Category: News Feeds

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Lawyers
are
waiting
to
see
what
they’re
going
to
be
compensated.
So
I
think
this
is
the
lull
before
the
storm.

—
Kay
Hoppe,
a
legal
recruiter
based
in
Chicago,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
on
one
of
the
reasons
2025’s
lateral
hiring
may
be
off
to
a
slow
start.

---

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.

The
Blake
Lively-Justin
Baldoni
litigation
is
off
to
a
predictably
batshit
start,
with
Lively’s
lead
counsel
already
accusing
his
counterpart
of
professional
misconduct
and
defamation.

The
fun
started
on
New
Year’s
Eve
when
Lively
filed
a
sexual
harassment

complaint
in
New
York
against
her
former
co-star
and
producer,
along
with
his
production
company
Wayfarer
and
various
publicists
and
partners.
At
the
very
same
time,
Baldoni
was
docketing
a
spectacularly
ill-judged

defamation
suit
in
California
state
suit
against
the
New
York
Times,
alleging
that
it
laundered
false
claims
from
Lively’s
civil
administrative
complaint
to
spare
the
actor
from
having
to
defend
herself
in
court:

Notably,
Lively
chose
not
to
file
a
lawsuit
against
Baldoni,
Wayfarer,
or
any
of
the
Plaintiffs—a
choice
that
spared
her
from
the
scrutiny
of
the
discovery
process,
including
answering
questions
under
oath
and
producing
her
communications.
This
decision
was
no
accident.
First,
her
administrative
complaint
is
rife
with
blatant
falsehoods
and
egregious
misrepresentations
that
would
have
subjected
her
to
dismissal
if
not
sanctions.
Second,
pursuing
formal
legal
action
would
have
derailed
her
true
objective:
an
orchestrated
campaign
to
rehabilitate
her
public
image.

On
January
16,
Baldoni
et
al
filed

suit
in
New
York
against
Lively,
along
with
her
husband
Ryan
Reynolds,

demanding
$400
million
for
defamation
and
“civil
extortion.”

The
cases
were
designated
as
related,
and
both
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Lewis
Liman,
who
just
got
rid
of
Rudy
Giuliani
and
is
probably
wondering
what
he’s
done
to
deserve
a
double
portion
of
this
bullshit.

Correspondence
docketed
by
Lively’s
lawyer
Michael
Gottlieb
of
Willkie
Farr
shows
that
he
tried
to
effectuate
service
through
Baldoni’s
lawyer
Bryan
Freedman,
an
experienced
media
litigator
from
California.
Freedman
not
only
ignored
those
requests,
but
disregarded
Gottlieb’s
attempt
to
waive
personal
service
for
Lively
and
Reynolds.

“Plaintiffs’
process
servers
made
attempts
at
service
on
the
evening
of
January
18,
2025,
which
resulted
in
one
of
Defendants’
employees
(who
is
not
a
party
to
this
action)
being
followed
to
the
residence
in
which
she
was
staying
by
an
unknown
vehicle
down
a
dark
road
late
at
night,”
Gottlieb
complained
in
a

letter
to
the
court
on
January
19.
“This
conduct
was
sufficiently
alarming
as
to
cause
that
employee
to
file
a
police
report.”

Freedman

counters
that
Lively
and
Reynolds
falsely
attested
that
Baldoni
requested
the
waiver
of
personal
service
in
his
offensive
suit.
To
be
fair,
they
signed
the
standard
form
waiver
which
says
“I
have
received
your
request
to
waive
service
of
a
summons
in
this
action
along
with
a
copy
of
the
complaint,”
since
it
does
not
appear
to
have
occurred
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
that
a
plaintiff
would
insist
on
his
right
to
harass
a
defendant
by
executing
personal
service.
But
waiving
service
extends
the
time
to
reply
from
30
days
to
60,
and
so
Freedman
demands
that
his
clients’
response
deadlines
be
extended
to
harmonize
them
with
the
earlier-filed
suit.

“In
sum,
the
Lively
Parties
falsely
engineered
an
extension
of
time,
until
March
20,
2025,
to
respond
to
the
Complaint
in
the
Wayfarer
Case
but
now
refuse
to
consent
to
the
same
deadline
for
the
Wayfarer
Parties,
even
though
doing
is
in
the
interests
of
justice
and
efficiency
in
cases
that
are
not
only
related
but
likely
will
be
consolidated,”
he
huffs.

