Category: News Feeds

The
Department
of
Education’s

recent
“Dear
Colleague”
letter
threatened
all
schools
that
fail
to
whitewash
their
curricula
with
having
federal
funding
snatched
from
them.
And
while
it’s
nice
to
see
schools
take
stands
for
diversity,
being
on
the
right
side
of
history
usually
doesn’t
pay
the
bills
quite
like
falling
in
line.
Law
schools
have
already
begun
scrubbing
mentions
of
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
(DEI)
from
their
websites
to
stay
in
the
federal
funding
running.

Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:

Law
schools
including
Cornell
Law
School,
Vanderbilt
Law
School,
and
the
University
of
Virginia
School
of
Law
have
axed
the
word
“diversity”
from
their
community-focused
webpages.
The
Antonin
Scalia
Law
School
took
down
its
diversity
page
entirely.
…
Schools
are
facing
a
Feb.
28
deadline
to
ensure
their
DEI
policies,
initiatives
and
programs
do
not
violate
federal
law
or
risk
their
federal
funding,
according
to
a

Feb.
14
letter
from
Craig
Trainor,
the
acting
assistant
secretary
for
Civil
Rights
at
the
Education
Department.

Now
that
is
a
photo-finish
deadline
—
it’s
the
classy
way
of
saying
“get
this
diversity
shit
wrapped
up
before
Black
History
Month
ends.”

We
will
see
varied
approaches
to
the
government’s
DEI
ban
over
time.
It
may
live
on
under
different
names;
for
example,
what
was
once
Vanderbilt’s
“Office
of
Diversity,
Equity
and
Community”
is
now
their
“Office
of
Culture
and
Community.”
Is
culture
their
tongue-in-cheek
nod
to
diversity
and
equity,
or
will
the
modus
operandi
change
with
the
name?
If
the
former,
good
luck
with
getting
grants.
If
there
is
an
actual
change,
how
will
Vandy’s
culture
and
community
change
over
time?
If
it
continues
to
look
how
it
does,
will
they
risk
the
proxy
suits
the
DOE
was
teasing?
Time
will
tell.

Law
Schools
Are
Dropping
‘Diversity’
From
Their
DEI
Branding
[Bloomberg
Law]

Earlier:

The
Department
Of
Education
Finally
Dropped
The
‘No
DEI
By
Proxy’
Shoe
We
Were
All
Waiting
For

---

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

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.

“Trump
comes
close
to
the
red
line
of
openly
defying
judges,
experts
say;
Faced
with
judges’
orders
to
block
certain
initiatives,
the
Trump
administration
has
found
ways
to
tell
courts
it
still
has
the
authority
to
act”: Justin
Jouvenal,
Leo
Sands,
and
Ann
E.
Marimow
of
The
Washington
Post
have this
report.

“Judge
asks
if
‘unadulterated
animus’
is
driving
Trump’s
trans
troop
ban;
In
a
sometimes-fiery
hearing,
a
federal
judge
said
that
the
Trump
administration’s
assertion
that
troops’
pronouns
are
harming
military
readiness
is
‘frankly
ridiculous’”: Casey
Parks
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.

“Pivotal
Trial
Begins
in
Texas:
Will
Johnson
&
Johnson’s
Third
Talc
Bankruptcy
Survive?
U.S.
Bankruptcy
Judge
Christopher
Lopez
heard
opening
statements
on
Tuesday
in
a
two-week
trial
over
the
fate
of
Johnson
&
Johnson’s
third
talcum
powder
bankruptcy.” Amanda
Bronstad
has this
report online
at
Texas
Lawyer.

“Justice
Dept.
Official
Suggests
That
Aiding
Trump
Outweighs
Prosecutions;
Emil
Bove
III,
the
acting
deputy
attorney
general,
tried
to
persuade
a
judge
to
let
him
drop
a
corruption
case
against
Mayor
Eric
Adams;
He
said
the
mayor
was
crucial
to
the
president’s
agenda”: Jonah
E.
Bromwich,
Benjamin
Weiser,
Hurubie
Meko,
and
William
K.
Rashbaum
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.

