon
the
space
systems,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
international
sales
and
trade
and
commerce
that’s
associated
with
our
space
systems
and
the
use
of
them
in
countries
around
the
world.
So
it’s
dynamic.” 

Though
Miller
said
the
DHS
could
be
responsible
for
making
the
uniformed
set
of
standards,
she 
acknowledged
that
there
is
more
than
one
agency
capable
of
tracking
critical
infrastructure,
so
the
DHS
wouldn’t
necessarily
have
to
be
the
agency
responsible
for
creating
the
standards.

“Space
ISAC
has
heavily
advocated
that
we
have
a
designation
of
space
systems
as
a
critical
infrastructure
sector,
and
that’s
where
DHS’s
role
is
that
they
have
a
responsibility
for
critical
infrastructure
sectors,
and
they
also
share
that
responsibility
with
other
agencies.
So
that’s
why
this
conversation
of
which
agency
is
responsible
is
so
challenging,”
she
said. 

Remember
when
Donald
Trump
and
the
MAGA
universe
wanted
to
“lock
her
up!”
over
Hillary
Clinton’s
use
of
a
personal
email
server
for
State
Department
business?

Let’s
be
clear,
we
found
Clinton’s
use
of
a
personal
email
server,
which
she
claimed
to
have
used
“for
convenience”, deeply
problematic but
pretty
clearly
not
criminal.
And,
as
we’ve
covered
for
years
now,
it’s
unfortunately
(tragically)
common
for
government
officials
to
use
personal
emails
from Colin
Powell to
many
Trump
officials,
including Jared
Kushner
and
Ivanka
Trump.
This
is
the
same
administration,
mind
you,
that
later
mishandled
classified
documents
at
Mar-a-Lago
and
various
other
properties.
During
the
first
Trump
admin, the
NSA
kept
trying
to
warn
admin
officials to
stop
using
their
personal
email,
which
you’d
think
they’d
know,
given
the
whole
“but
her
emails”
stuff.

So,
really,
if
anyone
were
briefed
on
how
emails
can
be
insecure,
you
would
hope
it
was
the
Trump
administration.

About
that…
Yesterday,
the
NY
Times
revealed
that
the
Trump
administration
demanded
that
the
CIA
hand
over
the
names
of
everyone
the
CIA
hired
in
the
last
two
years
which,
for
fairly
obvious
reasons,
could
contain
some
pretty
sensitive
information.

So,
of
course,
the
White
House
demanded
this
sensitive
information be
sent
via
unclassified
email.

The
C.I.A.
sent
the
White
House an
unclassified
email
listing
all
employees
hired
by
the
spy
agency over
the
last
two
years
to
comply
with
an
executive
order
to
shrink
the
federal
work
force,
in
a
move
that
former
officials
say
risked
the
list
leaking
to
adversaries.

The
list
included
first
names
and
the
first
initial
of
the
last
name
of
the
new
hires,
who
are
still
on
probation
—
and
thus
easy
to
dismiss.
It
included
a
large
crop
of
young
analysts
and
operatives
who
were
hired
specifically
to
focus
on
China,
and whose
identities
are
usually
closely
guarded
because
Chinese
hackers
are
constantly
seeking
to
identify
them.

Let
that
sink
in:
The
same
administration
that
wanted
Clinton
jailed
over
email
security
just
demanded
the
CIA
expose
its
newest
China-focused
recruits
through
unsecured
channels.

Surprisingly,
the
Trump
admin
didn’t
deny
any
of
this,
but
just
said
they
were
sure
it
was
no
big
deal.

Current
officials
confirmed
that
the
C.I.A.
had
sent
the
names
of
employees
to
the
White
House’s
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
complying
with
an
executive
order
signed
by
President
Trump.
But
the
officials
downplayed
security
concerns.
By
sending
just
the
first
names
and
initials
of
the
probationary
employees,
one
U.S.
official
said,
they
hoped
the
information
would
be
protected.

That,
of
course,
is
fucking
nonsense:

One
former
agency
officer
called
the
reporting
of
the
names
in
an
unclassified
email
a
“counterintelligence
disaster.”

[…..]

[F]ormer
officials
scoffed
at
the
explanation,
saying
that
the
names
and
initials
could
be
combined
with
other
information
—
from
driver’s
license
and
car
registration
systems,
social
media
accounts
and
publicly
available
data
from
universities
that
the
agency
uses
as
recruiting
grounds
—
to
piece
together
a
more
complete
list.

