Category: News Feeds

If
I
had
to
rank
motions
I
dislike
the
most,
Rule
12,
that
motion
to
strike
has
got
to
be
up
there.
And
I
would
say,
scandalous
or
impertinent
matters
in
your
pleadings
are
really
the
standard.
We
shouldn’t
be
striking
a
class
action
complaint
at
this
stage,
with
no
discovery
and
without
determining
whether
the
viability
of
the
class
action
can
develop.

—
At
the
recent
Miami
Law
Class
Action
&
Complex
Litigation
Forum,
Judge
Rodolfo
A.
Ruiz
II

explained
to
a
room
of
attorneys
the
exact
kind
of
motions
that
piss
him
off.
Judge
Roy
K.
Altman
agreed,
saying,
“I
don’t
think
I’ve
ever
granted
one.”

---

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].

Is
it
a
sign
of
a
healthy
judiciary
when
the
country’s
largest
professional
association
of
lawyers
has
to
formally
vote
on
whether
Supreme
Court
justices
should
follow
basic
ethical
rules?
Asking
for
an
American
in
the
year
2025.

Earlier
today,
the
American
Bar
Association
unanimously
adopted
a
resolution
urging
the
justices
to
implement
a
binding
and
enforceable
ethics
code
—
one
that,
at
minimum,
meets
the
standards
already
required
of
lower
federal
judges.

Chief
Justice
Roberts
will
not
do
a
damn
thing.
That’s
not
fair.
He
might
characterize
it
as


a
dangerous
attack
on
the
federal
courts
to
suggest
justices
shouldn’t
be
stuffing
their
pockets
with
billionaire
money
like
they’re
in
the
money
booth
from

Concentration,
Or
he
might
ignore
it
and
write
another

lengthy
diatribe
about
typewriters.
In
either
event,
he
won’t
do
anything
to
actually
address
the
ethical
quagmire.

The
resolution,
proposed
by
the
New
York
City
Bar
Association
and
co-sponsored
by
the
King
County
Bar
Association
of
Washington,
is
hardly
radical.
As
City
Bar
President
Muhammad
U.
Faridi
put
it,
ensuring
the
Supreme
Court
adheres
to
the
“highest
ethical
standards”
is
about
protecting
public
confidence
in
the
Court.
But
Roberts
compared
people
being
mean
to
the
Court
on
Twitter
to
judges
having
crosses
burned
in
their
yards
in
the
60s
so
he’s
got
to
be
cooking
up
quite
the
disingenuous
analogy
for
this
one.

The
ethics
debate
is
not
partisan
except
to
the
extent
one
side
of
the
ideological
aisle
is
disproportionately
caught
with
their
hands
in
the
cookie
jar.
Clarence
Thomas
has
been
enjoying
undisclosed
luxury
vacations
(and
then
some),
Sam
Alito’s
moonlighting
as
an
aristocrat
(literally),
and
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
defiantly
insists
that
any
attempt
to
hold
the
justices
to
an
ethical
standard

amounts
to
a
constitutional
crisis.

In
late
2023,
the
Supreme
Court
tried
to
defuse
mounting
criticism

by
releasing
a
“Code
of
Conduct”
with
no
enforcement
mechanism,
no
penalties
for
violations,
and
no
meaningful
changes
to
how
the
justices
operate.
It
turned
upside
down
faster
than
an
American
flag
at
the
Alito
home.

The
idea
that
the
most
powerful
court
in
the
country
should
be
held
to
the
same
standard
as
a
district
court
judge
shouldn’t
be
controversial.
And
yet,
here
we
are,
still
having
to
talk
about
it.

Public
trust
in
the
Supreme
Court
is
already
in
freefall.
If
the
justices
continue
to
ignore
calls
for
real
ethics
reform,
they’re
only
proving
the
critics
right.
And
at
some
point,
even
this
Court
will
have
to
recognize
that
legitimacy
is
—
like
they’ll
soon
say
about
citizenship
—
not
a
birthright.

---

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.