“Missouri
Clinics
Resume
Abortions,
Following
Abortion
Rights
Referendum;
Abortion
opponents
had
tried
to
block,
or
severely
limit,
the
procedure,
against
the
will
of
voters
who
in
November
enshrined
abortion
rights
in
the
state
constitution”: Kate
Zernike
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“Lawyer
asks
federal
judge
to
recuse
himself
due
to
pronoun
policy
in
courtroom;
Judge
S.
Kato
Crews
is
one
of
six
judges
on
Colorado’s
US
District
Court
requiring
parties
to
use
others’
‘applicable
pronouns’
in
their
courtrooms”: Michael
Karlik
of
Colorado
Politics
has this
report.

The
phrase
“no
harm,
no
foul”
doesn’t
apply
to
law
enforcement
personnel,
whether
they’re
patrol
officers
or
the
chief
local
prosecutor.
Instead
—
thanks
to
the qualified
immunity
doctrine —
the
phrase
is:
“whatever
amount
of
harm,
no
foul.”

As
long
as
the
harm
isn’t
something specifically covered
by
precedent,
the
general
feeling
of
courts
is
that
law
enforcement
shouldn’t
be
punished
for
rights
violations
they
can
plausibly
(at
least
under
precedent)
claim
they had
no
idea were
rights
violations,
no
matter
how
immediately
egregious
those
rights
violations
were.

And
so
it
is
here,
even
if
this
case
was
last
reviewed
by
the
appeals
court least
likely
to
cut
cops
slack:
the
Ninth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.

Here’s
the
background
of
the
case,
which
shows
just
how
routinely
awful
law
enforcement
can
be,
especially
when
they
know
they’ll
rarely
be
required
to
face
a
jury,
much
less
face
any
internal
discipline
for
abusing
people’s
trust,
if
not
their
constitutional
rights.

An
Oregon
woman’s
nude
photos
ended
up
the
topic
of
conversation
in
her
small
town
after
a
prosecutor
looked
through
her
sensitive
cellphone
data
and
told
the
county
sheriff
what
he
found
despite
no
warrant,
no
consent
and
no
suspicion
that
she
had
committed
a
crime.

[Sad
trombone]:

But
the
district
attorney
involved
won’t
face
legal
consequences
under
a
federal
appeals
court
ruling
released
Monday.

Here’s
more
of
the
story,
via Oregon
Live’s
reporting.
The
plaintiff,
Haley
Olson,
ran
a
(legal)
marijuana
shop
in
Oregon.
She
was
pulled
over
in
Idaho
(where
recreation
use/possession
isn’t
legal)
and
charged
with
possession.
During
the
search
of
her
vehicle,
Idaho
State
troopers
found
a
business
card
belonging
to
her
boyfriend,
Grant
County
(OR)
deputy
Tyler
Smith.

Olson
consented
to
a
search
of
her
cell
phone.
(Folks,
please never do
this.)
The
state
police
performed
a
forensic
extraction
of
her
phone’s
contents.
Shortly
thereafter,
state
prosecutors
dropped
the
charges
against
Olson.

But
Idaho
law
enforcement
still
had
a
copy
of
Olson’s
phone
data.
Suddenly,
that
was
of
some
interest
to
her
boyfriend’s
employer,
the
Grant
County
sheriff’s
department.

But Glenn
Palmer,
the
Grant
County
sheriff
at
the
time,
had
called
the
Idaho
trooper
who
handled
Olson’s
case
shortly
after
her
arrest.
Palmer
had
apparently
heard
about
the
arrest
from
another
sheriff’s
office
employee
and
was
“curious”
about
whether
Olson’s
phone
might
reveal
misconduct
on
Smith’s
part,
the
appellate
court
wrote.

Palmer
learned
during
the
conversation
that
the
deputy’s
card
had
been
discovered
in
Olson’s
car
and
asked
the
Idaho
trooper
to
share
the
contents
of
Olson’s
phone,
but
Idaho
authorities
rejected
his
request,
according
to
the
opinion.