Any
competent
intelligence
operation
–
like,
say,
China’s
–
can
easily
cross-reference
this
information
with
publicly
available
data
and
standard
OSINT
techniques
to
identify
these
recruits.
It’s
literally
Intelligence
101.
Hell,
we
even published
a
card
game years
ago
based
on
the
CIA’s
internal
training
tool
that
tells
analysts
to
do
exactly
that!

As
for
why
it
was
sent
as
an
unclassified
mailing,
the
ranking
House
Intelligence
Committee
member,
Rep.
Jim
Himes,
says
the
White
House “insisted” on
the
CIA
sending
the
list
in
an
unclassified
email.

It’s
worth
asking:
If
a
hostile
foreign
power
wanted
to
compromise
US
intelligence
capabilities,
would
their
wishlist
look
any
different
from
what
the
Trump
administration
is
actually
doing?

Apparently,
the
reason
that
the
admin
wanted
this
list
is
because
they’re
basically
trying
to
get
a
huge
portion
of
the
CIA
to
quit
(they
just
offered
the
highly
questionable mass
resignation
offer
to
the
CIA),
and
they’re
so
completely terrified of
the
word
“diversity”
that
they’ve
decided
the
most
recent
hires
are
“DEI.”

Why?
Because
the
CIA
realized
recently
that
it
needed more
diverse
agents
and
analysts in
order
to
better
understand
what
was
happening
in
places
like
China:

Under
William
J.
Burns,
the
former
C.I.A.
director,
the
agency
put a
new
emphasis
on
trying
to
recruit
a
diverse
group
of
officers,
arguing
that
overseas
spying
operations
required
people
with
an
array
of
language
skills
and
cultural
knowledge.
He
focused
particularly
on
expanding
the
agency’s
coverage
of
China,
creating
a
China
center
at
the
headquarters
that
included
analysts,
operatives
and
others.
When
Mr.
Burns
arrived
at
the
agency
in
2021,
about
9
percent
of
the
agency’s
budget
was
devoted
to
China-related
analysis
and
espionage;
today
it
is
closer
to
20
percent.

Let’s
spell
this
out:
The
CIA
recognized
that
to
effectively
spy
on
and
analyze
China,
they
needed
people
who
actually
understand
Chinese
language,
culture,
and
society.
You
know,
the
kind
of
basic
competence
you’d
expect
from
an
intelligence
agency.
The
“diversity”
they
sought
wasn’t
about
checking
boxes
—
it
was
about
having
agents
and
analysts
who
could
actually
do
the
job.

But
it
sounds
like
the
Trump
admin
saw
the
word
“diverse,”
collapsed
upon
their
fainting
couch
while
clutching
their
pearls,
and
demanded
all
the
names
of
these
“diverse”
new
recruits
to
prepare
to
shed
all
those
pesky
“DEI”
hires.
Because
apparently,
in
their
world,
having
Mandarin-speaking
analysts
focusing
on
China
is
just
woke
virtue
signaling.

What
could
possibly
go
wrong?

As
Daniel
Drezner
notes,
this
story almost
perfectly
encapsulates the
absolute
idiocy
that
is
the
current
Trump
administration:

So,
to
sum
up:
in
order
to
comply
with
the
Trump
White
House’s
myriad
edicts,
the
CIA
has:

• 
  Burned
  its
  most
  recent
  cadre
  of
  recruits;
• 
  Weakened
  its
  ability
  to
  focus
  intelligence
  assets
  on
  China;
• 
  Undermined
  its
  recruitment
  capacity
  for
  the
  future;
  and
• 
  Unwittingly
  demonstrated
  why
  a
  jihad
  against
  DEI
  weakens
  rather
  than
  strengthens
  U.S.
  foreign
  policy
  competence.

The
irony
is
almost
perfect:
An
administration
that
campaigned
on
email
security
is
now
deliberately
exposing
our
intelligence
apparatus
through
unsecured
emails,
all
because
they’ve
turned
“diversity”
into
such
a
boogeyman
that
they
can’t
tell
the
difference
between
basic
operational
competence
and
their
imagined
DEI
crisis.

Ah,
but
her
emails!