Conspiracy
theorist-cum-interim
U.S.
Attorney
Ed
Martin
is
having
a
ball
with
his
newfound
position.
Back
in
2021,
he
was
out
there

leading
“Stop
the
Steal”
chants,
hyping
up
the
crowd
that
would
storm
the
Capitol
the
next
day.
Now
as
the
top
federal
prosecutor
in
Washington
D.C.
he
gets
to

fire
all
the
career
prosecutors
involved
in
enforcing
the
nation’s
general
prohibition
against
taking
a
dump
in
the
Rotunda.

He’s
also
having
fun
writing
letters
setting
out
legal
gibberish
for
social
media
consumption.

As
one
does.

Earlier
today,
Martin
shared
a
MASH
note
he
wrote
to
shadow
president
Elon
Musk
promising
to
use
the
full
force
of
his
office
(assuming
he
still
has

any
FBI
agents
that
haven’t
been
loyalty
purged)
to
go
after
anyone
getting
in
the
way
of
DOGE’s
mission.
Which
mostly
seems
to
be
sending

high
school
interns
on
field
trips
to

seize
everyone’s
social
security
numbers.

“SENT
VIA
X.”
This
is
truly
the
dumbest
timeline.
Look,
DOGE
is
clearly
a
real
entity
because
in
that
place
where
a
serious
letter
would
put
an
address
it
says
“United
States
Government.”
Cannot
argue
with
that!

The
“threats,
confrontations,
or
other
actions”
eluded
to
seem
little
more
than
people


identifying
the
adolescent
Keystone
Kops
working
for
Musk
and

government
security
guards
and

senior
officials
doing
their
jobs
as

actual
government
employees
and
trying
to
prevent
DOGE
from
busting
into
government
offices.
Martin
notes
that
these
actions
“may
break
numerous
laws.”

Which
is
code
for

does
not
break
any
laws
but
I
need
to
sound
tough.
When
something
actually
breaks
the
law,
prosecutors
get
specific
—
usually
citing
a
violation
similar
to
but
far
in
excess
of
what
allegedly
happened
for
maximum
intimidation
value.
When
they
write
“I
dunno,
but
that
don’t
seem
legal,”
they’re
telling
you
that
they
have
nothing.

No
they
have
not.

It
is
not
illegal
just
to
name
a
(quasi)
government
employee.
Musk
must
be

asking
his
AI
for
legal
advice
again.
Nor
is
it
illegal
for
security
to
secure
federal
buildings
from
people
who
aren’t
authorized
to
be
there.
In
fact,
if
Martin
could
cite
any
law
being
broken
it
would
be
a
tortured
reading
of
the
laws
against
trespassing
on
government
property
or
corruptly
obstructing
an
official
proceeding
—
laws
that
would
remind
everybody
of
the
time
he
played
cheerleader
for
a
bunch
of
guys
who
turned
around
and
busted
into
Nancy
Pelosi’s
office.
Best
not
shine
a
light
on
the
elements
of
those
offenses.

And
while
Martin’s
making
up
laws
for
Elon,
he
also
took
some
time
to
concoct
this

goofy
threat
against
Senator
Chuck
Schumer.

Schumer’s
remarks
were
a
rhetorical
callback
to
Kavanaugh’s
own
statement
“I
fear
that
the
whole
country
will
reap
the
whirlwind,”
when
Kavanaugh
bemoaned
the
possibility
that
America
might
actually
scrutinize
guys
like
him.
And
the
price
Schumer
referred
to
was
the
shellacking
Republicans
took
at
the
polls
after
the
Supreme
Court
took
to
playing
Mad
Libs
with
constitutional
law.
A
whirlwind
that
Trump
just
now
managed
to
overcome.

This
is
not
a
serious
law
enforcement
inquiry,
but
trying
to
bully
a
sitting
Senator
can
score
some
social
media
buzz.
Schumer,
of
course,
remembers
when
public
officials
were

actually
threatened
by
the
Capitol
rioters
that
Martin
spent
the
last
few
years
trying
to
release.
On
the
spectrum
of
threats
against
public
officials,
telling
a
bloodthirsty
audience
to
“fight
like
hell”
—
as
Trump
did
on
January
6
—
comes
much
closer
to
the
mark
than
any
of
this
stuff.