That
should
have
ended
that.
And
I
don’t
really
have
an
objection
to
a
deputy’s
employer
wanting
to
see
if
their
employee
might
be
involved
in
things
an
officer
shouldn’t
be,
even
if
that
thing
was
only
assisting
with
the
sale
of
a
now-legal
drug.

But
it
didn’t
end
there.
After
being
rejected
by
the
Idaho
State
Police,
Sheriff
Palmer
approached
district
attorney
Jim
Carpenter
and
encouraged
him
to
obtain
a
copy
of
Olson’s
phone
contents
and
review
them.
Carpenter
did.
He
sent
an
email
to
Idaho
prosecutors
requesting
a
copy
and
promising
it
was
for
“internal
review
only”
and
wouldn’t
be
shared
with
anyone
outside
of
his
office.

Of
course,
that’s
not
what
happened.

Carpenter
immediately
violated
his
pledge
to
Idaho
police
and
asked
detectives
from
two
outside
agencies,
the
Oregon
State
Police
and
the
Deschutes
County
Sheriff’s
Office,
to
review
the
flash
drive
material,
according
to
the
appellate
opinion.

Both
agencies
declined,
because
it
wasn’t
tied
to
a
criminal
investigation,
the
opinion
said.

Carpenter
reviewed
the
phone
contents
himself
in
April
2019,
found
nude
photos
of
both
Olson
and
Smith
and
contacted
the
sheriff
to
tell
him
that
the
phone
showed
evidence
of
an
intimate
relationship
between
Smith
and
Olson,
the
ruling
said.

Carpenter
also
added
that
he
had
seen
nothing
that
indicated
anything
improper
was
happening.
Nonetheless,
he
seemed
extremely
insistent
that
the
sheriff
view
the
contents
of
the
phone,
referring
not-all-that-cryptically
to
content
“that
couldn’t
be
unseen”
once
viewed.
At
some
point,
the
sheriff
finally
gave
in.

And
then,
according
the
lawsuit,
he
began
handing
this
content
out.

Olson
said
a
Grant
County
deputy
whom
she
didn’t
know
came
into
her
marijuana
store
and
told
her
that
he
had
heard
“there’s
some
pretty
smokin’
pictures
of
you
going
around
the
sheriff’s
office,”
the
appeals
court
wrote.

Another
witness
reported
observing
two
sheriff’s
employees
looking
at
nude
photos
of
Olson
on
a
phone,
according
to
the
opinion.

Nothing’s
going
to
happen
to
the
DA,
who
—
despite
declaring
there
was
nothing
of
(criminal)
interest
on
Olson’s
phone
—
felt
compelled
to
share
the
stuff
of
(prurient)
interest
with
the
sheriff.
And,
apparently
(or
allegedly,
if
you
prefer),
the
sheriff
felt
compelled
to
share
that
with
his
employees.

The
end
result
is
the
dismissal
of
the
prosecutor
from
this
lawsuit,
despite
the
Ninth
Circuit
making
this
statement
early
on
in
its decision [PDF]:

We
have
no
difficulty
concluding
that
Carpenter’s
search
was
unreasonable.

Even
before
reaching
the
question
about
the
unauthorized
sharing
of
the
unreasonably
searched
data,
the
court
has
already
found
the
original
search
was
unlawful.
It
goes
on
to
dismantle
the
DA’s
justifications
for
his
search:

Compared
to
those
weighty
privacy
interests,
the
two
asserted
government
interests
are
unavailing.
Palmer
was
“curious”
about
whether
Olson’s
phone
might
reveal
misconduct
on
Smith’s
part.
Carpenter
was
interested
in
reviewing
the
phone
for
possible
Brady
material
in
cases
where
Smith
might
testify.
Olson
was
arrested
in
Idaho
for
the
possession
of
marijuana,
which
is
not
illegal
in
Oregon,
and
there
was
no
reason
for
Palmer
or
Carpenter
to
suspect
that
Smith
had
taken
part
in
criminal
activity.
Not
surprisingly,
Carpenter
was
never
able
to
articulate
which
cases
he
was
concerned
that
Smith
would
testify
in,
and
for
which
any
Brady
material
regarding
this
incident
would
be
relevant.
No
precedent
supports
invoking
a
hypothetical
Brady
concern
to
overcome
the
warrant
requirement.