But
Her
Emails
Redux:
Team
Trump
Makes
CIA
Send
List
Of
All
Recently
Hired
Employees
Over
Unclassified
Email

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

No
More
Pretense:
Carr’s
FCC
Threatens
News
Radio
Station
For
Reporting
The
News
Too
Specifically

Spam
Emails,
Spam
Lawsuit:
The
GOP
Tries
To
Break
Gmail
By
Court
Order

South
Dakota
Lawmakers
Latest
Asshats
Seeking
To
Force
Schools
To
Post
The
Ten
Commandments

*
Deal
lawyers
earning
some
vacation
time
next
week
as
they
billed
like
crazy
to
get
mergers
filed
by
today
to
avoid
new
rules.
[Reuters]

*
Despite
court
orders,
the
federal
hiring
freeze
hangs
over
everything
and
agencies
are
halting
law
school
recruiting.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Supreme
Court
refuses
Trump
request
to
halt
pending
environmental
cases
because,
unlike
Trump,
they
understand
that
they
can
do
a
lot
more
damage
to
environmental
law
by
issuing
decisions.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Reagan
judge
has
harsh
words
for
Trump
administration’s
birthright
citizenship
stunt.
[Law360]

*
That
case
is
one
many
sparked
by
Trump’s
executive
order
push.
If
you’re
looking
for
a
resource
to
compile
all
those
dockets
in
one
place…
this
is
your
answer.
[Courtwatch]

*
Using
firm
credit
card
to
get
wine
delivered
to
the
house
seems
like
a
wellness
expense,
no?
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
If
you
had
any
doubts
about
the
lawlessness
of
the
Federal
Circuit’s
approach
to
Judge
Newman,
remember
they’re
refusing
to
release
documents
about
their
decision
even
though

Newman
is
the
one
asking
for
the
release.
[National
Law
Journal]

The
DOJ
Is
Basically
Trump
Legal
Now:
And
there’s
so
much
work
to
bill!
Losses
And
So
Much
Potential:
Will
a
merger
get
them
on
the
right
track?
How
Can
It
Be
Defamation
When
I’m
So
Silly?:
This
defense
against
defamation
may
be
an
issue
of
first
impression.
Donna
Adelson
Moved
To
Protective
Custody:
Hope
she
stays
safe.
Biglaw
Makes
A
Big
Difference:
This
firm
offered
pro
bono
work
to
help
out
the
LA
FireAid
benefit
concert.

As
we
step
into
2025,
the
legal
operations
landscape
continues
a
transformation
anchored
by
a
simple
question:
What
does
value
truly
mean
in
a
legal
department?

As
we’ve
seen
through
our
work
at
UpLevel
Ops
and
Value
Strategies,
the
answer
often
transcends
traditional
cost-control
measures.
Instead,
it
lies
in
fostering
a
change
management
culture
that
prioritizes
efficiency,
transparency,
and
alignment
between
legal
departments
and
their
partners. 

The
Rise
(and
Necessity)
of
Value-Based
Pricing 

Many
legal
departments
are
abandoning
the
billable
hour
in
favor
of
Value-Based
Pricing
(VBP)
fee
arrangements,
a
model
designed
to
align
fees
with
actual
deliverables
and
results
instead
of
hours
spent.
Why?
Everyone
agrees
that
the
billable
hour
incentivizes
inefficiency
and
misalignment.
VBP
flips
this
dynamic,
creating
partnerships
by
aligning
incentives
between
the
client
and
the
firm. 

VBP
is
not
considered
an
alternative
fee
arrangement;
instead,
it
is
an
entirely
different
methodology
for
pricing
legal
matters.
Legal
departments
that
have
converted
to
VBP
report
significant
reduction
in
outside
counsel
spend
(20%
–
50%),
improved
budget
predictability,
and
reduced
administrative
costs.

The
significant
reductions
in
outside
counsel
spend
come
from
a
process
that
requires
the
firm
to
be
more
efficient
in
delivering
legal
services,
and
the
client
benefits
from
that
efficiency
gain.
Administrative
savings
come
from
the
elimination
of
invoice
reviews
and
accruals
processes. In
addition,
VBP
enhances
collaboration
and
communication
between
in-house
teams
and
outside
counsel. 

