Category: News Feeds

For
the
last
couple
years,
legal
tech
shows
mostly
involve
vendors
explaining
how
they’ve
“slapped
some
AI
on”
their
products
and
vaguely
promising
that
some
future
iteration
of
AI
will
arrive
to
assist
every
step
of
the
attorney
workflow.
But

great
leaps
in
generative
AI
capabilities
seems
unlikely
to
arrive,
being
that
the
most
exciting
AI
development
of
the
last
several
months
wasn’t
an
advancement
but
rather
DeepSeek
unveiling
TemuGPT
for
a
fraction
of
the
cost.

However,
this
doesn’t
make
generative
AI
any
less
revolutionary.
As
a

user
experience
enhancement,
it
can’t
be
beat.
Lawyers
who
used
to
shun
technology
are
now
routinely
interacting
with
it
through
plain
language
conversations.
Beyond
its
value
as
an
intermediary,
there
are
several
points
along
the
lawyer
workflow
—
even
if
it’s
not

every
point
along
the
workflow
—
that
AI
can
exponentially
enhance.

For
whatever
reason,
this
year’s
Legalweek
felt
like
a
turning
point
in
the
generative
AI
conversation.
Over
the
last
few
years,
vendor
pitches
tended
to
focus
on
the
promise
of
AI-to-come.
This
time
around,
most
of
the
pitches
focused
on
grounded,
specific
use
cases.

It
reminded
me
of
a
Netdocuments
anecdote
from
late
last
year,
where
they
zeroed
in
on
Boies
Schiller
using
the
product

to
rapidly
catch
the
team
up
on
an
inherited
case
with
a
looming
hearing,
as
well
as
a
session
from
RelativityFest
where
a

user
compared
cost
and
accuracy
figures
for
a
first
pass
review.
You
interrogate
discovery
material
differently
when
making
rapid
assessments
for
a
scheduling
hearing
than
when
you’re
drafting
a
summary
judgment
motion.
In
a
conversation
with
DISCO
last
week
about
its
AI
tool
and
the
value
it
can
provide
in
making
quick
assessments
to
get
a
step
ahead
in
strategy
at
the
outset
of
a
matter
—
having
a
sense
of
the
risks
as
early
as
possible
in
the
case
matters.
In
both
of
these
examples,
the
emphasis
was
on
painting
a
picture
of
a
real
moment
familiar
to
a
practitioner
and
making
the
value
proposition
there.

This
might
seem
like
a
small
shift,
but
it
hits
differently
than
“we’re
investing
in
AI
which
will
soon
do
everything
for
you.”

And
clients
might
be
noticing
this.

Last
week,
the
second
installment
of


The
General
Counsel
Report
2025
dropped.
Produced
by FTI
Consulting
and

Relativity based
on
interviews
conducted
by
Ari
Kaplan
Advisors
and
surveys
by
Censuswide,
this
edition
focused
on
AI
adoption
from
the
in-house
perspective.
And
in-house
legal
departments
are
getting
very
comfortable
with
it.

Of
course
in-house
has
one
of
the
best
use
case
stories.
Especially
on
the
legal
operations
side
where
legal
can
position
themselves
as
a
revenue
enhancer
as
opposed
to
a
cost
sink.
Turning
contracts
and
getting
deals
done
faster
matters.

But
with
more
comfort
on
their
own
side
of
the
house,
comes
increased
faith
in
outside
counsel’s
use
of
AI:

Bizarrely,
one
of
the
few
cases
in
this
survey
where
in-house
lawyers
aren’t
“comfortable”
or
better
is
early
case
assessment,
which
would
strike
me
as
one
of
the
most
compelling
AI
stories.
That’s
where
the
bots
are
more
likely
to
find
—
CHEAPLY
—
the
smoking
gun
buried
in
your
own
documents
and
figure
out
that
it’s
time
to
settle
before
the
bills
pile
up.
How
many
matters
drag
on
for
weeks
before
someone
stumbles
upon
the
rogue
employee
that
screwed
everything
up
with
one
email?
That’s
something
AI
has
a
high
probability
of
sussing
out
within
a
day.

