Associate Compensation Scorecard: Biglaw’s 2024 Bonus Boom – Above the Law


Firm

Date
Matched

Minimum
Hours

Payout
Date

Milbank

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K FIRST
MOVER
November
11,
2024 None On
or
before
December
31,
2024
Vartabedian
Hester
&
Haynes

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K November
13,
2024 1800
hours On
or
before
December
31,
2024
Cravath

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017:
$115K
/
$25K November
19,
2024 None December
13,
2024
Paul
Hastings

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
20,
2024 2000
hours February
14,
2025
Ropes
&
Gray

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2016+:
$130K
/
$25K November
20,
2024 1900
creditable
hours
(increased
bonuses
for
associates
who
annualized
above
hourly
target) December
24,
2024
Fried
Frank

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
20,
2024 1850
hours
for
special
bonus
(including
billable,
pro
bono,
qualified
nonbillable,
and
firm
matter
hours);
associates
eligible
for
“premium”
bonus
ranging
from
$3K
to
$34.5K On
or
before
December
31,
2024
McDermott
Will
&
Emery

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
20,
2024 2000
hours
(merit
bonuses
available
for
eligible
associates;
“two-thirds”
of
associates
will
see
bonuses
above
market) December
27,
2024
Cleary

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
21,
2024 None December
20,
2024
Paul
Weiss

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
21,
2024 None December
20,
2024
Dechert

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
21,
2024 1950
hours
(client
billable,
pro
bono,
firm
as
client,
maximum
of
50
community
hours);
associates
who
exceeded
hours
expectations
eligible
to
receive
an
“extraordinary”
bonus
(i.e.,
2200
hours
=
addt’l
30%;
2400+
hours
=
addt’l
40%);
“enhanced”
bonuses
up
to

130%
above
market

available
on
top
of
“extraordinary”
bonus
for
those
with
high
billable
hours By
or
before
end
of
January
2025
O’Melveny

Class
of
2024:
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
21,
2024 None Undisclosed
Holwell
Shuster

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
21,
2024 None On
or
before
December
31,
2024
Davis
Polk

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 None December
27,
2024
Weil
Gotshal

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 None January
31,
2025
White
&
Case

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 Eligibility
criteria
detailed
in
separate
memo February
14,
2025
Skadden

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
or
$125K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 1800
“productive
hours”
(including
unlimited
pro
bono
time
and
up
to
150
hours
of
productive
non-billable
work) December
13,
2024
Cadwalader

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 Additional
bonuses
“equal
to
120%
of
[market
bonuses]”
for
high
billers
with
2200
hours
or
more By
or
before
end
of
February
2025
Proskauer

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 None On
or
before
December
24,
2024
Schulte
Roth
&
Zabel

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 2000
hours;
step-up
bonuses
from
$3K
to
$51.75K
for
associates
who
have
made
“extraordinary
contributions”
to
the
firm) January
27,
2025
Covington

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 2000
hours;
(associates
will
see
a
10%
bonus
increase
at
2200
hours,
and
another
10%
bonus
increase
2400
hours) January
2025
Willkie
Farr

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 None December
31,
2024
Akin

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
22,
2024 1950
hours
(including
pro
bono
hours,
general
counsel
hours,
business
development
hours,
and
up
to
100
hours
of
time
spent
on
recruiting,
diversity
&
inclusion,
and/or
innovation
activities);
associates
with
“exceptional”
performance
will
receive
larger
bonuses February
2025
Sidley

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K November
25,
2024 2000
hours
required
for
base
bonuses;
associates
with
“higher
productivity
and/or
exceptional
performance”
will
receive
additional
bonuses,
up
to
“more
than
50%
above
base
bonus” Prior
to
December
31,
2024
Baker
Botts

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
25,
2024 2000
hours
(1800
client
billable
hours
and
200
non-client
billable
hours,
including
pro
bono,
business
development,
etc.);
“enhanced”
bonuses
available
for
“exceptional”
performance;
special
bonuses
reportedly

require
2000
client
billable
hours

for
eligibility Undisclosed
A&O
Shearman

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
25,
2024 2000
hours
(including
a
minimum
of
25
pro
bono
hours
and
up
to
100
investment
hours
(e.g.,
DEI/mental
health;
personal
development/training;
community
involvement;
management
&
talent
development;
knowledge
development;
origination,
client
relationships,
business
development;
and
market
innovation
group)) January
31,
2025
Katten
Muchin

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
25,
2024 2000
hours
(2100
hours
for
$22K-$126.5K;
2200
hours
for
$24K-$138K;
2300
hours
for
$26.5K-$149.5K;
2400
hours
for
$31K-$172.5K);
additional
“superstar”
bonuses
available February
3,
2025
Vinson
&
Elkins

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
25,
2024 Based
on
hours
and
good
standing;
“supplemental
bonuses”
available
for
associates
who
had
an
“exemplary
year” On
or
about
January
31,
2025
Debevoise

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
26,
2024 None Undisclosed
Clifford
Chance

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
26,
2024 None
(based
on
overall
performance,
quality
of
work,
contributions
to
firm,
teamwork,
and
pro
bono) January
15,
2025
Mayer
Brown

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
26,
2024 2000
hours;
associates
eligible
for
addt’l
bonuses
based
on
performance February
28,
2025
Gibson
Dunn

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017:
$115K
/
$25K November
27,
2024 Undisclosed Undisclosed
Seward
&
Kissel

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
27,
2024 2000
hours
(1850
billable
hours
and
150
qualified
non-billable
hours);
2200
hours
for
special
bonus
(1850
billable
hours
and
150
qualified
non-billable
hours;
associates
who
“substantially”
exceed
the
eligibility
requirements
for
special
bonuses
may
receive
an
“increased”
special
bonus) First
quarter
of
2025
Fish
&
Richardson

Entry-Level:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
A7:
$115K
/
$25K November
27,
2024 2100
hours
(including
up
to
200
pro
bono/DEI/pitch
hours)
or
strongest
reviews
based
on
quality
of
work December
26,
2024
Morgan
Lewis

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K November
27,
2024 1900+
hours
(20
of
which
must
be
pro
bono
hours) January
31,
2025
Wilkinson
Stekloff

Class
of
2024:
$22.5K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017:
$172.5K
/
$25K December
3,
2024 None By
December
13,
2024
Norton
Rose
Fulbright

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
3,
2024 1900
hours
(including
50
FIT
hours)
for
special
bonus
eligibility January
31,
2025
Kramer
Levin

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
4,
2024 Eligible
associates
in
good
standing
will
receive
bonuses February
14,
2025
Cahill