Change
Management:
The
True
Catalyst
for
Success 

Internal
change
management
is
key
to
rolling
out
a
VBP
program.
As
with
most
program
implementations
in
a
legal
ops
environment,
getting
the
internal
team
to
do
something
different
can
sometimes
be
a
big
lift.
Having
buy-in
from
the
executive
team
can
be
very
helpful
in
motivating
the
team
to
move
forward.

Another
useful
method
is
piloting
a
smaller
practice
area,
especially
with
a
practice
area
manager
open
to
new
ideas
and
trying
new
processes.
After
a
successful
pilot,
that
manager
could
evangelize
the
benefits
of
VBP
to
the
rest
of
the
department.

Another
way
to
incentivize
internal
team
members
to
implement
VBP
is
to
explain
how
the
program
will
benefit
them
personally.
These
benefits
include
the
elimination
of
invoice
reviews
and
the
accruals
process.

How
Do
You
Determine
the
Value-Based
Fee?

Actual
pricing
under
the
VBP
model
is
derived
from
five
components:
matter
type,
matter
value,
jurisdiction,
type
of
firm,
and
risk-sharing. 

• 
  Firm
  and
  Matter
  Type
  –
  A
  definition
  of
  matter
  type
  and
  firm
  type
  begins
  with
  understanding
  Value
  Price
  Points
  (VPP).
  This
  can
  be
  thought
  of
  on
  a
  relative
  scale
  as
  there
  are
  types
  of
  matters
  and
  certain
  types
  of
  tasks
  that
  have
  a
  lower
  VPP
  than
  others.
  These
  VPP
  (or
  market)
  differentials
  can
  be
  due
  to
  many
  factors,
  including
  the
  complexity
  of
  the
  work,
  commonality
  of
  the
  work,
  the
  number
  of
  skilled
  practitioners
  available,
  and
  the
  “perceived”
  value
  of
  the
  work.
  Understanding
  VPPs
  for
  different
  matter
  types
  and
  tasks
  is
  helpful
  in
  setting
  pricing
  and
  assigning
  the
  proper
  resources
  to
  do
  the
  work
  (partner,
  associate,
  paralegal,
  etc.).

  This
  concept
  of
  VPP
  also
  applies
  to
  firm
  types.
  Different
  firms
  have
  different
  VPPs
  based
  on
  size,
  brand,
  reputation,
  matter
  breadth,
  client
  list,
  geography,
  overhead
  structure,
  etc.
  It
  is
  important
  to
  match
  the
  VPP
  of
  the
  matter
  with
  the
  VPP
  of
  the
  firm
  that
  will
  do
  the
  work.

• 
  Matter
  Value
  –
  One
  of
  the
  key
  components
  to
  creating
  a
  value-based
  price
  is
  to
  perform
  a
  Matter
  Value
  Estimation
  (MVE).
  There
  are
  three
  types
  of
  value:
  economic,
  perceived,
  and
  strategic.
  An
  MVE
  begins
  with
  an
  economic
  value
  estimation.
  This
  is
  typically
  the
  actual
  economic
  value
  of
  the
  matter.
  Perceived
  value
  is
  the
  economic
  value
  of
  the
  matter
  adjusted
  to
  the
  perceived
  value
  of
  the
  client.
  Typically,
  in
  litigation,
  it
  is
  significantly
  less
  than
  the
  economic
  value.
  For
  a
  transaction,
  it
  may
  or
  may
  not
  be
  the
  same
  as
  the
  economic
  value. 

  The
  final
  step
  in
  an
  MVE
  is
  the
  determination
  of
  the
  strategic
  value.
  In
  litigation,
  this
  is
  the
  financial
  impact
  on
  the
  corporation
  of
  losing
  the
  case
  and
  the
  economic
  impact
  of
  potential
  future
  litigation
  or
  brand
  impact.
  For
  a
  transaction,
  this
  includes
  the
  financial
  impact
  on
  the
  corporation
  if
  the
  deal
  does
  not
  go
  through.

• 
  Jurisdiction
  –
  This
  factor
  considers
  the
  court
  and
  the
  geography
  in
  which
  the
  matter
  is
  adjudicated.
• 
  Risk-Sharing
  –
  Pricing
  structures
  can
  incentivize
  risk-sharing
  by
  law
  firms
  and
  drive
  toward
  the
  client’s
  goal
  of
  paying
  more
  for
  results
  and
  less
  for
  effort.
  This
  alignment
  of
  incentives
  between
  the
  client
  and
  firm
  provides
  better
  value
  for
  the
  client
  and
  allows
  a
  law
  firm
  to
  earn
  a
  premium
  for
  outstanding
  results. 