Meanwhile,
Freedman
has
been
going
on
every
podcast
he
can
to
trash
Lively,
and
she
is
PISSED.
Since
December
20,
Gottlieb
has
been

sending
cease
and
desist

letters
accusing
Baldoni and
Freedman
of
defaming
his
clients
by
falsely
claiming
that
Wayfarer
took
“no
proactive
measures
…
with
media
or
otherwise”
and
“only
responded
to
incoming
media
inquiries
to
ensure
balanced
and
factual
reporting
and
monitored
social
activity”
prior
to
the
New
York
Times
article
about
Baldoni.

“Lawyers
are
not
publicity
agents.
We
are
required
to
follow
a
different
set
of
professional
standards
than
publicists
and
crisis
managers.
One
of
those
standards
is
the
prohibition
against
knowingly
making
factual
misrepresentations,

even
when
doing
so
would
help
defend
or
promote
our
clients’
interests,”
Gottlieb
warned,
noting
that
the
California
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct
require
lawyers
to
refrain
from
public
misrepresentations.
The
letter
also
accuses
Freedman
of
continuing
his
client’s
breach
of
the
agreement
signed
in
November
of
2023,
which
barred
Baldoni
from
retaliating
against
Lively
as
a
condition
of
her
return
to
finish
the
film.

In
a

letter
to
Judge
Liman,
Gottlieb
accused
Freedman
of
deliberately
seeking
to
prejudice
the
jury
pool,
in
violation
of
N.Y.
Rules
of
Pro.
Conduct
3.6(a),
which
bars
an
attorney
from
making
“an
extrajudicial
statement
that
the
lawyer
knows
or
reasonably
should
know
will
be
disseminated
by
means
of
public
communication
and
will
have
a
substantial
likelihood
of
materially
prejudicing
an
adjudicative
proceeding
in
the
matter.”

“The
Lively-Reynolds
Parties
intend
to
seek
an
appropriate
protective
order
to
govern
further
proceedings
in
this
case,
but
given
the
imminent
harm
caused
by
Mr.
Freedman’s
misleading
and
selective
statements
and
leaks,
we
respectfully
request
that
this
Court
schedule
a
hearing
as
soon
as
possible
to
address
the
appropriate
conduct
of
counsel
moving
forward
in
these
two
related
matters,”
he
concluded.

As
of
now,
Judge
Liman
appeared
uninterested
in
wading
into
this
sniping.
This
afternoon
he
issued
a

show
cause
order demanding
to
know
why
these
cases
should
not
be
consolidated.

Wayfarer
v.
Lively
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Lively
v.
Wayfarer
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Donald
Trump
did
an

historic
amount
of
damage
on
his
first
day
back
in
the
presidency,
the
most
glaringly
unconstitutional
of
which
was
an
attempt
to
rewrite
the
14th
Amendment
solo.
Trump
signed
an
executive
order
claiming
to
revoking
the
birthright
citizenship
granted
by
the
Constitution
(and
overturn
the
130-year-old
precedent
of

United
States
v.
Wong
Kim
Ark).

This
was

immediately
challenged
by
every
state
with
a
Democratic
Attorney
General,
several
municipalities,
the
ACLU,
and
immigration
rights
lawyers
across
five
different
lawsuits.
Seattle-based
district
court
Judge
John
Coughenour
was
the
first
to
act,
and
he
is
having
exactly
none
of
this
nonsense.

Coughenour
was
appointed
to
the
federal
bench
by
President
Ronald
Reagan,
so
not
exactly
a
lefty.
But
he
*does*
understand
the
law
and
the
“blatantly
unconstitutional”
executive
order
Trump
signed.
During
arguments
in
the
case,
Coughenour
let
the
attorneys
know
exactly
what
he
was
thinking
about
the
matter.
“I’ve
been
on
the
bench
for
over
four
decades,”
Coughenour
said.
“I
can’t
remember
another
case
where
the
question
presented
is
as
clear
as
this
one.
This
is
a
blatantly
unconstitutional
order.”
He
also
wondered,
“Where
were
the
lawyers?”
And
said
it
“boggled”
his
mind
that
any
member
of
the
bar
thought
the
EO
was
constitutional
(well,
any
member
of
the
bar

*not*
auditioning
to
be
Trump’s
next
SCOTUS
pick).