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$7.5K
(prorated)
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$40K December
5,
2024 Select
associates
in
Classes
of
2017-2020
who
have
demonstrated
“extraordinary”
performance
eligible
for
a
“super
bonus”
up
to
$200K
(based
on
performance
and
seniority)
in
lieu
of
special
bonus Second
half
of
January
2025
Ross
Aronstam

Class
of
2022:
$30K
/
$10K
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K December
5,
2024 None December
15,
2024
AZA

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
Class
of
2021:
$57.5K
/
$15K December
6,
2024 None
(based
on
overall
performance;
bonuses
for
elder
class
years
are
individualized) December
13,
2024
Perkins
Coie

Class
of
2024:
$15K
(prorated)
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
6,
2024
December
27,
2024
(special
bonuses
) Undisclosed;
associates
report
no
special
bonuses
are
being
awarded;
firm
reversed
course
on
special
bonuses
after
weeks
had
passed Undisclosed
Boies
Schiller
Flexner

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
10,
2024 2000
hours
for
associates
on
the
“market”
system;
95%
of
associates
received
bonuses
as
high
as,
and
in
most
cases
higher
than
market
system
bonuses;
several
associates
received
bonuses
of
$300K+,
while
others
received
bonuses
of
$1M+ Week
of
December
9,
2024
Winston
&
Strawn

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
10,
2024 2000
hours
(additional
bonus
money
for
associates
who
“substantially
exceed”
productivity
goals);
for
special
bonus,
associates
who
meet
or
exceed
their
hours
will
receive
100%;
associates
who
meet
75%
or
more
of
their
hours
will
receive
75%;
associates
between
50-74%
of
their
hours
will
receive
50%;
associates
who
are
under
50%
of
their
hours
will
receive
0% End
of
January
2025
Sullvan
&
Cromwell

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
11,
2024 Undisclosed December
23,
2024
Freshfields

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
11,
2024 Undisclosed Undisclosed
Linklaters

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
12,
2024 1900
hours
(including
unlimited
pro
bono,
up
to
400
hours
of
marketing,
and
other
work);
special
bonuses
awarded
to
associates
with
“higher
productivity”;
the
firm
is
reportedly
requiring
1650
client
billable
hours
for
special
bonus
eligibility December
31,
2024
Pillsbury

Fall
Hires:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
SA
2/Counsel:
$115K
/
$25K December
12,
2024 1700
client/2000
creditable
hours
for
base
bonus;
1900
client/2200
creditable
hours
for
Super
Bonus
1
($20K-$25K,
by
class
year);
2100
client/2400
creditable
hours
for
Super
Bonus
2
($30K
all
class
years);
market
special
bonuses
not
included Undisclosed
Selendy
Gay

Class
of
2024:
$17.25K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$132.25K
/
$25K December
12,
2024 None
(some
associates
will
receive
even
more
bonus
money
based
on
performance,
hours,
and
firm
citizenship;
some
associates
received
bonuses
more
than
50%
above
market) December
13,
2024
Axinn

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
12,
2024 2000
hours;
“extraordinary”
bonuses
available
to
associates
who
surpassed
their
billable
hours
threshold By
December
20,
2024
Gjerset
&
Lorenz

Class
of
2024:
$15K
Class
of
2017:
$115K December
12,
2024 1900
hours
for
base
bonus;
2000
hours
for
$20K-$130K
bonus;
2100
hours
for
$28K-$150K
bonus;
2200
hours
for
$35K-$165K
bonus;
maximum
potential
bonuses
of
$55K-$330K;
additional
bonuses
to
be
paid
out
over
the
next
four
quarters,
with
the
first
installment
on
March
31,
2025 Undisclosed
Elsberg
Baker
&
Maruri

Class
of
2024:
$26.25K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$201.25K
/
$25K December
12,
2024 Undisclosed Undisclosed
Rolnick
Kramer
Sadighi

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
12,
2024 Undisclosed;
the
firm
reportedly
awarded
bonuses
ranging
up
to
150%
over
the
prevailing
market
rate
to
associates Undisclosed
Bursor
&
Fisher

Class
of
2023:
$50K+
Class
of
2020+:
$400K+ December
12,
2024 Undisclosed;
bonuses
are
based
on
business
origination
and
revenue;
highest
bonus
awarded
was
$725K Undisclosed
Cohen
Ziffer

Class
of
2023:
$20K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K December
13,
2024 Undisclosed;
“in
exceptional
circumstances,”
associates
may
receive
higher
bonuses
“based
on
individual
performance” December
13,
2024
Quinn
Emanuel

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
13,
2024 2000-2099
hours
for
$10K-$76.6K;
2100-2399
hours
for
base
bonus;
2400-2699
hours
for
$18K-$138K;
2700+
hours
for
$20.25K-$155.25K Week
of
December
16,
2024
McKool
Smith

Class
of
2024:
$15K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K December
13,
2024 Undisclosed;
high
billers
will
receive
additional
bonus
money,
with
some
exceeding
the
Milbank
scale
by
more
than
35%;
firm
previously
awarded
summer
bonuses
based
on
hours
(1900
hours
for
$2.5K;
1900-2199
hours
for
$7.5K;
2200-2299
hours
for
$10K;
2300-2399
hours
for
$15K;
2400-2599
hours
for
$20K;
2600+
hours
for
$30K) Undisclosed
Susman
Godfrey

Class
of
2022:
$110K
(median)
Class
of
2015:
$260K
(median) December
17,
2024 None Undisclosed
Yetter
Coleman

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
17,
2024 Undisclosed;
“outstanding”
performances
will
be
rewarded
with
“even
higher”
bonus
amounts December
20,
2024
Hogan
Lovells

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
17,
2024
December
29,
2024
(special
bonuses
) 2000
hours
(including
up
to
150
pro
bono
hours
until
associates
meet
1850
hours,
then
unlimited
pro
bono
hours,
and
including
up
to
50
D&I
hours,
if
they
have
billed
at
least
1800
hours);
additional
bonuses
available
for
those
who
exceed
hours
minimums;
associates
report
no
special
bonuses
are
being
awarded;
firm
reversed
course
on
special
bonuses
after
weeks
had
passed End
of
December
2024
for
year-end
bonuses;
end
of
February
2025
for
special
bonuses
Pallas
Partners

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
17,
2024 2000
hours
(including
step-up
bonuses
by
class
year
for
those
with
higher
hours
(i.e.,
$3K-$17.5K
for
2100
hours;
$6K-$34.5K
for
2200
hours;
$10K-$57.5K
for
2350
hours;
$12K-$69K
for
2400
hours;
$16K-$92K
for
2500
hours) Undisclosed
Orrick