But
it’s
queries
like
this
from
the
GC
Report
that
show
the
shift
in
thinking.
Here’s
a
question
asking
about
narrow
and
specific
cases.
This
is
the
information
that’s
informing
vendor
pitches
and
when
they’re
seeing
client
comfort
distributed
differently
by
use
case,
they’re
adapting
to
that.

A
peer
shared,
“Our
law
firms
are
permitted
to
use
AI
tools
but
cannot
bill
the
firm
for
that
work
alone.
I
want
them
to
do
work
we
cannot
do
in
house.
I
would
quickly
lose
faith
in
outside
counsel
if
they
replaced
some
of
their
thought
with
AI
results
alone.
E-discovery,
document
review,
and
legal
operations
are
excellent
use
cases
for
AI.”

There
again
is
the
heightened
interest
in

uses.
This
is
the
rhetoric
that
seemed
to
trickle
down
to
the
providers
this
year

Which
sparks
a
virtuous
cycle,
because
clients
had
every
reason
to
be
worried
about
one-size-fits-all
AI.
If
an
AI
product
can
do
“everything,”
will
outside
counsel
start
feeding
it
material
that
the
client
wouldn’t
want
in
there?
Will
firms
trust
the
technology
with
tasks
the
client
isn’t
on
board
with?
Can
the
client
even
police
the
day-to-day
use
of
such
a
broad
AI?

This
shift
to
“low-risk,
high-reward”
use
cases
is
working
because
it
de-escalates
the
fear
and
replaces
it
with
manageable
curiosity.
Contract
redlining?
Sure.
E-discovery
grunt
work?
Love
it.
Summarizing
300
emails
from
Bob
in
Procurement
into
a
single
bullet
point?
Inject
it
into
my
veins.

All
this
might
be
less
exciting
to
the
investors
who
thrive
on
the
idea
that
generative
AI
amounts
to
the
“magic
beans”
that
will
soon
replace
humans
with
Roomba
attorneys
to
the
benefit
of
their
insatiable
quest
for
wealth,
but
it’s
going
to
make
the
technology
a
lot
easier
to
swallow
for
lawyers.

Majority
of
General
Counsel
Indicate
Openness
to
Using
AI
in
Nearly
Every
Major
Legal
Use
Case,
According
to
The
General
Counsel
Report
[FTI
Consulting]

Earlier:

New
GC
Report
Details
All
The
In-House
Concerns
That
Ceased
To
Matter
Around,
Say,
Inauguration
Day

Try
as
it
might,
Lewis
Brisbois
Bisgaard
&
Smith
can’t
seem
to
keep
its
name
out
of
headlines
that
cast
the
firm
in
a
negative
light.

In
recent
years,
the
firm
suffered
a
defection
en
masse,
when more
than
100
attorneys left
to
join
a
(now
defunct)
boutique
firm.
Shortly
thereafter,
Robert
“Bob”
Lewis,
the
firm’s
founder
and
then
chair,
decided
to step
down.
At
the
time,
Lewis
was
one
of
the
longest-serving
chairs
of
any
Am
Law
100
firm.
Lewis
then
decided
to

retire
early,
taking
several
of
his
family
members
with
him.
Now,
the
bad
news
has
hit
the
firm’s
compensation
systems
—
and
lawyers
are
none
too
pleased.

Back
in
February,
Lewis
Brisbois
promised
lawyers
that
change
was
coming
to
their
salaries
and
bonuses
as
the
firm
attempted
to
leave
its
drama
in
the
past.
Chief
Operating
Officer
Rich
Davis
noted
in
an
email
(available
on
the
next
page)
that
because
the
firm
had
implemented
“new
processes”
to
“recogniz[e]
strong
performance
and
reward[]
deserving
talent,”
that
hours-based
formulaic
bonuses
(typically
paid
in
the
February
15
pay
period)
would
be
delayed
by
one
month,
while
merit
salary
increases
and
discretionary
bonuses
would
be
paid
out
on
time
during
the
March
31
pay
period.