What
Types
of
Fee
Structures
and
Price
Metrics
Are
Used
in
VBP?

In
the
application
of
value-based
fee
arrangements,
there
are
numerous
structures
and
metrics
are
used
to
create
the
actual
fees.
Below
are
a
few
basic
structures.
More
complex
arrangements
are
hybrids
of
multiple
structures.

• 
  Task-based
  ─
  This
  structure
  is
  usually
  a
  fixed
  fee
  for
  a
  specific
  task
  and
  is
  often
  seen
  in
  patent
  prosecution
  or
  immigration
  law.
  An
  example
  is
  a
  fixed
  fee
  for
  completing
  and
  filing
  a
  utility
  patent
  or
  H1B
  visa.
• 
  Tier
  or
  category-based
  ─
  Some
  legal
  work
  can
  be
  divided
  into
  value
  tiers,
  and
  often
  a
  fixed
  fee
  is
  assigned
  to
  each
  tier
  or
  category.
• 
  Scope-based
  –
  For
  legal
  work
  that
  is
  project-based
  with
  specific
  deliverables
  or
  has
  a
  defined
  scope
  of
  work
  delivered
  consistently
  over
  a
  period
  of
  time,
  a
  fixed
  fee
  would
  be
  defined. 
• 
  Unit-price
  metrics
  –
  Different
  price
  metrics
  should
  be
  considered
  in
  each
  engagement.
  Under
  the
  traditional
  hourly
  rate
  model,
  the
  unit
  price
  metric
  is
  dollars
  per
  hour.
  Since
  hours
  worked
  is
  not
  synonymous
  with
  value
  delivered,
  consider
  other
  value-centric
  metrics
  such
  as
  dollars
  per
  document,
  dollars
  per
  deposition,
  or
  dollars
  per
  motion.
  There
  are
  an
  unlimited
  number
  of
  ways
  to
  modify
  the
  metric
  based
  on
  different
  types
  of
  matters,
  goals,
  and
  outcomes. 

Summary
–
Benefits
of
Value-Based
pricing

Many
corporate
legal
departments
are
beginning
to
realize
that
the
current
hourly
billing
model
is
unsustainable.
With
billing
rates
for
some
firms
topping
$2500
per
hour,
the
question
becomes,
“Where
does
this
end?”
In-house
attorneys
want
to
move
off
of
the
billable
hour
model
but
don’t
know
how
to
accomplish
it
or
how
to
evaluate
if
an
alternative
fee
is
right
for
them.
VBP
is
fast
becoming
the
new
standard
for
clients
to
focus
on
the
value
received
in
legal
services,
not
the
effort
expended.

With
AI
dramatically
reducing
the
time
required
for
legal
tasks,
law
firms
will
need
to
shift
their
revenue
model
from
hours
burned
to
actual
value
delivered.
Over
the
next
few
years,
this
transformation
will
accelerate,
making
value-based
pricing
not
just
an
option—but
a
necessity.

Fortunately,
this
methodology
applies
across
all
legal
matters
and
practice
areas.
It
gives
legal
departments
the
budget
predictability
they
need
while
significantly
reducing
total
legal
spend
and
increasing
in-house
productivity.
It
can
also
be
used
to
build
new
partnerships
between
firms
and
clients
that
are
based
on
value
delivered
and
client
success.

Like
the
other
top-tier
professional
services
industries
that
converted
to
this
methodology
over
20
years
ago,
VBP
is
the
future
of
legal
services.
The
change
will
most
likely
not
come
from
the
law
firms
but
from
clients
beginning
to
demand
results-based
compensation
models. 

---

Stephanie Corey is
a
co-founder
and
CEO
of
UpLevel
Ops. Stephanie also
co-founded
LINK
(Legal
Innovators
Network),
a
legal
operations
organization
exclusively
for
experienced,
in-house
professionals.
She
previously
founded
the
legal
operations
trade
organization
CLOC
(Corporate
Legal
Operations
Consortium)
and
is
a
former
executive
member.
Please
feel
free
to contact
and
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.