Associate
Year
1:
$20K
/
$6K
Senior
Associate
Year
2+:
$115K
/
$25K December
18,
2024 Undisclosed December
31,
2024
(special
bonuses);
Mid-February
2025
(merit
bonuses)
Hueston
Hennigan

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
18,
2024 Based
on
class
year,
hours,
and
good
standing;
all
bonus-eligible
associates
reportedly
received
above-market
bonuses
(with
some
receiving
two
or
more
times
the
market
bonus
for
their
class) Undisclosed
Sheppard
Mullin

Level
A1:
$20K
/
$6K
Level
C2:
$115K
/
$25K December
19,
2024 2000
hours
for
base
bonus
and
special
bonus
(1950
hours
for
$10K-$57.5K;
2200
hours
for
$22K-$126.5K;
2400
hours
for
$$24K-$138K) January
17,
2025
Irell

New
Associate:
$45K
(prorated)
7th
Year
(Class
of
2017+):
$175K December
19,
2024 Undisclosed;
further
supplemental
bonuses
to
be
awarded
in
April
or
May
2025 Undisclosed
Choate
Hall
&
Stewart

PA
&
SS:
$6K
Class
of
2024:
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2016+:
$25K December
19,
2024 Undisclosed;
“customary
annual
market
bonuses”
to
be
announced
in
March
2025 March
2025
Morrison
&
Foerster

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
20,
2024 Undisclosed;
high
hours
bonus
of
10/20/40%
of
base
by
class
year
($16.5K
(prorated)
to
$161K)
and
merit
incentive
bonus
of
10/20%
of
base
+
high
hours
by
class
year
($16.5K
(prorated)
to
$192.2K)
also
available;
potential
bonus
total
by
class
year
of
$21K
to
$218.2K Undisclosed
Arnold
&
Porter
Kaye
Scholer

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
20,
2024 2000
hours
for
base
bonus
(1800
of
which
must
be
client
billable);
2200
hours
for
special
bonus
(2000
of
which
must
be
client
billable);
enhanced
bonuses
available
based
on
hours
(2400-2499
hours
(2200
must
be
billable)
for
10%
of
year-end
bonus;
2500-2599
hours
(2300
must
be
billable)
for
15%
of
year-end
bonus;
2600+
hours
(2400
must
be
billable)
for
20%
of
year-end
bonus) January
31,
2025
Alston
&
Bird

Class
of
2024:
$15K
/
$6K
(prorated)
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
23,
2024 2000
hours
for
base
bonus
and
special
bonus Undisclosed
DLA
Piper

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K December
23,
2024 Bonus
eligibility
based
on
seniority,
performance
rating,
productivity
(the
firm
has
a
2000-hour
billable
goal),
compliance
with
firm
policies,
and
good
standing
status;
2000
hours
for
special
bonus;
enhanced
bonuses
available
for
those
with
performance
ratings
of
four
or
five,
as
well
as
associates
who
billed
more
than
2000
hours
(additional
bonus
increases
for
each
100
billable
hour
threshold
they
meet,
up
to
2700
hours) December
27,
2024
and
February
7,
2025
Perry
Law

Class
of
2023:
$25K
Class
of
2017+:
$120K December
23,
2024 The
firm
is
awarding
bonuses
that
“significantly
exceed
the
Cravath/Milbank
rate
(including
special
bonuses)”;
in
2023,
the
firm
paid
$5K
more
than
market
for
each
class
year By
or
before
the
end
of
December
2024
Massumi
+
Consoli

Class
of
2024:
$2.5K
/
$1.5K
Class
of
2016:
$115K
/
$25K December
24,
2024 1900
hours
(bonuses
may
be
further
adjusted
based
on
billable
hours,
performance
reviews,
and
extraordinary
contributions
to
the
firm) Last
payroll
of
December
2024
Holland
&
Knight

Level
0:
$15K
/
$6K
(major
market)
Level
7+:
$115K
/
$25K
(market
market)
Level
0:
$10K
/
$4.5K
(regional
market)
Level
7+:
$80K
/
$16.7K
(regional
market) December
27,
2024 2000
hours;
major
market
offices:
Atlanta,
Austin,
Boston,
Century
City,
Charlotte,
Chicago,
Dallas,
Denver,
Fort
Lauderdale,
Houston,
Los
Angeles,
Miami,
New
York,
Newport
Beach,
Philadelphia,
San
Francisco,
Stamford,
Tysons,
Washington,
D.C.,
and
West
Palm
Beach;
regional
market
offices:
Birmingham,
Chattanooga,
Jacksonville,
Nashville,
Orlando,
Portland,
Richmond,
Tallahassee,
and
Tampa;
additional
bonuses
awarded
to
associates
whose
performance
was
“exceptional”
(based
on
billable
hours
and/or
originations);
those
who
came
close
to
target
hours
threshold
will
be
considered
for
partial
bonuses First
quarter
of
2025
Goodwin
Procter

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K January
9,
2025 1950
hours
(including
pro
bono
hours
and
up
to
100
hours
of
culture
&
innovation
hours
(i.e.,
marketing
activities,
knowledge
management,
business
unit
and
legal
practice
area
initiatives,
diversity
initiatives,
training,
and
participation
on
firm
committees)) January
24,
2025
Wilson
Sonsini

Class
of
2023:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2016+:
$115K
/
$25K January
10,
2025 1950
hours
to
qualify
for
year-end
bonus
(first
40
hours
of
vacation
time
included
as
billable
time);
2000
hours
to
qualify
for
special
bonus January
31,
2025
(year-end
bonuses);
March
31,
2025
(special
bonuses)
Latham
&
Watkins

Class
of
2022:
$20K
/
$6K
Class
of
2017+:
$115K
/
$25K January
27,
2025 1900
hours
(median
bonuses
ranging
from
$32K
to
$133.5K,
based
on
class
year;
top
bonuses
ranging
from
$45K
to
$184K,
based
on
class
year) January
31,
2025

Agents Vs. Agentic AI: What In-House Counsel Need To Know About These 2 AI Frontiers – Above the Law

Artificial
intelligence
(AI)
continues
to
reshape
industries,
from
logistics
to
health
care,
but
with
this
transformation
comes
a
steep
learning
curve
for
in-house
legal
teams.
Two
key
concepts

AI
Agents
and
Agentic
AI

are
central
to
navigating
the
legal
challenges
and
opportunities
this
technology
presents.
While
both
terms
describe
AI
applications,
their
distinctions
are
critical
when
crafting
governance,
compliance,
and
liability
strategies.