The
March
31
pay
period
has
now
come
and
gone,
but
not
all
Lewis
Brisbois
attorneys
have
received
their
salary
increases
and
discretionary
bonuses.
In
another
email
from
Davis
(available
on
the
next
page),
he
states
that
changes
to
compensation
“presented
some
logistical
challenges”
that
impacted
payment
timing.
We’ve
been
told
that
this
email
was
received
by
lawyers
across
the
country,
ranging
from
California
to
the
Midwest
to
Florida.
Here’s
an
excerpt
from
that
email:

Regrettably,
the
base
raise
and
discretionary
bonuses
for
attorneys
in
your
office
were
not
able
to
be
processed
in
time
to
be
reflected
in
the
March
31st
pay
cycle.
These
amounts
will
be
reflected
in
your
checks
for
the
April
15th
pay
cycle.
The
base
pay
increases
will
be
retroactive
to
January
1,
so
this
unfortunate
delay
will
impact
the
timing
of
payments,
but
not
the
net
amounts
received.

Meanwhile,
insiders
at
the
firm
tell
Above
the
Law
that
only
a
limited
number
of
attorneys
at
the
firm
have
received
their
compensation
memos,
meaning
that
very
few
people
know
what
their
salary
increases
will
be.
“What
a
disaster,”
said
one
of
our
sources.
“Why
would
any
recent
law
grad
or
lateral
want
to
come
to
a
firm
that
pays
bonuses
and
raises
late?”

Best
of
luck
to
associates,
of
counsel,
and
nonequity
partners
at
the
firm
who
have
been
kept
(im)patiently
waiting
on
their
raises
and
bonuses.
We
certainly
hope
lawyers
at
the
firm
receive
their
money
on
Tax
Day.

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
the
emails
sent
by
Lewis
Brisbois
COO
Rich
Davis.)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

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
week,
over

80
Harvard
Law
professors
called
out
the
Trump
administration’s
vendetta
against
Biglaw
firms
for
violating
the
6th
Amendment
and
disregarding
the
rule
of
law.
The
recent
crackdowns
on
dissent
have
also
chilled
the
speech
of
international
students.
Imagine
the
horror
of
getting
cold
called
in
a
contracts
or
property
class
and
making
the
argument
that
the
widespread
use
and
enforcement
of
racial
covenants
shows
that
there
were
periods
of
American
history
that
maintained
white
superiority
and
property
rights
by
enacting
racism

structurally.
If
that’s
enough
grounds
for
Trump
to
sign
an
executive
order

attacking
the
Smithsonian,
that’s
definitely
enough
to
get
you
deported!
In
times
like
these,
it
helps
to
know
that
your
professors
acknowledge
and
are
willing
to
speak
out
against
what
you’re
going
through.
It’s
even
better
to
know
that
your
alumni
network
is
doing
the
same.

The
Crimson
has
coverage:

More
than
300
Harvard
Law
School
alumni
signed
a
letter
asking
Dean
John
C.P.
Goldberg
to
speak
out
against
the
Trump
administration’s
efforts
to
penalize
law
firms
for
representing
the
president’s
political
adversaries
in
recent
weeks.

…

“We
believe
Harvard
Law
School
as
an
institution
must
raise
its
voice
in
support
of
these
principles
and
in
denouncing
the
Executive
Orders,”
the
letter
reads.

Alumni
aren’t
the
only
ones
stressing
the
importance
of
institutional
response
to
the
Trump
administration.
In
a
recent
talk
at
Georgetown,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
opined
that

law
schools
have
a
role
to
play
in
preventing
the
erosion
of
norms
that
the
rule
of
law
relies
on.
Harvard
Law
as
an
institution
should
have
a
very
clear
interest
in
doing
what
it
can
to
prevent
what
will
come
if
everyone
takes
the
Skadden
route:
a
genuine
fear
that
not
pledging
fealty
to
the
man
in
charge
could
mean
financial
or
personal
ruin.