So,
yeah
Coughenour
granted
the

temporary
restraining
order
requested
by
Washington
Attorney
General
Nick
Brown
and
Arizona,
Illinois,
and
Oregon,
blocking
the
Trump
administration
from
enforcing
the
executive
action,
at
least
for
now.

---

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].

Like
many
Biglaw
firms,
WilmerHale
is
attempting
to
balance
the
flexibility
of
working
from
home
with
the
firm’s
in-office
needs.

Associates
have
enjoyed
the
ability
to
bill
their
hours
bedecked
in
their
finest
athleisure
from
the
privacy
of
their
own
home,
but
firms
are
seeing
a

dip
in
associates’
work
product
that
they
attribute
to
not
logging
enough
hours
in
the
office.
So,
firms
are
trying
to
thread
the
needle,
launching

hybrid
work
schedules.
Since
2021,
at
WilmerHale
that
means
three
in-office
days
(of
the
associate’s
choosing).
But
in
the
beginning
of
2024,
the
firm
let
associates
know
that
“record
of
their
compliance”
with
the
in-office
mandate
would
“be
taken
into
consideration
in
future
assessments
of
[their]
performance,
which
could
include,
for
example,
advancement
and/or
bonus
determinations.”

Now
the
rubber
has
hit
the
road,
and
associates
“significantly
out
of
compliance”
with
the
office
attendance
policy
are
hurting
in
their
wallets
—
to
the
tune
of
25%
of
their
bonuses.

From
a
tipster:

WilmerHale
just
sent
emails
to
associates
who
were
“significantly
out
of
compliance”
with
the
firm’s
in-office
work
policy
telling
them
that
their
bonuses
would
be
reduced
by
25%.
This
is
the
first
time
associates
have
been
told
definitively
that
their
bonuses
would
be
reduced
for
non-compliance
with
the
policy,
and
the
first
time
any
figure–let
alone
25%–was
mentioned.

Above
the
Law
reached
out
to
WilmerHale
for
comment,
but
did
not
immediately
hear
back.

It
really
stinks
for
associates
to
find
that
such
a
sizable
chunk
is
being
taken
out
of
their
bonuses.
WilmerHale

isn’t
the
only
firm
to

get
serious
about
coming
into
the
office,
but
such
punitive
measures
are
far
from
the
industry
standard.
Above
the
Law
will
continue
to
monitor
how
in-office
policies
are
being
handled
in
the
Biglaw
trenches.

As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Attendance”)
or
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.

---

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].

---

---

Do
you
have
a
lifelong
ambition
to
be
a
lawyer,
but
don’t
have
the
LSAT
score
to
actually
get
into
law
school?
May
I
suggest
a
four-year
stint
in
the
North
Dakota
legislature
as
a
paid(!)
way
to
the
career
of
your
dreams?
That’s
right,
according
to
a
proposed
new
law,

North
Dakota
House
Bill
1609,
introduced
by
state
Rep.
Lori
Van
Winkle
(R-Minot),
folks
would
be
able
to
sit
for
the
bar
exam
with
nothing
more
than
four
years
as
a
legislator
under
their
belt!

This
is,
objectively,
an
awful
idea.
The
bar
exam
covers
a
shit
ton
more
than
just
statutory
interpretation,
and
exactly
nothing
about
serving
in
the
legislature
for
a
mere
four
years
gives
you
the
ability
to
distinguish
between
whether
evidence
is
nonhearsay
or
an
exception
to
the
hearsay
rule.
There’s
a
lot
of,
well,
law,
that
you
learn
in
law
school
and
someone
trying
to
become
an
attorney
through
this
laughably
inadequate
path
is
likely
to
find
themselves
frustrated
at
the
prospect.
Not
to
mention
the
potential
problems
this
could
cause
for
the
public
when
they
depend
on
lawyers
as
experts
to
guide
them
through
the
often
confusing
maze
of
legal
requirements.
As
Rob
Port,
a
reporter
who’s
covered
the
North
Dakota
legislature
for
two
decades,

writes:

Would
you
feel
adequately
represented
in
a
legal
proceeding
in
which
your
liberty
and
property
is
at
risk
by
someone
whose
legal
qualification
is
a
term
in
Bismarck
voting
on
book
bans
and
blue
laws?