Ken
Callander
specializes
in
helping
corporate
legal
departments
optimize
their
outside
counsel
relationships,
ensuring
greater
value,
efficiency,
and
budget
predictability.
As
part
of
the
Advisory
Team
at
UpLevel
Ops,
he
partners
with
legal
teams
to
implement
strategic
outside
counsel
management
programs,
including
transitioning
from
hourly
billing
to
value-
based
fee
arrangements.
His
clients
span
industries
such
as
technology,
healthcare,
construction,
the
sharing
economy,
private
equity,
and
multinational
conglomerates.

Please
feel
free
to

contact
or
connect
with
him
on
LinkedIn.

Access
to
justice
is
at
risk.
If
you’ve
been
paying
attention,
you
know
this
isn’t
a
new
issue.
Nonprofits
that
provide
legal
services
to
underserved
populations
have
been
in
jeopardy
for
years.
Funding
cuts
have
become
the
norm,
and
they
just
keep
coming.

With
the
installation
of
the
new
administration,
the
threat
of
a
full
freeze
to
all
federally
funded
access-to-justice
programs
looms
large.
If
this
happens,
creative
and
unconventional
approaches
will
be
essential
to
bridge
a
gap
that
will
quickly
become
a
chasm.

In
recent
Above
the
Law
columns,
I’ve
explored
efforts
to
use
emerging
technology
to
solve
this
problem.
Artificial
intelligence
(AI)
tools,
in
particular,
have
the
potential
to
offer
some
relief.

For
example,
in
October,
I
asked

whether
generative
AI
could
expand
access
to
justice.
I
concluded
that
generative
AI

could
enhance
efficiency
for
public
interest
lawyers,
enabling
them
to
serve
more
clients
effectively.
But
as
I
explained,
in
my
experience,
capitalism
always
trumps
altruism.
While
technology
has
long
been
touted
as
a
solution
for
improving
legal
access,
financial
incentives
often
shift
innovation
toward
profit-driven
models
rather
than
public
service. Without
careful
implementation
and
a
commitment
to
accessibility,
AI’s
benefits
will
inevitably
be
unevenly
distributed,
limiting
the
ability
to
truly
impact
the
lives
of
those
who
need
it
most.

In
November,
I
once
again
wondered

whether
generative
AI
provided
incremental
solutions
to
access
to
justice
or
whether
its
proponents’
claims
were
simply
overhyped
promises.
I
took
a
closer
look
at
whether
AI
is
actually
bridging
the
justice
gap
and
found
that
some
legal
aid
organizations
and
courts
are
putting
AI
to
practical
use.
Tools
like
Legal
Aid
of
North
Carolina’s
Legal
Information
Assistant
and
the
Nevada
Supreme
Court’s
AI
chatbot
are
helping
self-represented
litigants
navigate
the
system
more
easily.
While
AI
isn’t
a
magic
fix,
it
does
show
promise
in
small
but
meaningful
ways.

The
threat
of
large-scale
federal
funding
cuts
has
since
gained
momentum,
making
the
search
for
an
out-of-the-box
solution
all
the
more
pressing.
As
you
can
probably
imagine,
my
interest
was
piqued
when
I
stumbled
upon
a
New
York
State
Bar
Ethics
opinion
released
in
December
that
addressed
a
unique
technology-driven
approach
to
solving
the
access-to-justice
problem,
one
case
at
a
time.

In

Ethics
Opinion
1277,
the
inquiring
attorney
asked:
“May
a
non-profit
legal
defense
organization
set
up
and
administer
GoFundMe
pages
intended
to
help
the
organization’s
indigent
clients
raise
funds
from
the
public
to
cover
their
living
expenses
upon
release
from
incarceration?”

What
a
question!
This
tactic
is
not
one
I’d
have
envisioned,
and
it’s
undoubtedly
an
unconventional
approach
to
leveraging
technology
to
support
access
to
legal
representation.
As
I
suggested
above,
“creative
and
unconventional”
ideas
are
exactly
what
we
need
right
now,
and
this
certainly
fits
the
bill!

Of
course,
it
doesn’t
matter
if
it’s
a
great
idea
unless
it
passes
ethical
muster.
So
does
it?
According
to
the
Committee
on
Professional
Ethics,
under
certain
circumstances,
it
can.

The
committee
explained
that
generally
speaking,
New
York
lawyers
“shall
not
advance
or
guarantee
financial
assistance
to
the
client.”
However,
the
rule
has
four
exceptions,
one
of
which
is
the
“humanitarian
exception”
set
forth
in
Rule
1.8(e)(4).