There’s
a
colorable
argument
that
Goldberg
speaking
out
could
motivate
Trump
to
set
his
sights
on
Harvard,
but
the
majority
of
the
law
school
faculty
already
circulated
a
letter
condemning
the
administration’s
retaliation
tactics
—
whatever
is
going
to
hit
the
fan
is
going
to
hit
it.
And
while
there
probably
should
be
a
bias
toward
maintaining
institutional
neutrality
under
normal
circumstances,
these
are

not
normal
circumstances.
Dissent
matters.
It
lets
people
know
that
they
aren’t
alone
and
galvanizes
them
to
action.
Whether
it’s
Perkins
Coie
or
Georgetown,
each
institution
that
takes
a
stand
emboldens
others,
just
by
virtue
of
being
able
to
see
people
refuse
to
be
bullied
toward
a
new
non-democratic
normal.

The
students,
professors,
and
alumni
are
waiting,
Dean
Goldberg.
If
the
rule
of
law
is
worth
fighting
for
(it
is),
you
and
other
law
school
deans
should
be
publicly
advocating
for
it.

300
Alums
Call
on
HLS
to
Denounce
Trump’s
Attacks
on
Law
Firms
[The
Crimson]

---

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.

First
it
was

Covington
&
Burling,
then

Perkins
Coie,

Paul
Weiss,

Jenner
&
Block,
and

WilmerHale.
These
are
the
Biglaw
firms
that
have
seen
Executive
Orders
aimed
at
them
for
the
grievous
insult
of
having
their
attorneys
take
cases
that
Donald
Trump
or
his
allies
just
don’t
like.
And
given
the
success
Trump
has
had
getting
some
firms
(Paul
Weiss
and
Skadden,
who
didn’t
even
face
an
EO)
to
do
his
bidding,
he
isn’t
likely
done
targeting
Biglaw.

And
the
folks
at
Willkie
Farr
think
they
know
who
is
next.
Them.

As

reported
by
the
American
Lawyer:

Sources
close
to
the
firm
say
Willkie
believes
it
is
one
of
the
next
likely
targets
of
the
Trump
administration’s
executive
order
blitz
on
Big
Law.
A
firm
representative
did
not
reply
to
multiple
requests
for
comment
regarding
the
matter.

The
New
York
firm
has
“started
to
make
preparations”
and
take
necessary
steps,
said
one
of
the
sources,
declining
to
elaborate
on
those
steps.

And
the
why
of
it
makes
a
kind
of
sense
too
—
the
former
Second
Gentleman,
Doug
Emhoff,
is
a
partner
at
the
firm.
And
two
former
investigators
for
the
congressional
committee
on
the
January
6th
attack,
Tim
Heaphy
and
Soumya
Dayanada,
are
also
partners
at
the
firm.
Plus,
Willkie
represented
the
Georgia
poll
workers,

Ruby
Freeman
and

Shaye
Moss,
who
took

down
Rudy
Giuliani.
That’s
the
exact
kind
of
thing
a
president
bent
on
retaliation
would
target
on
his
revenge
tour.

---

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].

This
weekend,
around
the
country,

a
coalition
of
liberal
groups is
planning
mass
demonstrations.
In
a
social
media

post
about
the
protests,
scheduled
for
April
5th,
organizers
said,
“Donald
Trump
and
Elon
Musk
think
this
country
belongs
to
them.
They’re
taking
everything
they
can
get
their
hands
on,
and
daring
the
world
to
stop
them.”

Lawyers
are
looking
to
get
in
on
the
action.
The
legal
industry
and
the
rule
of
law
is
under
attack.
Thus
far, Covington
&
Burling, Perkins
Coie, Paul
Weiss, Jenner
&
Block,
and WilmerHale have
seen
Executive
Orders
aimed
at
their
Biglaw
firms
for
the
grievous
insult
of
having
their
attorney
(or former
attorneys) take
on
clients
or
matters
that
Donald
Trump
(or
his
allies)
don’t
like.
The chilling
effect has
been
felt
throughout
the
industry,
despite
the
fact
the
orders
are likely
unconstitutional.
And
those
who
oppose
this
creep
towards
authoritarianism
want
a
place
to
let
their
voices
be
heard.