Again,
Martin
has
no
interest
in
pulling
that
thread.

This
isn’t
enforcing
“law”
so
much
as
prosecutorial
cosplay.
His
tenure
as
interim
U.S.
Attorney
is
a
taxpayer-funded
performance
piece.
Unfortunately
it’s
one
we’re
going
to
be
stuck
with
for
a
while.

---

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.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

The
Kansas
City
Chiefs
look
to
win
their
third
Super
Bowl
in
a
row
this
week.
Which
sports
legend
owns
the
trademark
to
“three-peat”
and
a
slew
of
related
phrases?

Hint:
Twenty
years
ago
the
sports
figure
told
ESPN
their
philosophy
on
owning
trademarks,
“It’s
like
going
out
there
and
picking
up
a
penny
on
the
ground,”
he
said.
“I
don’t
pay
any
attention
to
it.
If
somebody
wants
to
license
that
phrase,
we’ll
license
it
to
them.
But
I
don’t
go
out
and
pursue
it.
We
don’t
sell
it;
we
don’t
browbeat
anybody.
If
they
want
it,
they
go
to
somebody
and
they’ll
pay
us
a
royalty
on
it.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

In
a
year
that’s
been
full
of
surprises,
what
may
be
the
biggest
surprise
of
all
is
the
sudden
interest
people
now
have
in
going
to
law
school.
Law
school
applicants
aren’t
just
up,
they’re

way
up.
According
to
LSAC,
thus
far,
there’s
been
a
23.7
percent
increase
in
law
school
applicants
nationally
(i.e.,
~9,000
more
applicants),
and
all
those
applicants
have
been
busy,
accounting
for
a
28%
increase
in
filed
applications
nationwide
(i.e.,
~70,000
more
applications).
In
fact,
in
some
states,
law
schools
are
being
“flooded”
with
applicants
—
with
some
schools
seeing
a
50%
increase
in
applicants.

Take,
for
example,
Pennsylvania,
the
state
where
the
U.S.
Constitution
was
signed
by
the
Framers.
As
noted
by
the
Legal
Intelligencer,
the
eight
law
schools
in
the
Keystone
State
have
seen
a
25%
increase
in
applications
compared
to
last
year.
Whaddaya
know,
it’s
like
people
suddenly
have
an
interest
in
law
and
justice
during
a
time
when
the
rule
of
law
seems
like
it
may
be
in
grave
jeopardy.

So,
which
Pennsylvania
law
schools
are
seeing
a
noted
increase
in
applicants?
The

Legal
Intelligencer
has
the
details:

Dean
Daniel
Filler
of
Drexel
University
Kline
School
of
Law
is
seeing
a
lot
of
similarities
in
this
application
cycle
to
Trump’s
first
go-round
in
the
White
House.
“It’s
similar
to
eight
or
nine
years
ago,
the
law
really
feels
important
right
now
within
society,”
he
said.
“In
moments
when
the
law
feels
really
steady,
it’s
unclear
how
much
influence
the
rule
of
law
has
in
the
life
of
a
20-year-old.
With
these
dramatic
shifts
[right
now],
for
students
and
young
adults,
the
law
really
frames
the
nature
of
their
freedoms
and
their
choices.
A
world
like
that
sends
more
people
to
law
school
because
they
want
to
have
a
voice.”

It’s
nice
to
“have
a
voice”
when
it
seems
like
democracy
may
be
at
stake,
but
what
could
be
at
stake
for
these
would-be
lawyers’
careers?
Matthew
Saleh,
senior
associate
dean
for
enrollment
management
and
financial
aid
at
Rutgers
Law
School
has
some
thoughts
on
that.

Over-enrollment
should
be
a
huge
concern,
especially
during
a
time
when
there’s
a
government
hiring
freeze
with
an
end
date
yet
to
be
determined.
How
will
the
market
respond
to
a
glut
of
lawyers?
Does
anyone
remember
the
“lost
generation”
of
lawyers
who
graduated
in
2010,
and
went
on
to
have
some
of
the
worst
employment
outcomes
on
record?
We
definitely
don’t
want
another
repeat
of
that,
but
it
sure
is
nice
to
see
how
many
people
have
an
eye
on
the
law
when
it
desperately
needs
a
helping
hand.