This
rule
applies
to
not-for-profit
legal
services
or
public
interest
organizations
that
serve
indigent
clients
and
are
providing
legal
services
for
free.
It
permits
them
to
offer
financial
assistance
to
their
clients.
Any
financial
assistance
provided
under
this
exception
must
be
in
the
form
of
gifts,
not
loans,
and
cannot
come
from
“[f]unds
raised
for
any
legal
services.”

The
committee
also
addressed
another
caveat
to
this
exception:
the
rule
expressly
prohibits
the
legal
organization
from
promising
or
assuring
financial
assistance
to
the
client
before
its
services
are
retained,
nor
can
it
promise
financial
assistance
to
induce
the
client
to
continue
the
lawyer-client
relationship
once
retained.

The
committee
applied
this
analysis
to
the
question
posed
and
concluded
in
the
affirmative:
“A
non-profit
criminal
defense
organization
may
set
up
and
administer
GoFundMe
pages
for
the
benefit
of
indigent
current
clients,
provided
that
the
financial
assistance
is
rendered
as
gifts,
not
loans,
and
the
financial
assistance
does
not
promise
financial
assistance
prior
to
retention
or
as
an
inducement
to
continue
the
lawyer-client
relationship.”

So
once
again,
technology
saves
the
day
—
or
at
least
offers
that
potential.
While
it
may
not
be
a
silver
bullet,
technology
continues
to
offer
new
and
unexpected
ways
to
support
access
to
justice
—
especially
as
traditional
funding
sources
become
increasingly
unreliable.
AI
tools
are
slowly
proving
their
value
in
legal
aid
settings,
and
now
crowdfunding,
under
the
right
circumstances,
has
been
deemed
ethically
viable
for
nonprofit
legal
organizations
in
New
York.

These
solutions
won’t
fix
the
system,
but
they
can
help
fill
the
gaps
in
a
world
where
the
demand
for
legal
help
far
exceeds
the
resources
available.
With
the
possibility
of
federal
funding
freezes
becoming
more
imminent
than
ever,
the
legal
community
needs
to
continue
to
pursue
creative,
ethically
sound
innovations
that
ensure
access
to
justice
is
available
to
everyone
—
not
just
the
small
minority
who
can
afford
it.

---

Nicole
Black


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



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



blogging


since
2005,
has
written
a



weekly
column


for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of



Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers,
co-authors



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



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



@nikiblack


and
she
can
be
reached
at




[email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

The
decisions
being
made
by
law
firms
with
regard
to
the
timing
of
their
recruitment
could
easily
have
negative
personal
ramifications
on
students
and
student
well-being.

It’s
possible
that
those
interviews
were
really
much
more
about
pre-recruiting
for
2L
summer
associates
and
scouting
talent
than
necessarily
being
about
an
increase
in
1L
summer
associate
opportunities.
But
the
impact
was
the
same:
Students
had
to
miss
a
lot
of
class
in
order
to
do
interviews.
If
the
outcome
was
that
there
weren’t
more
opportunities
out
there,
then
it
negatively
impacted
students,
because
you
are
still
graded
on
a
curve.

—

 David
Diamond,
assistant
dean
of
the
Career
Strategy
Center
at
Northwestern
Pritzker
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
Biglaw
firms’

increased
use
of
pre-recruiting
at
the
school
and
its
effect
on
students.
Diamond
said
that
while
1L
summer
placements
at
the
school
remained
flat
between
2023
and
2024,
last
year,
there
were
50%
more
interviews
for
1L
summer
associate
positions.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Brittany
Courville
has
had
an
interesting
career
path.
The
University
of
Pennsylvania
Law
grad
began
her
legal
career
at
Winston
&
Strawn
but
has
since
left
the
practice
of
law.
Courville
got
caught
up
in
the

Free
Britney
movement
—
the
online
activism
that
agitated
for
the
end
of
pop
star
Britney
Spears’s
conservatorship.
And
when
that
passion
butted
up
against
her
legal
work,
she
dipped
out
of
life
as
an
attorney
to
try
her
hand
as
an
influencer.