Would
we
let
someone
qualify
as
a
surgeon
because
they
spent
some
time
working
in
a
butcher
shop?

C’mon.
Let’s
be
serious.

The
current
legal
licensing
scheme
is

far
from
perfect.
But
if
the

ongoing
quest
of

Kim
Kardashian
to
get
that
Esq.
after
her
name
via
a

less
that
traditional
path
teaches
us
anything,
it’s
that
for
good
or
for
bad,
the
law
school
to
bar
exam
route
is
a
lot
more
consistent
way
to
start
a
legal
career.

Louisiana
does
things
a
little
differently.
For
example,
they
aren’t
a
common
law
state.
Stemming
from
their
particular
French
and
Spanish
history,
their
jurisprudence
is
primarily
focused
on
civil
law
and
statutes.
Another
idiosyncrasy
of
theirs?
Tenure
—
that
little
thing
meant
to
protect
academic
free
speech
by
preventing
professors
from
being
fired
over
expressing
their
political
views
—
doesn’t
seem
to
guarantee
the
same
protection
in
the
Pelican
State
as
everywhere
esle.

Lailluminator
has
coverage:

An
LSU
law
school
professor
has
been
removed
from
teaching
classes
for
reportedly
making
political
comments
in
the
classroom,
his
attorney
says.

LSU
Paul
M.
Hebert
Law
Center
Dean
Alena
Allen
told
students
in
an
online
meeting
Tuesday
that
tenured
law
professor
Ken
Levy
is
being
replaced
pending
an
investigation.

Baton
Rouge
attorney
Jill
Craft,
who
is
representing
Levy,
said
he
intends
to
fight
the
reprimand.

“We
cannot
live
and
exist
in
a
country
where
people
are
punished
because
of
their
opinions,
their
thoughts
and
their
words,”
Craft
said.
“This
is
particularly
true
in
the
area
of
academic
freedom.
If
we
take
that
away,
it
takes
away
the
cornerstone
of
this
democracy.
And
then
we
don’t
have
one
anymore.”

What
in
the
world
could
Prof.
Levy
have
said
that
was
bad
enough
to
remove
him
from
class?
There’s
only
one
thing
that
I
can
think
of
that
is
so
dangerous
that
merely
saying
it
should
warrant
such
a
response.
For
that
reason
I
will
not
say
it,
but
nothing
prevents
me
from
dropping
this
little
skit
involving
The
Whitest
Kids
You
Know’s
Trevor
Moore:

So,
what
extremely
illegal
thing
did
Prof.
Levy
say?
Because
Amy
Wax
has
been
verbally
“giving
her
heart
out”
to
folks
for
years
and
is
just
barely
starting
to
face
consequences.
If
you
have
any
details
on
the
story,
you
can
reach
us
at

[email protected].

LSU
Law
Professor
Removed
From
Classes
Amid
Investigation
Into
Alleged
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.

Corporate
law
departments

have
elevated
the
legal
operations
profession
in
recent
years,
making
these
roles
central
to
their
ongoing
quest
for
ever-more
efficiency.

With
its
recent
launch
of
CounselLink+™,
LexisNexis
has
provided
a
new
tool
to
help
in-house
lawyers
and
legal
operations
professionals
meet
these
demands.

The
“+”
in
“CounselLink+”
refers
to
integration
—
users
of
the
system
now
have
access
to
all
of
their
organization’s
customizable
tech
stack,
as
well
as
all
of
the
additional
Lexis
products
they
subscribe
to,
with
one
password.

The
result
is
a
comprehensive
system
with
the
capability
to
organize
and
streamline
all
aspects
of
a
corporate
law
department’s
work.

Lexis
products
are
embedded
throughout
CounselLink+
—
its
Practical
Guidance
tool
is
integrated
into
the
contract
management
system
to
assist
with
templates
and
drafting,
for
one
example.

A
streamlined
work
intake
feature
also
allows
the
law
department
to
seamlessly
field
and
respond
to
requests
and
questions
from
the
full
business.

And
Lexis’
proprietary,
market-leading
AI
applications
are
thoughtfully
embedded
throughout
the
system
to
further
boost
efficiency.