Best
of
luck
this
law
school
application
cycle,
because
this
could
get
pretty
competitive!

Pennsylvania
Law
Schools
Are
Seeing
Double-Digit
Boosts
in
2025
Applications
[Legal
Intelligencer]

---

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.

Texas
and
Florida
aren’t
the
only
ones
uprooting
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
programs
from
their
schools.
Trump
recently
threatened
to
withhold
federal
funding
from
and
potentially
sue
the
endowments
from
underneath
schools
that
carry
out
DEI-focused
policies.
You
might
be
thinking
that
Congress
is
usually
the
branch
that
has
power
of
the
purse,
but
little
things
like
“norms”
and
“constitutional
allotments
of
authority”
don’t
really
matter
if
no
one
stops
Trump
from
doing
what
he
wants.
Threats
like
that
are
scary
enough
to
make
states
act
accordingly
—
even
Blue
ones.
Minnesota,
the
North
Star
State,
could
be
showing
us
what’s
to
come
for
the
rest
of
our
publicly
funded
colleges.

MN
Daily
has
coverage:

The
search
for
a
new
assistant
dean
of
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
at
the
University
of
Minnesota
Law
School
is
paused
as
the
University
reassesses
its
DEI
programs,
according
to
an
email
from
Dean
William
McGeveran
to
Law
School
students,
faculty
and
staff
on
Friday.
…
“This
is
a
disappointing
development
for
many,
and
I
know
it
brings
questions
and
uncertainty
for
our
community,”
McGeveran
said
in
the
email.
“My
commitment
to
supporting

all
of
our
students,
faculty,
and
staff
remains
unchanged,
as
does
the
Law
School’s
mission
of
building
a
legal
profession
representative
of
the
people
it
serves.”

Between
Trump’s
rapid-fire
executive
orders
and
his
sycophants

hooting
and
hollering
like
a
Family
Guy
bit
whenever
boat
crashes,
car
crashes,
or
the
financial
crash
that
these
tariffs
will
usher
in
get
blamed
on
DEI,
it
isn’t
likely
that
schools
dependent
on
federal
funding
will
broaden
the
scope
of
—
or
even
maintain
—
their
currently
existing
DEI
programs.
Just
a
reminder:
this
won’t
just
hurt
aspiring
Black
lawyers
—

White
women
and

veterans
are
huge
DEI
benefactors
too.
Expect
initial
resistance
and
fiery
rhetoric
about
the
importance
of
maintaining
the
programs,
but
try
not
to
lose
sleep
when
the
enthusiasm
goes
the
way
of

Gibson
Dunn
or

Morrison
Foerster.

UMN
Pauses
DEI
Expansion,
Hiring
For
Law
School
Assistant
Dean
Position
[MN
Daily]

---

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.

As
every
lawyer
knows,
time
is
money.
It’s
especially
crucial
for
corporate
legal
departments
to
maximize
efficiency
when
there
aren’t
enough
people
to
go
around. 

Still,
countless
billable
hours
are
spent
on
tedious
tasks
like
data
entry
during
intake.
Then
associates
or
paralegals
spend
hours
reading
30,
40,
50
pages
to
review
new
contracts
according
to
the
most
basic
criteria.

Besides
taking
up
time,
such
repetitive
tasks
inevitably
lead
to
human
error
that
lets
things
fall
through
the
cracks.

For
years,

CobbleStone
Software
has
offered
contract
lifecycle
management
systems
to
help
firms
streamline
their
intake
and
review
process,
and
the
company
was
an
early
adopter
of
AI
technologies.

But
in
the
last
year,
CobbleStone
has
made
updates
that
make
its
software
more
powerful
than
ever.

Thanks
to
partnerships
with
Microsoft
and
OpenAI,
the
company
behind
ChatGPT,
CobbleStone
has
added
generative
AI
functionality
that
improves
efficiency,
mitigates
risk
of
human
error,
and
provides
a
bird’s-eye
view
of
how
valuable
time
is
being
spent.
Just
as
helpful,
it
offers
help
with
initial
redlining,
highlights
potentially
problematic
clauses,
and
automatically
suggests
ways
to
negotiate
contracts
based
on
a
configurable
bank
of
saved
clauses. 