Not
obvious
enough
of
a
rights
violation,
says
the
Appeals
Court.

Although
we
conclude
that
Carpenter’s
warrantless
search
of
Olson’s
cell
phone
constituted
a
Fourth
Amendment
violation,
the
law
was
not
clearly
established
at
the
time
of
the
search.

The
DA
walks
away
from
this
lawsuit.
As
disappointing
as
that
is,
at
least
the
Ninth
Circuit
goes
where
most
appellate
level
courts
won’t:
it
establishes
precedent
so
the
next
fucker
who
tries
this
shit
won’t
get
away
with
it.

Because
it
is
important
to
lay
down
a
marker
for
future
cases,
we
heed
the
Court’s
call
in
Pearson
to
develop
constitutional
precedent
and
conclude
that
Carpenter’s
search
infringed
on
Olson’s
Fourth
Amendment
rights.

And
that,
as
sad
as
it
is
to
say,
is way better
than
the
nothing
courts
often
content
themselves
with
doing
in
cases
dealing
with
obvious
and
egregious
rights
violations.
So,
of
course,
there’s
a
concurrence
(this
one
written
by Federalist
Society
member
Judge
Daniel
Bress)
that
says
he
agrees
the
DA
should
get
away
with
this
but
that
the
court
went
too
far
by
establishing
precedent:

I
join
only
Parts
I
and
II.B
of
the
court’s
opinion.
Because
Carpenter
is
entitled
to
qualified
immunity
based
on
the
lack
of
clearly
established
law,
it
is
not
necessary
to
decide
whether
Carpenter
violated
the
Fourth
Amendment.
There
may
be
instances
in
which
it
is
helpful
to
the
development
of
the
law
to
answer
the
underlying
constitutional
question
even
when
the
defendant
prevails
on
qualified
immunity
grounds.
But
this
is
not
such
a
case.

Of
course
“this
is
not
such
a
case.”
It
would
probably
be
difficult-to-impossible
to
find
a
case Trump
appointee
Judge
Bress (he
replaced
Alex
Kozinski)
might
find
worthy
of
establishing
precedent
when
it
comes
to
law
enforcement
and
civil
rights
violations.
Maybe
he’ll
get
to
handle
a
J6
case
(what’s
left
of
them
after
Trump’s
mass
pardoning)
that
may
force
him
to
see
rights-violating
cops
as
being
on
the
wrong
side
of
the
law.
But
today
isn’t
the
day.

As
it
stands
now,
the
DA
gets
to
walk
but
DAs
who
follow
in
his
footsteps
won’t.
That’s
the
only
positive
outcome
of
this
decision
—
yet
another
one
that
lets
cops
and
their
accomplices
know
there’s
almost
nothing
to
fear
when
they
get
sued
for
violating
rights.

Court
Grants
Immunity
To
DA
Who
Shared
Nude
Photos
From
A
Searched
Phone
With
Local
Law
Enforcement

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Trump
EO
Tries
To
Destroy
Whatever
Corporate
Regulatory
Oversight
Hasn’t
Been
Already
Killed
By
DOGE
And
The
Supreme
Court

Michigan
Appeals
Court
Says
State’s
‘Terroristic
Threat’
Statute
Is
Unconstitutional

Trump
Is
Going
To
Make
Private
Prison
Companies
Rich
And
They
Couldn’t
Be
Happier

*
McDermott
crosses
$2B
mark.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Linklaters
created
a
legal
exam
to
certify
AI
tools
to
provide
competent
legal
analysis.
See

California,
it’s
not
so
hard.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Having
beaten
Trump
soundly
over
and
over
again
in
the
Carroll
case,
Roberta
Kaplan
launches
legal
challenge
over
attempted
congestion
pricing
ban.
[Politico]