As
organizers
say,
“We
are
encouraging
NYC-based
attorneys
to
gather
at
the
April
5
protest
led
by
50501
and
Hands
Off.
50501
seeks
to
organize
a
single
day
of
50
protests
in
50
states
against
the
anti-democratic
actions
of
the
Trump
Administration.
We
specifically
seek
to
carve
out
a
space
there
for
the
many
attorneys
who
took
our
professional
constitutional
oaths
and
who
are
rightfully
alarmed
at
the
Administration’s
very
recent
attacks
on
the
legal
institution
and
the
independence
of
judges
and
law
firms.”

Headed
to
the
protests
this
weeked?
Let
Above
the
Law
know
how
it
went by
email,
by
text
message
(646-820-8477),
or
by
tweet
(@ATLblog).
An
insightful
response
—
we’ll
keep
you
anonymous
—
could
find
its
way
into
an
update
to
this
story.

---

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].

Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,” here.

AS
TRAUMATIC
AS
THE
PAUL
WEISS
DEAL
with
Donald
Trump
was
for many
of
us,
I
find
the
deal
that
Skadden
Arps
recently
cut
even
more
troubling
—
portending,
I
fear,
the
unfathomable
depths
that
Biglaw
will
sink
to
curry
favor
with
this
administration.

First,
it
was
striking
that
Skadden
chose
preemptive
capitulation.
Unlike
Paul
Weiss,
Skadden
had
not
received
one
of
Trump’s
dreaded
executive
orders
when
it
eagerly
waved
the
white
flag.
As
Trump
gloated
on
Truth
Social, the
firm
came
to
him in
supplication:
“Skadden,
Arps,
Slate,
Meagher
&
Flom
LLP
approached
President
Trump
and
his
Administration,
and
declared
the
Firm’s
strong
commitment
to
ending
the
Weaponization
of
the
Justice
System
and
the
Legal
Profession.”
(Wait,
did
Skadden
just
admit
it’s
been
“weaponizing”
the
system?)

But
what’s
getting
attention
is
how
much
Skadden
is
forking
over
for
a
Trump
absolution.
While
it
seemed
jaw-dropping
just
12
days
ago
or
so
that
Paul
Weiss
agreed
to
put
$40
million
into
Trump’s
pet
pro
bono
projects,
Skadden
is
committing
a
fat
$100
million
for
the
same
privilege.
(Granted,
those
amounts
are
practically
drops
in
the
bucket
for
both
firms
–
just
1.52%
of
Paul
Weiss’s
revenues
and
3%
of
Skadden’s.)
So
if
your
firm
is
on
Trump’s
blacklist,
you
better
be
ready
to
pay
the
going-rate.
Otherwise,
tough
noogies!

And
if
you
parse
the
terms
of
the
two
agreements
(as
described
by
Trump here and here),
you’ll
note
that
Skadden’s
commitments
went
further:

• Skadden
  agreed
  to
  “a
  total
  of at
  least $100
  million
  in
  pro
  bono
  legal
  services,
  during
  the
  Trump
  Administration
  and beyond,”
  meaning
  that
  hefty
  $100
  million
  is
  the
  floor,
  not
  the
  ceiling.
  (Paul
  Weiss’s
  commitment
  seems
  capped
  at
  $40
  million
  and
  limited
  in
  duration
  to
  Trump’s
  term.)
• Skadden
  agreed
  to
  “change
  its
  pro
  bono
  policy
  so
  that
  all
  pro
  bono
  moving
  forward
  will
  be
  done
  in
  the
  Firm
  name.”
  That
  likely
  means
  Skadden
  will
  be
  hampered
  in
  providing
  behind-the-scenes
  support
  to
  organizations
  that
  challenge
  Trump.
  (There’s
  no
  mention
  of
  such
  an
  arrangement
  in
  Paul
  Weiss’s
  deal.)
• Skadden
  agreed
  to
  “not
  deny
  representation”
  to
  “members
  of
  politically
  disenfranchised
  groups.”
  That
  could
  include
  some
  unsavory
  groups,
  such
  as
  election
  deniers,
  the
  Proud
  Boys
  or
  White
  Nationalists.
  (Paul
  Weiss
  only
  agreed
  to
  pro
  bono
  “that
  represent
  the
  full
  spectrum
  of
  political
  viewpoints.”)