Besides
helping
with
contract
review,
the
system
also
helps
write
new
contracts
such
as
NDAs
or
licensing
agreements
based
on
the
firm’s
previous
work.

Essentially,
the
software
ushers
sensitive
client
documents
through
the
full
spectrum
of
your
workflow,
and
customizable
reports
make
it
easy
to
see
what
has
happened
along
the
way.

Here,
we
get
an
inside
look
at
CobbleStone,
guided
by
Sales
Manager
Michael
Gormley.

Getting
Started

Incorporating
new
systems
into
an
existing
practice
is
rarely
easy,
but
CobbleStone’s
intuitive
interface
is
simple
to
implement.

Every
user
starts
on
the
Dashboard
page,
which
provides
a
snapshot
of
all
contracts
that
are
in
system,
whether
they
are
pending,
active
or
expired.
Uses
can
choose
between
two
different
views,
one
that
provides
an
executive-level
summary
or
another
that
allows
for
more
interactivity.

What
appears
on
the
dashboard
can
be
refined
by
date
range,
quarter,
year,
etc.,
with
the
data
loading
within
seconds.
Dashboards
can
be
personalized
for
each
individual
to
streamline
insight
into
the
system.

From
the
Dashboard,
users
can
export
charts
and
other
data
to
facilitate
PowerPoints
and
executive
summaries
within
minutes,
rather
than
the
hours
it
once
took
to
compile
a
report.
And
lawyers
and
paralegals
can
easily
see
their
pending
tasks
that
have
been
assigned
to
them
by
others
on
the
team.

VISDOM
AI
Saves
Time
and
Mitigates
Risk

With
their
proprietary
VISDOM
AI
tool,
CobbleStone
makes
manual
data
entry
a
thing
of
the
past.
The
software
automates
the
initial
review
process,
extracting
key
metadata
including
titles,
counterparties,
contract
amounts,
critical
dates
and
deliverables
that
may
be
tied
to
the
agreement.
It
then
populates
all
that
information
into
fields
within
the
system.

As
it
extracts
data,
it
converts
the
document
to
a
searchable
file
and
performs
an
automatic
review.
The
system
identifies
any
high-risk
clauses
and
nonstandard
language
in
the
contract,
flagging
them
for
review
in
the
Findings
Overview.
Lawyers
can
then
dismiss,
approve
or
edit
these
findings,
all
while
viewing
detailed
explanations
of
the
risks
involved. 

The
system
works
off
a
configurable
bank
of
clauses
compiled
from
standard
language
and
compares
it
with
what
is
in
the
contract.
Users
can
also
select
a
role
to
have
the
software
perform
a
risk
analysis
based
on
which
party
you
are
representing. 

Mr.
Gormley
offered
the
example
of
reviewing
a
contract
for
a
client
who
is
doing
business
with
a
company.
A
lawyer
can
select
a
setting
to
provide
risk
analysis
based
on
what
is
best
for
their
client,
with
a
rating
of
positive,
negative
or
neutral.
They
can
then
switch
to
the
perspective
of
the
company
to
see
what
language
favors
its
desired
goals.

The
system
determines
the
relative
positivity
by
combining
OpenAI’s
machine-learning
capability
with
a
firm’s
internal
processes.

What
used
to
take
hours
now
can
be
performed
in
three
to
five
minutes.

Edit
and
Negotiate
a
Contract
Right
in
the
System

Negotiation
and
redlining
are
often
the
most
time-intensive
parts
of
contract
management.
CobbleStone’s
Auto
Redline
feature
streamlines
this
process
by
comparing
third-party
clauses
to
the
organization’s
clause
library.
When
nonstandard
language
is
detected,
the
software
automatically
suggests
preapproved
terms,
and
a
comment
is
appended
to
explain
the
change.

There
are
two
options
for
making
edits,
which
the
user
can
choose
according
to
what
makes
them
more
comfortable.
The
software
integrates
seamlessly
with
Microsoft
products,
so
those
who
prefer
to
work
in
Word
documents
can
continue
to
do
so. 