*
Administrative
law
judges
can
now
be
fired
at
will!
[NY
Times]

*
The
administration’s
continued
defiance
of
court
orders
brings
judge
to
the
brink
of
contempt
finding.
[Reuters]

*
Senate
Dems
want
clarity
on
reports
that
AG
Bondi
misled
them
under
oath
which
would
be
an
absolutely
not
shocking
turn
of
events.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Spirit
creditors
thought
they
were
making
one
deal
and
then
it
became
a
lot
more
expensive.
Welcome
to
Spirit.
[Law360]

Judge
Recorded
Confessing
He
Killed
His
Wife:
The
trial
is
still
underway.
The
DoD
Doesn’t
Want
Military
Families
Reading
JD
Vance’s
Book:
For
what
it’s
worth,
they
can
still
read
his
tweets.
What’s
In
A
Name?:
Rocky
&
Rihanna
show
Joe
Tacopina
a
lot
of
love
to
celebrate
beating
the
charge.
If
You
Don’t
Win,
Complain!:
The
DOJ
fights
back
against
the
rules.
Judicious
Movement:
Former
9th
Circuit
judge
laterals
to
a
different
firm.

If
you
love
to
travel,
it
used
to
be
that
running
a
law
firm
—
which,
due
to
jurisdictional
requirements,
is
effectively
a
local
business
—
could
really
cramp
your
style. 

But
in
the
post-pandemic
world,
not
only
is
working
outside
the
office
more
or
less
normalized
—
managing
a
business
from
a
remote
location
has
become
an
accepted
practice,
too. 

So
what
if
you
wanted
to
run
your
Wyoming
law
firm
while
living
in
Italy?

It’s
not
a
hypothetical! 

Our
latest
guest
on
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast
did
just
that. And
he
did
it
while
living
in
Portugal,
also!
That’s
right:
We’ve
got

Alex
Freeburg
of

Freeburg
Law
for
this
episode
of
the
pod.

I
kick
things
off
with
an
icebreaker,
asking
Alex
about
his
favorite
international
destination
(5:15)
—
his
answer
may
surprise
you! Next,
Alex
discusses
how
he
launched
his
practice
(9:23,
13:45),
as
well
as
the
unique
practice
areas
he
focused
on,
at
launch
(11:28,
18:15),
before
transitioning
to
a
personal
injury
and
civil
litigation
practice
(25:00). 

Alex
next
addresses
his
adoption
of
Microsoft
Dynamics
for
managing
his
practice
(32:59),
before
talking
further
about
how
he
invested
in
technology
to
make
his
law
firm
governable
from
anywhere
(39:00). 

After
that,
Alex
shares
why
and
how
he
and
his
family
became
digital
nomads
(44:35)
—
precisely
because
he
could
run
a
technology-focused
law
practice,
wherever
he
wanted
(47:44).
Finally,
Alex
chatted
about
how
he
has
developed
non-legal
businesses
(54:10),
including
his
process
for
fleshing
out
and
launching
those
additional
endeavors
(59:30).

With
the
right
technology,
you
can
run
a
law
firm
from
anywhere
—
including
from
another
continent! 
Find
out
how,
in
this
episode
of
the
Non-Eventcast
podcast!

---

Jared
Correia,
a
consultant
and
legal
technology
expert,
is
the
host
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
the
featured
podcast
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event
for
Tech-Perplexed
Lawyers.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

This
business
is
not
the
way
it
was
16
years
ago.
This
business
is
very
different,
and
I
don’t
expect
it
to
revert
back.
I
am
of
the
view
that
this
is
no
longer
a
one-person
job,
and
our
structure
needs
to
follow
our
culture.