These
integrations
enable
users
to
share
data
across
systems
far
more
easily
than
they
could
with
a
patchwork
of
tech
solutions
in
place.

This
in
turn
helps
them
find
new
efficiencies
in
creating
and
managing
contracts,
or
evaluating
legal
risks,
or
managing
matters
and
spending,
or
fielding
and
responding
to
enterprisewide
questions,
among
other
tasks.

The
unified
system
also
eases
the
process
of
tracking
all
of
the
law
department’s
contributions
—
and
presenting
this
data
to
showcase
its
value
to
the
organization
and
refine
its
operations.

It’s
a
system
that
will
add
conveniences,
ease
user
adoption,
and
bolster
tech-focused
legal
operations
professionals
and
end-user
lawyers
alike.

If
you’re
curious
about
this
product
and
would
like
to
book
a
demo,

you
can
do
so
here.

Or,
first,
you
can
read
on
for
a
tour
of
select
features
of
CounselLink+.

Getting
Started

The
CounselLink+
system’s
homescreen
provides
immediate
access
to
numerous
systems
and
products.

Internally,
one
click
will
take
you
to
all
of
your
systems
—
matter
or
work
management,
financial
management
including
eBilling,
vendor
management,
contract
lifecycle
management,
organizationwide
requests,
and
data
analytics.

CounselLink+
also
includes
one
click
access
to
any
other
Lexis
products
your
organization
subscribes
to,
including
Lexis+
AI,
Law360,
Practical
Guidance,
and
more.

This
means
that
your
research
system
is
incorporated
with
all
of
your
other
workflow
products,
removing
the
need
to
toggle
between
disparate
systems.

The
Work
Intake
System

CounselLink+
is
organized
into
matters,
and
each
matter
provides
a
comprehensive
overview
of
every
item
to
track
—
these
include
law
firm
relationships,
eBilling,
documents,
and
contracts.

Matters
can
be
generated
manually
or
imported
from
other
systems,
and
they
can
automatically
include
data
and
documents
through
API
functionality.
The
system
is
also
highly
configurable,
allowing
each
enterprise
to
customize
the
KPIs
it’s
following.

Once
a
matter
is
created,
it
takes
you
to
a
matter
portal
that
allows
you
to
view
all
of
its
related
documents
and
metrics.
Tabs
contain
exhaustive
detail
on
everything
from
budget
in
reserve
to
internal
stakeholders.

Matters
can
also
be
created
with
the
CounselLink+
feature
called
“Work
Intake.”

The
Work
Intake
system
allows
the
legal
department
to
share
a
customizable
form,
most
likely
on
the
company’s
intranet,
that
will
allow
anyone
in
the
organization
to
ask
a
question
or
make
a
request.

It’s
a
process
that
eliminates
the
need
to
chase
down
requests
in
the
form
of
voicemails,
emails,
and
other
contacts,
instead
bringing
them
all
into
one
standardized
system.

The
routing
of
the
form
is
also
customizable
—
employment-related
requests
can
go
to
an
employment
lawyer,
while
questions
about
a
vendor
can
go
to
the
legal
operations
team,
for
example.

Requests
may
simply
be
questions
that
are
asked
and
answered,
or
they
may
be
promoted
to
matters.

But
whatever
the
outcome,
the
CounselLink
system
will
track
all
of
the
work
the
legal
department
is
performing.

While
just
about
any
system
will
tell
you
high-level
metrics
like
number
of
cases
handled,
this
system
excels
in
tracking
all
of
the
work
a
legal
team
is
performing.

CounselLink+
will
track
all
of
the
questions
that
come
into
a
law
department
—
the
volume,
the
number
of
questions
that
are
converted
into
matters,
the
practice
area
of
each
inquiry,
and
more.

In
addition
to
demonstrating
value,
this
data
also
gives
the
law
department
the
opportunity
to
refine
its
processes
and
maximize
efficiency.

Work
Management

Once
the
work
intake
is
completed
and
a
matter
is
created,
CounselLink+
will
integrate
its
varied
aspects
into
one
easy
to
use
workspace.

One
work
management
section
allows
you
to
store
documents
and
contracts
in
one
location.