But
CobbleStone
also
includes
an
inline
web
editor
as
part
of
the
platform.
Both
methods
allow
users
to
edit,
insert
clauses
and
track
changes
seamlessly,
catering
to
lawyers
who
prefer
their
current
workflow
as
well
as
those
ready
to
embrace
web-based
solutions.

When
anyone
modifies
a
contract,
a
record
is
created
and
filed
in
the
Attachments
section,
which
has
capacity
for
an
unlimited
amount
of
contract
versions
for
every
client.
Should
an
audit
be
necessary,
the
revision
history
is
easily
accessible.

Once
a
revision
is
saved,
it
automatically
notifies
the
next
person
in
the
workflow
that
they
have
a
task
to
complete.
Configurable
workflows
can
trigger
tasks
based
on
contract
type,
value
or
other
parameters,
ensuring
that
the
right
stakeholders
are
looped
in
at
the
right
time. 

Assigned
tasks
will
never
again
get
lost
in
the
shuffle
of
a
hundred
Slack
messages
or
accidentally
sent
to
the
wrong
email.
With
the
system’s
real-time
status
updates
and
reporting
on
bottlenecks,
lawyers
can
gain
insight
into
their
operations
to
ensure
accountability
across
departments. 

Another
module
offered
—
electronic
approvals
—
allows
collaboration
on
a
document
with
external
parties
in
a
separate
negotiation
portal.
People
outside
your
organization
can
make
suggestions
electronically
without
having
access
to
your
systems. 

Over
time,
the
system
learns
which
clauses
are
the
most
contested.
If
for
instance,
a
clause
is
disputed
50
percent
of
the
time,
that
alerts
the
firm
that
it
could
create
a
bottleneck
in
future
negotiations.

A
Better
Way
of
Drafting
Contracts
and
Updating
Templates

Every
lawyer
has
a
horror
story
about
using
an
outdated
contract
template,
but
it’s
a
common
complaint
how
difficult
it
is
to
keep
them
current
with
the
latest
language.

CobbleStone
streamlines
template
updates
so
that
one
change
can
be
applied
to
many
templates
at
once,
reducing
the
risk
of
outdated
terms
slipping
into
new
agreements. 

Creating
templates
requires
a
small
amount
of
upfront
work,
but
the
system’s
clause
library
speeds
up
the
process.
Instead
of
drafting
agreements
from
scratch,
lawyers
can
automate
contract
creation
based
on
predefined
rules. 

For
instance,
a
user
inputting
a
consulting
agreement
over
$10,000
will
automatically
generate
a
document
populated
with
the
appropriate
clauses.
The
clause
library
ensures
consistency
by
pulling
in
the
latest
approved
language.

Easier
Search
and
Better
Reporting

Because
contracts
can
span
hundreds
of
pages
with
dozens
of
clauses,
an
effective
search
tool
is
essential.
CobbleStone’s
platform
includes
a
quick
search
bar
as
well
as
advanced
filtering
options.
Users
can
search
metadata,
files
or
both,
with
results
highlighting
where
specific
terms
appear
within
a
document
and
even
in
attachments.

Ad
hoc
reporting
further
enhances
efficiency,
allowing
users
to
create
custom
reports
on
metrics
like
contract
expirations,
high-value
agreements
or
department-specific
KPIs.
The
reports
can
be
configured
to
be
as
specific
as,
say,
consulting
agreements
over
$25,000
in
the
administration
department
expiring
in
the
next
120
days. 

The
reports
can
be
pinned
to
dashboards
or
scheduled
for
automatic
distribution,
reducing
the
administrative
burden
on
the
team.

A
Built-In
Legal
Assistant

CobbleStone’s
new
AI-powered
chatbot,
VISDOM+
Assist,
works
like
an
extra
pair
of
hands.

Besides
offering
help
navigating
the
system,
producing
reports
or
other
basic
tasks,
it
can
also
help
draft
agreements.
It
can
suggest
clauses,
for
example,
for
software
agreement
warranty.