Here’s
a
breakdown
of
what
these
terms
mean,
how
they
differ,
and
the
key
legal
issues
that
in-house
lawyers
should
prioritize.


The
Basics:
AI
Agents
Versus
Agentic
AI

AI
Agents
are
task-focused
tools
designed
to
automate
repetitive
processes
or
execute
predefined
instructions.
They
do
not
make
independent
decisions
but
instead
operate
within
the
parameters
set
by
developers.
Examples
include
a
chatbot
handling
basic
customer
service
inquiries
and
tools
like
Gmail’s
Smart
Compose,
suggesting
responses
based
on
context.

In
contrast,
Agentic
AI
is
far
more
autonomous.
These
systems
perceive
their
environment,
reason
through
complex
scenarios,
make
decisions,
and
adapt
over
time.
Unlike
AI
Agents,
Agentic
AI
does
not
require
constant
human
input
to
function.
Examples
include
autonomous
vehicles
navigating
traffic
in
real-time
and
AI
cybersecurity
systems
detecting
and
mitigating
threats
without
manual
oversight.

Think
of
AI
Agents
as
rule-followers
and
Agentic
AI
as
problem-solvers.


Why
The
Distinction
Matters

For
in-house
lawyers,
distinguishing
between
these
AI
types
is
not
just
semantics

it
informs
how
you
assess
risks,
ensure
regulatory
compliance,
and
allocate
liability.
Here’s
why:


  • Operational
    Scope.

    AI
    Agents
    typically
    perform
    predictable,
    low-risk
    tasks,
    while
    Agentic
    AI’s
    autonomy
    introduces
    complexities
    like
    unexpected
    outcomes
    and
    evolving
    behavior.

  • Liability.

    When
    an
    AI
    Agent
    makes
    an
    error,
    it’s
    usually
    easy
    to
    trace
    responsibility
    to
    its
    operator
    or
    developer.
    With
    Agentic
    AI,
    which
    learns
    and
    adapts,
    pinpointing
    fault
    is
    far
    more
    challenging.

  • Compliance.

    Regulatory
    frameworks,
    such
    as
    the
    EU
    AI
    Act,
    often
    impose
    stricter
    requirements
    on
    autonomous
    systems
    (Agentic
    AI)
    due
    to
    their
    higher
    risk
    profiles.

Understanding
these
differences
ensures
that
your
legal
strategies
are
tailored
to
the
type
of
AI
in
question.


Real-World
Applications
And
Legal
Concerns


AI
Agents
In
Practice


  • Customer
    Support.

    AI-powered
    chatbots
    streamline
    support
    but
    can
    raise
    issues
    like
    inaccurate
    responses
    or
    biased
    interactions.
    Legal
    teams
    must
    ensure
    compliance
    with
    consumer
    protection
    laws.

  • Personal
    Assistants.

    Tools
    like
    Alexa
    and
    Siri
    perform
    helpful
    but
    limited
    tasks.
    Data
    privacy
    concerns
    are
    prevalent,
    as
    these
    systems
    often
    handle
    sensitive
    user
    data.


Agentic
AI
In
Practice


  • Health
    Care.

    Agentic
    AI
    systems
    analyze
    complex
    medical
    data
    to
    assist
    in
    diagnoses.
    Errors
    could
    lead
    to
    malpractice
    claims,
    raising
    questions
    about
    liability
    and
    standard
    of
    care.

  • Autonomous
    Vehicles.

    These
    systems
    operate
    independently,
    often
    making
    life-and-death
    decisions.
    Liability
    for
    accidents
    is
    a
    major
    legal
    gray
    area,
    implicating
    manufacturers,
    developers,
    and
    possibly
    regulators.


Top
Legal
Issues
to
Consider


Liability
Frameworks

For
AI
Agents,
liability
is
usually
straightforward

often
tied
to
the
deploying
company.
However,
with
Agentic
AI,
where
systems
operate
autonomously
and
evolve
over
time,
liability
can
become
fragmented.
Key
considerations
include
drafting
clear
indemnification
clauses
in
vendor
agreements,
requiring
ongoing
audits
of
AI
system
performance,
and
addressing
cross-jurisdictional
liability
when
systems
operate
internationally.


Regulatory
Compliance

Emerging
regulations,
like
the
EU
AI
Act,
differentiate
between
AI’s
risk
levels.
For
high-risk
applications
like
Agentic
AI
in
health
care
or
transportation,
compliance
requirements
may
include
transparent
documentation
of
the
AI’s
decision-making
processes,
incorporation
of
human
oversight
mechanisms,
and
regular
assessments
for
bias
and
safety.


Ethical
Considerations

Agentic
AI
introduces
significant
ethical
questions,
such
as:
how
to
address
biases
that
AI
systems
might
develop
autonomously,
and
whether
AI
decisions
can
be
explained
in
a
way
that
satisfies
stakeholders
and
regulators.


Data
Privacy

Both
AI
types
rely
heavily
on
data,
raising
risks
under
privacy
frameworks
like
GDPR
or
CCPA.
Ensure
that
consent
is
obtained
for
data
collection,
that
systems
have
robust
cybersecurity
measures,
and
that
AI
Agents
handling
sensitive
data
comply
with
sector-specific
privacy
laws
(e.g.,
HIPAA
for
healthcare).


IP
Protection

AI
systems
can
create
original
outputs,
from
artwork
to
software
code.
Legal
teams
must
evaluate
whether
these
outputs
qualify
for
intellectual
property
protection
and
address
potential
copyright
infringement
risks.


Actionable
Steps
For
In-House
Counsel

To
effectively
manage
AI’s
legal
and
ethical
challenges,
consider
the
following:


  • Develop
    Tailored
    Contracts.

    Address
    unique
    risks
    for
    each
    AI
    type,
    specifying
    liability,
    audit
    rights,
    and
    compliance
    obligations.

  • Implement
    Governance
    Policies.

    Establish
    internal
    frameworks
    for
    the
    ethical
    use
    of
    AI,
    focusing
    on
    transparency,
    accountability,
    and
    risk
    mitigation.

  • Engage
    Stakeholders.

    Involve
    cross-functional
    teams

    including
    IT,
    risk
    management,
    and
    compliance

    to
    ensure
    holistic
    oversight
    of
    AI
    systems.

  • Monitor
    Evolving
    Laws.

    Stay
    ahead
    of
    AI-specific
    legislation,
    particularly
    in
    high-risk
    sectors
    like
    transportation,
    healthcare,
    and
    finance.