They
can
be
imported
directly
from
email,
or
added
through
an
upload
form.
The
system
also
integrates
with
document
management
software
like
iManage,
and
has
check-in/check-out
and
version
tracker
capabilities.

CounselLink+
users
can
control
access
to
each
document,
sharing
only
certain
ones
with
an
outside
law
firm,
for
example.

The
matter
file
also
tracks
workflow
with
an
intuitive
calendaring
and
task-management
system.

This
allows
seamless
collaboration
with
other
internal
users
and
external
users.
It
particularly
allows
law
departments
to
collaborate
with
outside
counsel
within
the
same
portal.

Outlook
Add-In

At
a
large
legal
department,
legal
operations
professionals
will
spend
most
of
their
time
in
the
dashboards,
digging
into
every
available
metric
to
seek
greater
efficiency.

Lawyers,
however,
are
often
working
in
applications
like
Outlook,
while
only
occasionally
utilizing
the
full
system.

That’s
why
CounselLink+
has
a
feature
that
will
meet
lawyers
where
they
are.

Any
matter
created
in
CounselLink+
will
create
a
mini-homepage
that
can
be
accessed
in
Outlook.

The
homepage
contains
all
of
the
matter
information
relevant
to
a
lawyer
assigned
to
work
on
it,
and
it
allows
lawyers
to
easily
scroll
between
matters
and
find
all
documents,
invoices,
and
other
data
a
matter
includes.

An
“Add
Journal
Entry”
field
is
particularly
popular
among
CounselLink’s
lawyer
end-users.

The
panel
(seen
at
the
right
above)
allows
lawyers
to
include
things
like
status
updates,
meeting
notes,
or
documents
that
will
be
attached
to
a
matter,
as
well
as
to
tag
other
users
to
bring
it
to
their
attention.

The
entry
will
be
reflected
in
the
main
CounselLink+
system,
but
the
end-user
lawyer
only
needs
to
create
it
in
Outlook.

It’s
a
process
that
reflects
seamless
user
adoption
for
any
lawyer
currently
using
Outlook.

AI-Powered
Bill
Review

Whether
your
law
firms
bill
hourly
or
through
AFAs,
CounselLink+
can
transform
the
widely
dreaded
task
of
bill
review.

To
populate
the
system,
law
firms
can
submit
invoices
directly
through
CounselLink+
at
no
cost.

Once
an
invoice
is
in
the
system,
a
proprietary
Smart
Review
functionality
will
examine
all
of
the
charges.

The
system
will
immediately
validate
the
invoice
and
reject
items
like
hours
billed
by
unknown
timekeepers.
CounselLink+
will
then
review
all
of
the
items
in
an
invoice,
and
call
out
certain
ones
for
additional
scrutiny.

It
flags
these
items
with
a
review
that
goes
far
beyond
just
UTBMS
codes
—
leveraging
AI
to
scrutinize
every
part
of
the
charge,
like
the
date,
the
level
of
timekeeper,
the
charge
text,
the
units,
and
the
rate.

In
the
example
above,
the
system
identified
a
line
item
coded
for
trial
and
hearing
attendance
where
its
description
indicated
it
was
billing
for
setting
up
a
meeting.

Every
CounselLink+
client
can
customize
the
rules
Smart
Review
uses
in
its
bill
review.
They
can
also
be
customized
for
different
types
of
matters
—
different
rules
for
IP
invoices
versus
those
for
litigation,
for
example.

CounselLink+
also
has
a
Combined
Invoice
Review
functionality
that
allows
it
to
review
multiple
invoices
at
once.

This
feature
allows
law
departments
with
a
high
volume
of
invoices
to
review
them
all
simultaneously,
as
opposed
to
opening
and
closing
each
one.

It
can
also
provide
in-depth
spend
analysis
on
a
particular
matter
—
quickly
seeing
how
much
of
a
particular
matter
was
handled
by
partners
versus
associates,
for
example.

To
manage
your
roster
of
law
firms,
CounselLink+
will
also
provide
a
360
degree
view
of
your
law
firm
relationships.

Law
firms
have
a
weighted
score
—
customizable
by
the
in-house
law
department.
The
system
also
maintains
a
law
firm
diversity
survey
and
can
track
timekeeper
diversity.

Each
corporate
client
can
leave
Yelp-style
reviews
of
their
law
firms
as
well,
to
be
maintained
in
the
internal
system.
The
internal
star
rating
can
be
incorporated
into
the
law
firm
score
as
well.