THESE
ARE
NOT
INSIGNIFICANT
GIVES.
While
Paul
Weiss
might
have
set
the
precedent
for
Biglaw’s
capitulation
to
Trump,
Skadden
is
taking
it
to
the
next
level.
It’s
not
just
bending
the
knee
but
going
on
all
fours
and
doing
a
total
kowtow.

Were
these
concessions
offered
by
the
firm
or
demanded
by
the
administration?
Skadden executive
partner
Jeremy
London certainly
isn’t
saying.
Nor
is
he
shedding
much
light
on
the
decision-making
process.

Like
Paul
Weiss
chair
Brad
Karp,
London
wrote
an
everything-is-back-to-normal memo to
the
firm
outlining
the
main
points
of
the
deal
with
the
administration.
While
Karp’s memo was
expansive
and
bumpy,
offering
a
much
more
detailed
(and
emotional)
glimpse
into
the
decision-making
process,
London’s
message
to
the
troops
was
succinct
and
smooth.
Perhaps
too
smooth.

Subscribe
to
read
more
at
The
Ex-Careerist….

---

Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist” column
on
Substack
where
she
unleashes
her
unvarnished
views
about
the
intersection
of
work,
life,
and
politics.
A
former
lawyer,
she
was
an
opinion
columnist
at
Bloomberg
Law
and
The
American
Lawyer.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack
by
clicking
here:

This
roundup
is
published
monthly.
It
is
meant
to
highlight
some
of
healthcare’s
recent
hiring
news
and
is
not
intended
to
be
comprehensive.
If
you
have
news
about
an
executive
appointment,
resignation
or
layoff
that
you
would
like
to
share
for
this
roundup,
please
reach
out
to

[email protected].

Hires

Virtual
nutrition
care
company


Culina
Health
welcomed
Jane
Mentz
as
its
first
COO.
In
the
past,
she
has
served
as
COO
of
weight
loss
company

Calibrate
and
vice
president
of
growth
and
commercialization
at
value-based
behavioral
care
company

Quartet
Health.

Kurt
Knight
became
the
new
CEO
of
telenutrition
company


Foodsmart.
Prior
to
Foodsmart,
he
spent
nearly
14
years
at

Amwell,
serving
most
recently
as
the
telehealth
company’s
COO.

Trent
Green
announced
he
is
leaving
his
role
as
CEO
of

Amazon’s
One
Medical
to
become
CEO
of


NRC
Health,
a
healthcare
analytics
and
insights
company.
Green,
who
has
been
serving
as
One
Medical’s
CEO
since
2023,
will
step
into
his
new
role
in
June.

Smart
ring
company


OURA
welcomed
Ricky
Bloomfield
as
chief
medical
officer.
Bloomfield
comes
to
the
company
from
Apple,
where
he
served
as
its
clinical
and
health
informatics
lead
for
more
than
eight
years.

Washington-based
health
system


Providence
announced
that
Chero
Goswami
will
step
into
its
CIO
role
in
May.
He
will
come
to
the
health
system
from

University
of
Wisconsin
Health,
where
he
serves
as
chief
information
and
digital
officer.
Before
that,
Goswami
worked
as
vice
president
of
information
systems
at

BJC
HealthCare.

Patient
flow
automation
startup


Qventus
welcomes
Jeff
Evans
as
its
chief
commercial
officer.
Before
Qventus,
Evans
was
CEO
of
CAE
Healthcare,
now
known
as

Elevate
Healthcare,
which
provides
simulation-based
training
for
healthcare
professionals.
Prior
to
that,
he
spent
nearly
18
years
in
leadership
roles
at

GE
Healthcare.

Vijay
Parthasarathy
became
the
new
chief
product
and
strategy
officer
at


Sunbird
Bio,
a
blood-based
diagnostics
company.
He
comes
to
the
company
from

Exact
Sciences,
where
he
served
as
vice
president
of
product
management.
Before
Exact
Sciences,
Parthasarathy
spent
nearly
12
years
in
leadership
roles
at

Philips.