Looking
Ahead

AI
Agents
and
Agentic
AI
are
rapidly
advancing,
with
both
offering
tremendous
potential

and
unique
legal
challenges

for
businesses.
As
the
distinction
between
these
systems
blurs,
legal
teams
must
remain
agile,
ensuring
that
their
organizations
leverage
AI
responsibly
while
protecting
against
liabilities.

For
deeper
insights
into
how
in-house
lawyers
can
navigate
these
complex
issues
while
driving
innovation,
my
book,
Product
Counsel:
Advise,
Innovate,
and
Inspire
,”
offers
practical
guidance.
From
crafting
proactive
legal
strategies
to
fostering
cross-functional
collaboration,
it
equips
counsel
to
address
the
challenges
of
AI
and
other
cutting-edge
technologies
with
confidence
and
creativity.

How
is
your
company
adapting
to
the
rise
of
AI?
Have
you
encountered
unexpected
legal
challenges?

Let’s
discuss

share
your
experiences
and
insights.




Olga MackOlga
V.
Mack



is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored 
Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat
Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security
,
and  
Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities
. She
is
working
on
three
books:



Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on




LinkedIn



and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Why Telehealth Advocates Are Calling on the Trump Administration to Withdraw New Telemedicine Rules – MedCity News

For
about
half
a
decade
now,
Americans
have
had
the
ability
to
receive
controlled
substances
via
telehealth
because
requirements
were
relaxed
during
the
Covid-19
pandemic.
This
has
greatly
expanded
access
particularly
for
those
in
remote
areas.

These
flexibilities
are
currently

set
to
expire

at
the
end
of
2025.
In
the
final
days
of
the
Biden
administration,
the
Drug
Enforcement
Administration

released

three
new
rules
relating
to
telemedicine
that
aim
to
keep
some
of
these
flexibilities
permanent
while
also
implementing
new
safeguards
to
promote
patient
safety. 

“DEA’s
goal
is
to
provide
telehealth
access
for
needed
medications
while
ensuring
patient
safety
and
preventing
the
diversion
of
medications
into
the
illicit
drug
market,”
said
former
DEA
Administrator
Anne
Milgram
in
a
statement.
“We
understand
the
difficulties
some
patients
have
accessing
medical
providers
in-person,
and
we
want
to
ease
this
burden
while
also
providing
safeguards
to
keep
patients
safe.”

This
effort,
however,
has
telehealth
advocates
up
in
arms,
particularly
in
regards
to
two
of
the
three
proposals,
which
they
argue
include
arbitrary
guidelines
that
interfere
with
the
clinician’s
job
and
create
barriers
for
patients.
Now,
via

statements
,
they
are
calling
upon
the
Trump
administration
to
make
things
right.

One
is
a
proposed
rule
that
would
create
a
special
registration
process
that
would
allow
a
clinician
to
prescribe
medications
through
telemedicine
visits
without
an
in-person
evaluation.
While
that
sounds
reasonable,
there
are
significant
restrictions,
including
requiring
physicians
to
be
physically
located
in
the
same
state
as
the
patient
when
being
prescribed
Schedule
II
medications.
Schedule
II
medications
are
drugs
that
have
a
high
potential
for
abuse,
including
Adderall
and
Ritalin. 

The
second
rule
permits
patients
to
receive
a
six-month
supply
of
buprenorphine
(used
to
treat
opioid
use
disorder)
via
telehealth,
but
would
require
an
in-person
visit
after.
The
third
rule,
however,
actually
seems
to
expand
access
to
telehealth
by
exempting
Veterans
Affairs
practitioners
from
special
registration
requirements.
After
a
patient
has
had
an
in-person
medical
examination
from
a
VA
medical
practitioner,
“the
provider-patient
relationship
is
extended
to
all
VA
practitioners
engaging
in
telemedicine
with
the
patient,”
according
to
the
DEA.

The
new
rules
are
less
restrictive
than
a
previous
proposed
rule

released

in
2023.
Still,
many
advocates
argue
that
these
rules
were
rushed
by
the
previous
administration
and
will
only
create
barriers
to
access.

“One
of
the
challenges
that
so
many
in
the
community
have
with
the
first
proposal
the
DEA
made,
and
even
the
second
one
is
that
it
continues
to
really
bleed
into
medical
judgment
and
the
relationship
between
a
practitioner
and
a
patient,”
said
Christopher
Adamec,
executive
director
of
the
Alliance
for
Connected
Care.
“It
limits
the
care
that
can
be
provided.
It
puts
practitioners
in
really
unfortunate
situations
of
being
able
to
provide
some
care,
but
maybe
not
the
care
that
they
think
is
clinically
appropriate
for
their
patient.
That
is
not
the
right
way
for
these
rules
to
move
forward.”


Special
registration
rule

Under
the
special
registration
rule,
special
registration
would
be
available
to
medical
providers
treating
patients
who
require
Schedule
III-V
controlled
substances,
such
as
ketamine,
Xanax
and
Lomotil. 

Special
registration
would
also
be
available
for
Schedule
II
medications
if
the
medical
practitioner
is
board
certified
in
one
of
these
specialities:
“psychiatrists;
hospice
care
physicians;
physicians
rendering
treatment
at
long
term
care
facilities,
and
pediatricians
for
the
prescribing
of
medications
identified
as
the
most
addictive
and
prone
to
diversion
to
the
illegal
drug
market,”
according
to
the
DEA.

The

American
Telemedicine
Association

(ATA)
has
concerns

three
that
are
tied
to
the
special
registration
proposed
rule,
according
to
Kyle
Zebley,
senior
vice
president
of
public
policy
at
the
association.
One
is
that
practitioners
can
only
prescribe
less
than
50%
of
Schedule
II
controlled
substances
via
telemedicine,
and
the
rest
would
have
to
be
in
person.
Zebley
argues
that
this
threshold
is
“arbitrary
and
clinically
inappropriate,”
and
that
there
is
no
medical
reason
that
this
is
needed.

The
rule
would
also
require
the
provider
to
be
in
the
same
state
as
the
patient
when
prescribing
Schedule
II
controlled
substances.

“That
doesn’t
allow
for
the
full
potential
of
telehealth.
That
would
be
a
massive
backwards
step
in
terms
of
the
level
of
access
that’s
been
achieved
now
for
half
a
decade,”
Zebley
said.

Adamec
of
the
Alliance
for
Connected
Care
echoed
this,
stressing
that
the
“promise
of
telehealth”
is
creating
access
for
people
who
don’t
have
in-person
access
to
care,
such
as
if
they’re
in
a
mental
health
shortage
area
or
in
a
rural
community.