—
 Barry
Wolf,
executive
partner
of
Weil,
Gotshal
&
Manges,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
the
significant
changes
that
are
coming
to
the
firm’s
leadership
structure.
As
noted
by
Am
Law,
Weil
is
creating
a
new
global
leadership
and
strategy
committee
that
will
report
to
the
management
committee,
and
is
also
adding
two
managing
partner
positions
to
support
the
executive
partner.
All
of
these
roles
will
come
with
terms,
as
well
as
a
new
succession
process.
Wolf,
who
has
been
leading
Weil
for
more
than
a
decade,
will
reach
the
firm’s
mandatory
retirement
age
to
step
down
after
2027.

---

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.

Last
March,

I
wrote
here
about

SingleFile,
a
company
whose
mission
is
to
help
businesses
navigate
complex
regulatory
environments
effortlessly
by
automating
outdated
filing
processes
and
leveraging
AI
technology
in
a
unified
cloud
platform.

Today,
it
took
a
major
step
in
driving
that
mission
forward
with
news
that
it
has
raised
$9
million
in
Series
A
funding,
bringing
its
total
funding
to
$24
million
since
its
founding
in
2019,
including
$15
million
raised
in
the
past
12
months.

The
round
was
led
by
VC
firm Foundry
Group,
which
participation
from
existing
investors
including

Pioneer
Square
Labs
and The
LegalTech
Fund,
as
well
as
law
firms

Wilson
Sonsini,

Cooley,

DLA
Piper, Fenwick
&
West, Perkins
Coie,
and
individual
lawyers
from
the
firm K&L
Gates.

“This
new
round
of
funding
marks
a
significant
milestone
for
SingleFile
as
we
continue
to
revolutionize
the
way
businesses
and
their
trusted
advisers
handle
ever-increasing
and
repetitive
compliance
burdens,”
said

Aaron
Finn,
SingleFile’s
CEO.

The
Seattle-based
company
company
will
use
the
funding
primarily
to
expand
its
technology
platform
and
scale
operations,
with
a
particular
focus
on
research
and
development
to
bring
additional
compliance
capabilities
to
its
platform,
Finn
said.

The
company
has
also
expanded
its
executive
team,
adding

Mindy
Lauck
as
chief
product
officer
and

Teresa
Kotwis
as
chief
financial
officer.
Lauck
has
been
a
CEO
and
product
leader
at
multiple
companies,
while
Kotwis
likewise
has
been
CFO
at
a
number
of
startups
and
established
companies.

Digital
Compliance
Platform

The
company,
which
spun
out
of
Pioneer
Square
Labs’
Seattle
incubator
in
2019,
serves
law
firms,
corporations
and
investor
firms
with
a
digital
platform
for
filing
and
tracking
annual
reports
and
other
state-required
filings.
It
also
offers
entity
management
and
resident
agent
services. 

Last
year,
in
anticipation
of
the
beneficial
ownership
filing
requirements
under
the
Corporate
Transparency
Act
taking
effect,
the
company
launched
a
module
specifically
for
CTA
reporting. 
The
CTA
requirement
helped
the
company’s
business
pipeline
“blow
up,”
Finn

told
me
last
March.

Despite
current
uncertainty
around
CTA
implementation
due
to
various
legal
challenges,
Finn
said
the
company
continues
to
see
substantial
growth,
particularly
in
relation
to
CTA
compliance.
In
fact,
it
experienced
its
most
significant
growth
since
inception
during
November
and
December,
with
usage
by
law
firms
increasing
more
than
threefold
compared
to
the
previous
year.

“Even
with
the
CTA
uncertainty
that
happened
during
that
time,
it
was
still
quite
a
lot
of
growth
for
us
and
quite
a
lot
of
customers
wanting
to
get
filed
before
that
original
deadline
and
some
just
wanting
to
get
ready
to
file,”
Finn
said
in
an
interview.

He
said
the
company
continues
to
gain
significant
traction
in
the
legal
market,
and
now
serves
more
than
60
law
firms,
including
33
Am
Law
200
firms,
and
more
than
4,000
customers
overall.

One
System
of
Record

But
as
much
as
the
CTA
has
been
a
boon
to
SingleFile’s
business,
Finn
emphasizes
that
it
is
not
its
only
business
or
even
the
majority
of
its
business.