Musculoskeletal
care
company


TailorCare
appointed
Steve
Tutewohl
as
its
COO.
He
joins
TailorCare
from
healthcare
software
company

Evolent
Health,
where
he
most
recently
served
as
COO,
as
well
as
CEO
of
the
health
services
business. 

Life
sciences
company


Verily
welcomed
Carolyn
Jasik
as
associate
chief
clinical
officer.
She
comes
to
the
company
from
diabetes
care
provider

Omada
Health,
where
she
most
recently
served
as
chief
medical
officer.

Promotions

Pennsylvania-based
health
system


Geisinger
appointed
Megan
Brosious
as
its
new
COO.
She
has
worked
at
the
system
for
20
years,
most
recently
serving
as
chief
administrative
officer
of
its
central
region.

MD
Anderson
Cancer
Center
named
Jeffrey
Lee
as
its
new
chief
medical
executive.
He
joined
the
organization
in
1991,
having
served
most
recently
as
its
deputy
COO
and
chief
cancer
network
officer.

Exits

Blue
Shield
of
California
CEO
Lois
Quam
stepped
down
after
two
months
in
the
role.
She
originally
joined
the
organization
as
president
in
May
of
last
year,
and
she
was
later
appointed
to
the
CEO
position
in
January
as
part
of
a
company
restructuring.
Blue
Shield
of
California
has
tapped
CFO
Mike
Stuart
to
serve
as
interim
CEO.

Mary
Jo
Cagle,
CEO
of
North
Carolina-based
health
system


Cone
Health,
is
stepping
down
from
her
role
due
to
a
family
health
matter.
She
worked
at
the
health
system
for
more
than
14
years,
having
served
as
its
CEO
since
2021.
Bernie
Sherry,
who
has
served
as
Cone’s
interim
COO
since
December,
will
assume
the
interim
CEO
role
in
June.

Eric
Palmer
—
CEO
of


Evernorth,

Cigna’s
health
services
division
—
has
departed
from
the
company.
Having
first
joined
Cigna
in
2007,
he
had
served
as
Evernorth’s
leader
since
2022.
This
move
is
part
of
a

larger
restructuring
of
Cigna’s
leadership
—
which
involved
Brian
Evanko
stepping
into
the
COO
role
and
Ann
Dennison
assuming
the
CFO
position.

Neil
Meltzer,
CEO
of
Baltimore-based
health
system


LifeBridge
Health,
is
retiring
after
more
than
12
years
in
the
role.
He
will
continue
to
lead
the
health
system
until
his
successor
is
selected.

Layoffs

HHS
announced
a
major
restructuring
plan
that
includes
laying
off

10,000
employees
and
consolidating
28
divisions
into
15.

Blue
Cross
of
Idaho
is
reducing
its
workforce
by

135
employees
after
losing
a
contract
with
the
Idaho
Department
of
Health
and
Welfare.

The
University
of
Pennsylvania
Health
System
is
eliminating

300
jobs,
which
is
less
than
half
a
percent
of
the
organization’s
workforce.
The
system
said
100
of
those
positions
are
vacant
or
are
held
by
employees
who
are
retiring.
It
also
said
that
the
layoffs
will
help
the
organization
“ensure
strong
financial
footing.”

Washington-based


Valley
Medical
Center
laid
off

101
employees,
citing
severe
financial
challenges
following
Medicaid
funding
cuts.

*
Willkie
Farr
appears
to
be
the
next
firm
to
face
the
“surrender
or
fight”
choice.
[NY
Times]

*
Am
Law
100
firms
still
mostly
keeping
their
heads
down
as
rule
of
law
crumbles.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Another
baby
powder
bankruptcy
shenanigans
loss.
[Law360]

*
Visa
holders
may
still
want
to
avoid
crossing
the
border
at
this
point.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Voting
laws
can’t
be
changed
by
executive
order…
and
yet
here
we
are.
[Reuters]

*
Congress
targets
Northwestern
over
law
school
clinic
work.
[Chicago
Sun-Times]