In
addition,
the
special
registration
rule
would
require
practitioners
to
conduct
a
Prescription
Drug
Monitoring
Program
(PDMP)
check
of
all
50
states.
A
PDMP
is
an
electronic
database
that
tracks
controlled
substance
prescriptions
and
allows
practitioners
to
see
patients’
prescribed
medication
history.

Currently,
providers
can
check
PDMP
records
on
a
state-by-state
basis.
However,
in
three
years,
the
DEA
envisions
a
provider
checking
all
50
states’
PDMP
records
for
all
controlled
substances,
and
this
is
currently
challenging,
according
to
Zebley.

“That
is
not
something
the
federal
government
can
mandate,”
he
said.
“It
requires
state
governments
to
comply,
and
some
states
are
obviously
very
protective
of
this.
There’s
no
single,
unified
database
to
do
this,
it’s
very
time
intensive.
So
you
can’t
do
it,
and
if
you
could,
there’s
no
easy
way
to
do
so.”

One
digital
health
executive
noted
that
it
would
be
great
if
there
was
a
way
to
do
a
national
check
of
PDMP
records,
but
agreed
that
there
is
no
feasible
way
to
do
it
today.

“I
don’t
even
know
who
would
undertake
[a
national
PDMP
database],”
said
Robert
Krayn,
CEO
and
co-founder
of

Talkiatry
,
a
virtual
psychiatry
company.
“There’s
no
pathway.
It
just
says,
‘Oh,
you’ve
got
to
check
it
nationally.’
But
there
is
no
one
even
working
on
this,
to
my
knowledge.
Where’s
the
money
coming
from,
who’s
working
with
all
the
states?
What
is
the
technology?
This
is
like
starting
at
zero.
This
rule
doesn’t
require
anybody
to
actually
create
the
database.”


The
buprenorphine
rule

Telehealth
advocates
also
have
concerns
with
the
buprenorphine
final
telemedicine
rule,
which
would
allow
a
patient
to
receive
a
six-month
supply
of
buprenorphine
through
telephone
consultation.
Additional
prescriptions
of
buprenorphine
would
require
an
in-person
visit.

“Stopping
something
at
an
arbitrary
period
after
six
months
is
concerning,”
Krayn
said.
“Patients
become
opioid
naive
at
that
point
in
time.
And
so
if
you
cut
off
their
access
and
they
go
back
to
using
substances,
it
could
have
a
material
effect
on
an
increase
in
overdoses.”

This
rule
could
greatly
disrupt
care
for
someone
who
is
struggling
with
a
substance
use
disorder,
noted
T.J.
Ferrante,
partner
and
a
board-certified
healthcare
lawyer
with

Foley
&
Lardner
LLP
.

“This
is
a
vulnerable
population,”
he
told
MedCity
News.
“Buprenorphine
is
for
substance
use
or
opioid
use
disorders,
and
especially
with
the
timeline
of
six
months,
they’re
still
in
the
early
stages
of
that
medication,
treatment,
management
and
care.

To
all
of
a
sudden
require
these
individuals
to
have
to
go
somewhere
could
be
very
disruptive.”


What’s
next

The
ATA
has
put
out
a
call
that
the
Trump
administration
withdraw
the
proposed
special
registration
rule
and
make
the
remote
prescribing
of
controlled
substances
permanent.
Specifically,
Zebley
of
the
ATA
wants
the
50%
threshold
for
Schedule
II
drugs
removed,
as
well
as
the
geographic
barriers
requiring
clinicians
to
be
in
the
same
state
as
the
patient.
He
also
wants
the
requirement
of
checking
national
PDMP
records
to
be
made
more
“manageable.”

Ferrante
called
for
similar
changes
and
noted
that
he’s
optimistic
the
rule
will
be
withdrawn
or
modified.

When
it
comes
to
the
buprenorphine
rule,
the
Alliance
for
Connected
Care
wants
it
to
be
reworked
or
pulled
back.
That
said,
getting
a
six-month
supply
of
buprenorphine
via
telemedicine
is
better
than
nothing,
according
to
Adamec.

Ultimately,
he
hopes
to
see
the
DEA
not
interfere
with
clinical
care.

“I
would
like
to
see
either
Congress
or
the
administration
move
forward
with
a
law
enforcement-focused
approach
that
creates
a
capability
for
the
DEA
to
monitor
the
sector,
understand
exactly
what’s
happening
and
take
the
action
that
it
needs
to
take
against
bad
actors
if
they
are
detected,”
he
said.
“But
we
don’t
necessarily
need
a
bunch
of
micromanagement
of
how
clinicians
and
patients
should
be
able
to
interact
when
providing
care.”

While
many
telehealth
advocates
are
against
the
new
rules,
at
least
one
digital
health
executive
considers
them
to
be
a
good
thing.

“Maybe
it’s
a
little
bit
more
red
tape,
but
honestly,
in
the
last
few
years,
I
think
VC-fueled
digital
health
has
been
a
little
bit
too
fast
and
loose
in
prescribing,
given
the
high
growth
profit
incentives
as
VC-backed
companies,”
said
Sean
Mehra,
founder
and
CEO
of

HealthTap
.
“So
I
don’t
mind
a
little
bit
of
tension
on
the
other
side,
because
while
these
VC-backed
companies
may
complain
of
slightly
constrained
profits
in
the
short
term,
for
sure
the
thing
that
will
kill
them
in
the
long
term
is
compromising
patient
safety.”

While
Mehra
declined
to
give
specific
examples,
one
company
that
made
headlines
was

Cerebral
,
a
mental
health
company
that
came
under

federal
investigation

for
its
prescribing
practices
of
controlled
substances,
including
Adderall.
Ultimately,
Cerebral
providers
stopped
prescribing
them.

HealthTap
is
a
virtual
primary
care
company.
It’s
worth
noting
that
the
company
has
a
clinical
policy
to
not
prescribe
controlled
substances.

Krayn
of
Talkiatry,
the
digital
psychiatry
company,
likely
disagrees.
He
believes
the
rules
as
written
will
only
jeopardize
patient
care.

“I
don’t
think
they
actually
add
any
guardrails,
and
the
guardrails
that
[the
DEA]
did
put
in
are
just
barriers
to
access
above
anything,”
he
argued.
“There’s
a
lot
that’s
wrong
with
it.
And
ultimately,
if
it
goes
through,
it
will
just
harm
patients.”