It
can
summarize
clauses
in
a
few
words,
and
it
can
add
clauses
you
want
to
reuse
to
the
system
library. 

The
chatbot
is
the
latest
innovation
in
a
suite
of
tools
that
makes
CobbleStone’s
legal
contract
lifecycle
management
software
(CLM)
indispensable.

Not
only
will
it
save
time,
and
therefore
money,
it
enhances
opportunities
for
collaboration
and
accountability
within
the
team.
It
boosts
efficiency,
and
it
mitigates
risk.  

It’s
not
just
about
managing
contracts
—
it’s
about
mastering
them.

Administration
changes
are
frequently
times
of
upheaval
for
government
attorneys.
Political
appointees
that
came
in
with
a
party
see
themselves
out
when
the
other
guys
take
over
government.
But
amongst
the
ways
2025
and
the
Trump
II
administration
are
not

normal,
is
the
pure
chaos
that
is
the
government
attorney
job
market.
Because
this
year,
it’s
not
just
the
political
appointees
that
are
moving
—
career
attorneys
are
also
in
the
job
market.

As

reported
by
ABA
Journal,
there
are
a
lot
of
factors
going
into
this
trend.
The

uncertainty
surrounding
the
funding
freeze,
the

return
to
the
office
mandate,
the

unilaterally
declaring
an
agency
over
are
all
parts
of
the
reasons
government
attorneys
want
out
this
year.
Plus
as
Dan
Binstock,
a
partner
at
the
Garrison
recruiting
firm,
notes,
all
of
a
sudden
government
attorneys
“feel
uneasy
about
their
jobs,”
and
they
“don’t
like
the
sense
of
uncertainty
and
unpredictability
they
are
experiencing
with
the
change
of
administrations,
and
it’s
nothing
like
what
I’ve
seen
in
prior
presidential
election
cycles.”

Which
has
led
to
an
unprecedented
recruiting
cycle:

“Oh,
my
goodness,”
says
Lauren
Drake,
a
partner
in
the
Washington,
D.C.,
office
of
recruiting
firm
Macrae.
“We’ve
never
truly
seen
anything
like
this.”

Drake
says
that
Macrae
has
already
landed
double
the
number
of
private-sector
jobs
for
government
lawyers
than
the
last
presidential
election
cycle.

To
make
matters
even
worse,
Drake
notes
there
may
not
be
“enough
space
for
all
the
lawyers
looking
to
leave
the
federal
government.”
Drake
continues,
“We
are
working
with
candidates
who
are
uncertain
whether
there
is
room
for
them
to
return
to
their
former
firms,
so
they
are
exploring
multiple
options.”

And
complicating
the
situation
is
clients
that
don’t
want
firms
with
attorneys
that
come
from
the
government:

Also
unusual,
legal
recruiters
say,
is
pushback
over
law
firms
hiring
prior
administration
lawyers.
In
December
2024,
Coinbase
CEO
Brian
Armstrong
wrote
on
X
that
he
would
withhold
business
from
law
firms
that
hired
high-level
Biden
administration
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
lawyers
because
their
policies
hurt
the
cryptocurrency
industry,
according
to
Reuters.

“It’s
quite
simple,”
Coinbase’s
Chief
Legal
Officer
Paul
Grewal
wrote
in
response
to
an
email
sent
by
the
ABA
Journal.
“[E]very
professional
should
expect
to
be
known
by
the
company
they
keep.
If
you
were
a
former
SEC
official
that
refused
to
tell
us
the
rules
before
suing
us
for
violating
the
rules,
we
aren’t
interested
in
hiring
you.”

It’s
almost
like
they’re
emboldened
by
officials
at
the
highest
levels
maintaining
enemy
lists.

While
not
every
government
lawyer
has
the
luxury
of
time
in
their
job
search,
if
you
*do*
it’s
probably
in
your
best
interests
to
wait
at
least
a
little
while
before
bailing.
The
glut
of
job
seekers
will
peter
out
and,
as
Binstock
notes,
your
stock
is
likely
to
go
up.
“People
are
thinking,
I
just
need
to
get
out,
but
they
may
be
more
marketable
six
months
or
a
year
from
now,”
he
said.
“They
will
have
had
interactions
with
the
new
administration
and
a
better
understanding
of
its
internal
workings,
and
that
will
make
them
more
valuable
in
the
private
sector.”