As
she’s
said
on
her
platform,
“Let’s
just
say
my
law
tube
career
and
my
legal
career
collided
almost
immediately,
and
I
chose
to
leave
my
first
lawyer
job
after
Britney
Spears’
manager
personally
requested
I
stopped
making
investigation
videos
about
her
on
YouTube.
And
I
refused.
So
I
quit,
and
that
sucked.
That
sucked,”
she
said.
“I’m
retiring
from
the
practice
of
law.
Moving
forward,
I
will
seek
to
make
more
decisions
that
allow
me
to
experience
true
freedom.”

With
163,000
subscribers
on
her
YouTube
channel,
Courville
continues
to
speak
about
celebrity
conservatorships.
Yes,
Britney
is,
in
fact

free
now,
but
a
frequent
subject
of
Courville’s
content
is Lima
Jevremovic,
who
served
one
year
as
a
court-appointed
guardian
of
Bam
Margera,
of
MTV’s
Jackass
fame.

As

reported
by
Law.com:

In
her
discussion
of
the
Margera
case,
Courville
has
alleged
that
Jevremovic
has
conspired
with
Margera’s
family
and
friends
to
gain
control
of
his
assets,
according
to
a
2022
suit
by
Jevremovic.
Courville
has
also
suggested
Jevremovic
was
criminally
liable
in
connection
with
the
treatment
she
provided
to
a
former
homeless
woman,
Amanda
Rabb,
who
died
in
2021,
the
suit
claimed.
Jevremovic’s
suit
claims
she
and
her
family
have
had
to
move
multiple
times
due
to
death
threats
from
Courville’s
followers.

Which,
has
led
to
some
legal
issues.
Jevremovic
filed
a
lawsuit
against
Courville
alleging
the
former
attorney
“created
a
scandal
concocting
ersatz
villains
out
of
Ms.
Jevremović
and
her
wellness
supplements
and
healthcare
solutions
software
business,
AURA.” 

But
in
a
series
of
related
cases,
U.S.
District
Judge
Zahid
Quaraishi dismissed
them
without
prejudice,
relying
on

Sciore
v.
Phung,
holding
that
“Internet
forums
…
conveys
a
strong
signal
to
a
reasonable
reader
that
the
statements
are
defendant’s
opinion”
and
are
given
“less
credence”
than
“similar
remarks
made
in
other
contexts.”

And
Corville’s
attire
played
a
role
in
his
thinking:

The
judge
noted
that
Courville,
when
speaking
on
her
videos,
“can
be
seen
wearing
either
panda
ears
or
bunny
ears
while
making
her
statements,
while
a
sparkly
unicorn
piñata
rests
prominently
in
the
background.”

In
addition,
Courville
calls
herself
a
“legal
edutainer,”
and
refers
to
her
opinions
about
Margera
and
Jeremovic
as
mere
“theories,”
the
judge
said.

Jevremovic
is
currently
on
the
fourth
amended
complaint,
and
the
pleadings
on
Corville’s
motion
to
dismiss
are
ongoing.
But
Jeremovic
is
determined
to
chart
out
how
defamation
works
online:

Boiling
down
the
defamatory
statements
against
Jeremovic
is
difficult
because
Corville
made
“hour
after
hour”
of
claims,
“except
to
say
that
Ms.
Jeremovic
is
the
devil
incarnate,
trying
to
steal
money
and
take
advantage
of
people
with
addiction
problems,”
said
[Jeremovic’s
attorney
Elliot
Ostrove,]
of
Epstein
Ostrove
in
Edison,
New
Jersey.

“She’s
trying
to
be
a
social
media
personality
and
internet
star,
basically
trying
to
make
a
living
by
riling
up
other
people,
and
it
seems
to
work
to
some
degree,”
Ostrove
said.
“Defamation
laws
need
to
exist
online.
Just
because
somebody’s
puts
themselves
online
and
uses
their
finger
quotes
or
uses
silly
backgrounds
or
pretend
like
they’re
saying,
‘well,
it’s
just
my
opinion,’
they
can’t
then
spew
falsehoods
that
…
actually
harm
people,
and
hide
behind
the
fact
that
they’re
doing
it
on
the
Internet.
If
they’re
going
to
put
information
out
there,
and
they’re
going
to
put
it
out
there
in
a
way
to
try
to
rile
people
up,
they
need
to
make
sure
what
they’re
saying
is
true
and
accurate.”

Because
if
you
can’t
trust
a
washed-out
Biglaw
attorney
in
bunny
ears,
who
can
you
trust?

---

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].