Photo:
Stas_V,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket: 02.03.25 – Above the Law

*
Top
firms
continue
expanding
equity
partnership
ranks
while
competitors
build
gates
around
their
gold.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Musk
shuts
down
payments
to
government
contractors…
presumably
not
Space
X,
who
can
safely
continue
spending
tax
dollars
on
exploding
rockets.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
“Lawyers
citing
fake
AI
cases”
epidemic
moves
to
Australia.
[The
Guardian
]

*
Plan
afoot
to
move
FTC
antitrust
functions
over
to
the
DOJ
because
if
there’s
any
field
that
screams
out
for
consolidating
all
power
under
one
roof,
it’s
antitrust.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
Supreme
Court
preparing
to
further
push
non-delegation
doctrine.
But
is
it
originalist?
Shhhhh…
stop
asking
questions.
[Law360]

*
Public
law
school
cuts
off
search
for
diversity
leader
amid
Trump
crackdown.
[Star-Tribune]

*
Baldoni
sets
up
website
with
more
Lively
accusations.
[People]

California Bar Maintains Reputation Of Being Horrible – See Also – Above the Law

Taking
The
Test
Is
A
Test
In
Itself:
Broken
portals,
wrong
sized
fonts,
and
where
the
hell
are
we
even
supposed
to
go?
Judge
Orders
Professor
Back
In
Class:
Take
that,
Jeff
Landry!
Not
Just
FBI
Head
Nominee:
Have
you
check
out
Patel’s
kid
friendly
Trump
fanfics?
Gonna
Need
That
Back:
Dechert
sues
law
librarian
after
accidentally
over
paying
them.
Tragedy
Hits
Home:
We
offer
our
condolences
to
the
families
and
friends
of
those
lost
in
the
D.C.
plane
crash.

The sky is not falling: Why Trump may not need the space council anyway – Breaking Defense

US
President
Donald
Trump
watches
the
SpaceX
Falcon
9
rocket
carrying
the
SpaceX
Crew
Dragon
capsule,
with
astronauts
Bob
Behnken
and
Doug
Hurley,
lifts
off
from
Kennedy
Space
Center
in
Florida
on
May
30,
2020.
(Photo
by
MANDEL
NGAN/AFP
via
Getty
Images)

Since
the
inauguration
of
President
Donald
Trump
to
his
second
term,
close
observers
of
American
endeavors
in
space
seem
to
be
wringing
their
hands
over
the
potential
dis-establishment
of
the
National
Space
Council.

The
council,
established
in
the
late
1980s
but
dormant
for
many
years
before
its
2017
revival
by
an
executive
order
by
Trump
and
continued
through
the
Biden
years,
was
designed
to
“[synchronize]
the
nation’s
civil,
commercial,
and
national
security
space
activities
to
advance
the
broader
priorities”
of
the
United
States
in
space,
according
to
a
Biden-era

fact
sheet
.

But
media
rumors
suggest
Trump
could
ax
the
council,
egged
on
by
lobbying
from
Elon
Musk’s
SpaceX,
according
to

Reuters
.

That,
in
turn,
has
prompted
concerns
related
to
how
we
need
a
National
Space
Council
to
chart
our
future
in
outer
space
.”
There
are
several
layers
to
this
argument,
but
the
long
and
short
of
it
is
that
it’s
overblown.

It
may
be
the
case
that
Trump
simply
does
not
need
a
space
council
to
pursue
his
administration’s
strategy
for
American
space
leadership
for
the
next
four
years.

Here’s
why:


The
President
already
has
the
policy
framework
and
strategy
for
American
spacepower
from
his
first
term
.

The
second
Trump
administration
does
not
need
another
year
long
space
posture
review
to
decide
where
we
are
going
when
we
have
the
National
Strategy
for
Space
and
all
the
SPDs
developed
during
the
2017-2021
first
term.

It
can
be
argued
that
the
National
Space
Council
has
already
met
its
objectives
for
the
administration,
and
now
its
up
to
the
President
and
his
new
team
to
execute
these
directives
and
strategy
across
civil,
commercial,
and
national
security
space
as
soon
as
possible.



RELATED:

Space
Force
zeroed
out
funding
for
in-space
mobility
in
FY26
budget
request,
sources
say

The
National
Strategy
for
Space
was
never
fully
implemented,
neither
were
the
Space
Policy
Directives
(SPDs).
These
should
provide
the
framework
for
American
excellence
in
space
and
all
departments
and
agencies
tasked
within
these
should
be
held
accountable
with
timelines
and
budgetary
support
from
OMB
and
Congress.

That
will
be
hard
enough
dealing
with
Congressional
opinions
and
ideas
despite
having
majorities
in
both
Houses.
No
need
to
bury
the
president
in
excess
policy
discussions
when
that
homework
has
been
done.


The
existence
of
a
National
Space
Council
will
not
prevent
rogue
agencies
doing
what
they
want.

I
know
this
from
experience.
In
the
last
Trump
administration,
there
were
many
departments
and
agencies
that
would
use
the
implementation
guidance
coordination
process
as
means
of
“resistance”
to
the
president’s
strategy
and
policy
directives.

While
many
people
complain
about
how
the
president
is
looking
for
senior
appointments
to
run
the
departments
and
agencies
who
are
“loyal”,
the
fact
is
that
each
of
these
people
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
the
president,
and
their
jobs
is
to
execute
his
policies,
once
the
discussion
period
is
complete.

To
avoid
providing
additional
means
for
resistance
to
policy
directives
from
continuing,
recruiting
those
who
are
of
the
same
mind
is
key.
It
might
be
that
some
at
the
highest
levels
think
that
the
time
for
discussion
is
over
and
the
time
to
move
out
is
now.
I
for
one
believe
this
to
be
the
case.


The
relationship
between
Trump
and
Elon
Musk
has
not
politicized
space
.”

I
have
written
on
this
topic
of
“politicizing
space”
before.
The
reality
is
space
policy
has
always
been
a
political
undertaking,
both
nationally
and
internationally.
Apollo
was
a
geopolitical
decision
by
John
F.
Kennedy.
Not
everyone
in
the
US
government
was
on
board
and
did
what
they
could
to
kill
the
effort.

The
Space
Shuttle
and
space
station
were
both
political
decisions.
Many
have
argued
that
if
the
Russians
weren’t
engaged
for
the
International
Space
Station,
NASA
might
not
have
had
a
vote
to
continue
the
project.
Cancelling
the
Constellation
project
to
send
astronauts
back
to
the
moon
and
to
Mars,
started
by
President
George
W.
Bush,
was
a
political
decision
that
even
President
Barack
Obama’s
own
party
members
in
Congress
were
not
totally
happy
with.