For
those
soon-to-be
former
government
attorneys
battling
this
job
market:
may
the
odds
be
ever
in
your
favor.

---

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].

G’day
mates.

The
latest
installment
of
“Lawyers
Royally
Bungling
with
AI”
features
an
Australian
attorney
who
apparently
decided
that
verifying
case
citations
was
just
too
2024.
After
prompting
the
consumer-facing
AI
to
do
some
research
(bad
idea),
and
putting
that
into
a
filing
(worse
idea),
he
decided
to
throw
another
shrimp
on
the
barbie
and
submit
the
documents
filled
with
references
to
phony
cases
to
the
court
(worst
idea).

A
reminder
that
every
time
you
think
this
story
has
been
hyped
enough
that
lawyers
won’t
do
it
again…
they
go
ahead
and
do
it
again.

From

The
Guardian:

An
Australian
lawyer
has
been
referred
to
a
state
legal
complaints
commission,
after
it
was
discovered
he
had
used ChatGPT to
write
court
filings
in
an
immigration
case
and
the
artificial
intelligence
platform
generated
case
citations
that
did
not
exist.

In
a
ruling
by
the
federal
circuit
and
family
court
on
Friday,
Justice
Rania
Skaros
referred
the
lawyer,
who
had
his
name
redacted
from
the
ruling,
to
the
Office
of
the
NSW
Legal
Services
Commissioner
(OLSC)
for
consideration.

Presumably
the
judge
said,
“That’s
not
a
case…
this
is
a
case.”

This
legal
eagle,
whose
name
has
been
thoughtfully
redacted
to
protect
the
technologically
inept,
was
handling
an
immigration
appeal
when
he
submitted
filings
in
October
2024.
These
documents
were
so
compelling
that
they
cited
and
even
quoted
from
tribunal
decisions
that
simply
didn’t
exist.
When
confronted,
the
lawyer
confessed
to
using
ChatGPT
for
research,
admitting
he
didn’t
bother
to
verify
the
AI-generated
information.

Despite
the
temptation
to
turn
this
into
a
story
about
technology
run
amok,
this
is
still

fundamentally
a
matter
of
human
laziness.
Just
as
a
lawyer
shouldn’t
mindlessly
blockquote
the
memo
the
summer
associate
slapped
together
on
their
way
to
happy
hour,
any
lawyer
using
generative
AI
retains
the
obligation
to
check
the
final
product
for
accuracy.
And,
in
the
case
of
ChatGPT
legal
research,
it’s
more
like
the
memo
the
summer
associate
slapped
together
on
their
way

back
from
happy
hour.

He
attributed
this
lapse
in
judgment
to
time
constraints
and
health
issues.
Maybe
that’s
true.
But
the
most
troubling
detail
from
this
story
is
that
this
happened
in
an
immigration
case.
One
of
the
more
noble
selling
points
for
generative
AI
is
the
hope
that
it
could
expand
access
to
justice
by
streamlining
practices
like
immigration.
Filevine,
for
instance,

offers
some
really
slick
AI-assisted
immigration
tools
—
all
of
which
are

very
different
than
turning
over
briefing
to
a
free
chatbot.
Yet
with
this
promise
comes
the
risk
that
practice
areas
that
serve
the
most
vulnerable
will
be
the
most
likely
to
get
shortchanged
out
of
attorney
judgment.
That
paying
client
will
get
proper
attention
while
the
pro
bono
matter
gets
churned
out
by
lightly
checked
AI.

Again,
that
might
not
have
been
the
case
here,
but
this
is
the
new
frontier
for
AI
screw-ups.
More
lucrative
practices
are
going
to
get
lawyer
attention
and
the
benefit
of
high
quality
AI
tools
crafted
specifically
for
the
legal
profession
with
all
the
safeguards
that
requires.
And
it’s
going
to
be
the
lower
income
practices
that
give
rise
to
future
embarrassing
cases.

And
—
in
matters
like
immigration
—
potentially
tragic
ones.

---

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.