“We
believe
that
all
of
your
information,
all
of
your
legal
entity
information,
needs
to
be
maintained
in
one
system
of
record
so
that
when
information
changes,
it
can
update
any
compliance
filings
that
are
required,”
he
said.

The
company
positions
itself
as
bringing
modern
technology
to
what
has
traditionally
been
a
manual,
paper-intensive
industry.

“The
whole
thesis
of
our
company
is
that
modern
technology
can
help
take
the
manual
paperwork
burden
out
of
this
industry,”
Finn
said.
“We’re
seeing
it
really
blossom
with
CTA,
combined
with
filing
and
registered
agent
services.”

Customers
particularly
benefit
from
the
SingleFile’s
cloud-native
platform,
Finn
believes.

“Because
we’re
using
cloud-based
technology,
it
allows
any
of
the
constituents
that
are
involved
in
these
compliance
filings
to
be
able
to
participate,
while
the
company
maintains
the
data
in
one
place
and
has
that
system
of
record.”

‘A
Generational
Business’

Jaclyn
Freeman
Hester,
partner
at
Foundry
Group,
cited
the
company’s
“sticky
product”
and
strategic
distribution
model
as
factors
in
the
decision
to
lead
the
round.
“SingleFile
has
the
makings
of
a
generational
business
—
a
sticky
product
that’s
delivering
exceptional
value
to
customers,
a
strategic
distribution
model,
and
best-in-class
SaaS
metrics,”
she
said.

The
company
plans
to
use
the
new
funding
to
expand
beyond
its
current
offerings
into
additional
compliance
areas.
Finn
indicated
that
customers
have
requested
capabilities
for
blue
sky
filings,
SEC
filings,
and
business
licensing,
among
other
compliance
requirements
that
are
typically
handled
manually
or
through
consultants.

“We
just
want
to
keep
bringing
more
and
more
of
this
compliance
work
into
our
automation
and
into
our
intelligent
network.”

While
law
firms
are
a
primary
channel
for
SingleFile’s
services,
the
company’s
business
model
typically
involves
building
direct
relationships
with
the
law
firms’
clients.
The
exception
is
in
private
wealth
or
private
client
groups
at
law
firms,
where
the
firms
themselves
become
the
direct
clients.

‘Jurisdictional
Intelligence’

SingleFile
competes
with
traditional
players
in
the
registered
agent
and
legal
filing
industry
such
as
CT
Corporation,
owned
by
Wolters
Kluwer,
and
CSC
Global.
The
company
differentiates
itself
through
what
Finn
describes
as
its
“jurisdictional
intelligence”
—
a
cloud-native
infrastructure
that
helps
legal
entities
registered
across
multiple
jurisdictions
understand
and
maintain
their
compliance
requirements.

“Think
about
all
the
government
agencies
that
have
all
these
requirements
that
businesses
need
to
follow,”
Finn
said.
“…
How
do
we
go
and
take
all
this
jurisdictional
intelligence
and
bring
it
into
one
system
that’s
smart
enough
to
understand
and
compare
and
make
sure
that
any
legal
entity
that
might
be
registered
in
multiple
jurisdictions
across
the
globe
knows
what
compliance
requirements
they
have
to
follow
to
maintain
good
standing.”

Looking
ahead,
Finn
sees
opportunities
to
expand
the
platform’s
capabilities
to
address
the
broader
landscape
of
corporate
compliance
requirements.

He
said
the
federal
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
has
estimated
that
compliance
with
federal
code
paperwork
requirements
alone
creates
over
10
billion
hours
of
burden
annually
on
the
U.S.
economy,
with
a
significant
portion
falling
on
businesses — and
that
figure
does
not
include
all
the
state
codes
a
business
has
to
follow.

“You’re
talking
tens
of
billions
of
hours
of
non-tax
compliance
work
that
has
to
be
done
just
in
the
U.S.
alone
for
hundreds
of
millions
— 40
million
to
100
million
— 
legal
entities,”
Finn
said.
“You’re
talking
about
a
lot
of
paperwork
burden
for
a
lot
of
people.”