RELATED:

‘Changes’
expected
in
ISR
satellite
operations
to
sort
NGA,
Space
Force
roles,
official
says

Decisions
in
the
future
regarding
civil
and
national
security
space
will
continue
to
generate
political
mobilization.
It
is
an
area
of
great
emotion,
passion,
and
strategic
need.
Space
is
only
politics
free
in
science
fiction.

Musk
is
a
very
outspoken
proponent
of
going
to
Mars.
This
is
not
a
new
thing.
Musk
was
a
huge
advocate
of
this
when
Obama
was
in
office
as
well
as
during
the
Biden
administration.
The
difference
between
Trump
and
Obama
with
the
Biden
administration
is
while
Obama
and
Trump
sought
to
enable
commercial
space
technology
such
as
SpaceX
for
commercial
crew,
cargo,
and
other
capabilities,
the
Biden
administration
was
perceived
as
overly
restrictive.
While
some
regulation
is
vital
to
safety
of
property
and
the
environment,
too
much
is
hindering
to
American
leadership
in
space.

It
only
makes
sense
that
Musk
would
ally
with
Trump
given
his
stated
position
to
extend
American
“manifest
destiny
among
the
stars.”
Given
that
is
Musk’s
dream
as
well,
this
is
a
not
an
unusual
business
and
personal
relationship
between
an
industry
figure
and
the
president.
There
are
other
voices
included
in
the
space
policy
world,
Newt
Gingrich,
Bob
Walker,
Jared
Issacman,
and
many
more
are
also
part
of
this
discussion
and
will
be
joining
the
Trump
administration’s
space
policy
team,
in
the
case
of
Issacman.

Keeping
all
these
realities
in
mind,
might
help
people
understand
that
while
a
national
Space
Council
is
something
that
should
be
supported,
there
is
some
sound
logic
behind
why,
at
least
in
the
Trump
administration,
such
an
institution
is
not
necessary
for
the
second
term.

The
objective
now
is
to
get
moving.
Get
the
Space
Force
armed
and
ready
to
defend
the
nation’s
critical
space
infrastructure
out
into
cis-lunar
space,
and
to
see
the
“stars
and
stripes
planted
on
the
planet
Mars.”
Let’s
get
going!


Christopher
Ston
is
Senior
Fellow
for
Space
Deterrence
at
the
National
Institute
for
Deterrence
Studies
in
Washington,
DC.
He
is
the
former
special
assistant
to
the
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
of
Defense
for
Space
Policy.
The
thoughts,
opinions
and
analysis
presented
here
are
his
own
and
do
not
reflect
the
position
of
his
employer
or
the
Department
of
Defense.

Stat(s) Of The Week: Workers’ Legal Hurdles

As one of their marquee proponents settles into the White House, nondisclosure agreements and other restrictive covenants are likely to make new inroads in the workforce.

Not that they need any help. 

A new survey of nearly 2,000 participants flagged by Legal Dive reveals that about 45% of U.S. workers report being subject to an NDA.

Conducted by Penn State University and Lift Our Voices, the survey also shows many being subject to other restrictive covenants like class action waivers (43%), mandatory arbitration agreements (39%), and noncompetes (22%), Legal Dive reported.

Union membership, meanwhile, fell to a record low, according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data

In 2024, 9.9% of workers were covered by unions — down from 20.1% in 1983, the earliest year with comparable data. In the private sector, only 5.9% of workers were in unions last year. 

Nearly half of employees say they’re subject to an NDA [Legal Dive]
US labor union membership slips in 2024 to record low [Reuters]
Union Members – 2024 [Bureau of Labor Statistics]


Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn. 

The post Stat(s) Of The Week: Workers’ Legal Hurdles appeared first on Above the Law.

A Third Term As President For Trump? That’s Not Exactly Legal… – Above the Law

(Photo
by
David
Becker/Getty
Images)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


Anyone
who
says
that
obviously
the
22nd
Amendment
will
deter
Trump
from
trying
for
a
third
term
has
been
living
on
a
different
planet
than
the
one
I’ve
been
living
on.




 Ian
Bassin
,
who
served
as
an
associate
White
House
counsel
for
President
Barack
Obama
and
is
now
the
executive
director
of
Protect
Democracy,
a
nonprofit
advocacy
group,
in
comments
given
to

Politico
,
on
how
President
Donald
Trump
could
try
to
serve
a
third
term
in
the
White
House,
despite
the
Constitutional
edict
against
doing
so
that’s
provided
in
the
22nd
Amendment.
“The
court’s
gonna
tell
the
Republican
Party
that
they
can’t
run
their
candidate?
I
don’t
think
so,”
Bassin
said
.


Staci Zaretsky




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

email

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

Judge Order Puts Tenured Professor Back In Classroom – Above the Law

Quick
thing
about
punishing
law
professors

they
tend
to
be
pretty
read
up
on
how
the
law
works.
After
LSU
decided
to
withdraw
a
tenured
professor
over
undisclosed
“political
comments,”
there
was
an
immediate
push
back
for
the
sake
of
campus
free
speech.
In
what
has
to
be
a
huge
“I
told
you
so”
moment
for
Professor
Ken
Levy,
a
judge
recently
ordered
LSU
to
put
him
back
in
his
classroom.

Lailluminator

has
coverage:

A
state
judge
has
ordered
LSU
to
allow
its
law
professor
Ken
Levy
to
return
to
teaching
duties.
The
university
had
removed
Levy
from
the
classroom
pending
an
investigation
into
alleged
criticism
of
Gov.
Jeff
Landry.

Levy,
a
tenured
professor
of
constitutional
and
criminal
law,
sued
the
university
earlier
this
week,
saying
it
violated
his
First
Amendment
rights
and
its
own
policies
regarding
tenured
faculty. 

Judge
Don
Johnson
of
the
19th
Judicial
District
granted
Levy’s
request
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
that
would
allow
him
to
return
to
the
classroom
for
at
least
the
next
week.
Johnson
set
a
hearing
for
an
injunction
on
Feb.
10. 

Part
of
what
made
the
university’s
decision
to
remove
Levy
from
teaching
was
how
hush
everything
was
on
what
he
said.
As
it
turns
out,
he
only
threw
a
couple
of
eff
yous
at
the
governor.
The
offhand
comments
were
a
response
to
Jeff
Landy
calling
for
an
LSU
professor
to
be
punished
for
criticizing
Herr
Trump.
Levy
warned
his
student
not
to
record
him
saying
anything
in
case
the
witch
hunt
would
come
for
him.
While
it
did,
he
thankfully
has
a
judge
with
common
sense
on
his
side.


Judge
Orders
LSU
To
Reinstate
Law
Professor
Sidelined
For
Political
Comments

[Lailluminator]



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.