See
for
Yourself

An
article
like
this
can
only
scratch
the
surface
of
the
capabilities
of
a
program
like
CounselLink+.

If
you’re
curious
about
this
product
and
would
like
to
book
a
demo,

you
can
do
so
here.

And
stay
tuned
to
Above
the
Law
for
our
follow-up
article,
where
we’ll
dive
into
additional
CounselLink+
capabilities,
including
its
contract
lifecycle
management
integration.

Generative
AI
continues
to
dominate
the
legal
tech
hype
cycle.
Despite
high-profile
embarrassments
for
lawyers
trying
to
use
the
algorithmic
hallucination
machine

to
disastrous
end,
trusted
industry
providers
remain
confident
that
proper
safeguards
and
techniques
can
build
a
time-saving
AI
assistant
for
lawyers.

And
idiots
are
saying
the
same
thing.

But…
let’s
not
go
crazy.
The
biggest
players
in
AI
are
already
admitting
that
it
takes
exponential
resources
to
make
linear
improvements
and
when
they’re
losing
billions
each
year
while
promising
it’s
going
to
all
be
worth
it
if
they
could
just

get
several
more
billion
to
suck
up
several
more
gigawatts
of
power, it
might
be
worth
considering
that
what
we
have
now
is
pretty
much

as
good
as
AI
is
going
to
get.

Which
isn’t
a
bad
thing.
Artificial
intelligence
tools
will
absolutely
unlock
substantial
benefits
for
attorneys
and
jump
start
projects
as
lawyers
build
out
sophisticated
methods
of
mining
the
firm’s
accumulated
knowledge
and
models
to
create
workable
first
drafts.
It
could
deliver
efficiencies
that
finally
take
down
the
billable
hour.
But
—
barring
a
singularity-level
jump
in
something
like
quantum
computing
—
it’s
not
replacing
lawyers.

Case
Western
Reserve
University
School
of
Law
understands
both
the
promise
and
limitations
of
generative
AI
and
has
launched
a
new
requirement
for
1Ls
to
achieve
certification
in
AI.

Case
Western
Reserve
University
School
of
Law
will
become
the
first
in
the
nation
to
require
all
first-year
law
students
to
earn
a
certification
in
legal
artificial
intelligence
(AI).
Launching
in
February
of
this
year,
the
“Introduction
to
AI
and
the
Law”
program—developed
in
partnership
with
Wickard.ai—will
immerse
students
in
the
fundamentals
of
AI
and
its
impact
on
the
legal
world.

It
doesn’t
require
getting
swallowing
the
AI
hype
to
realize
that
this
is
a
technology
that
young
attorneys
will
be
expected
to
understand.
For
lawyers
of
another
generation,
this
is
no
different
than
law
schools
requiring
1Ls
to
learn
how
to
use
Lexis
and
Westlaw
25
years
ago.
A
graduating
lawyer
in
the
latter
half
of
the
2020s
will
need
to
know
what
the
major
legal
AI
products
are,
how
they
work,
and
how
NOT
to
use
them.
That
last
part
might
be
the
most
important
and
the
CWRU
Law
course
will
discuss
the
evolving
landscape
of
AI
regulations
and
the
ethical
considerations
lawyers
have
to
take
into
account.

Expect
this
course
to
become
a
model
for
more
law
schools
in
the
coming
years.
Just
like
those
law
students
in
the
early
2000s
stopped
learning
how
to
use
books
for
Shepardizing
and
mastered
boolean
search
terms,
newly
minted
lawyers
are
going
to
be
expected
to
know
how
the
major
AI
tools
work
within
the
firm.

Case
Western
Reserve
University
School
of
Law
becomes
first
law
school
in
the
U.S.
to
require
legal
AI
education
certification
for
all
first-year
law
students
[The
Daily]

Earlier:

Generative
AI…
What
If
This
Is
As
Good
As
It
Gets?

Elon
Musk
Feeds
AI
‘All
Court
Cases,’
Promises
It
Will
Replace
Judges
Because
He’s
An
Idiot

I
am
old
enough
(no
snarky
comments,
please)
to
remember
all
the
various
kinds
of

disaster
movies
Hollywood
loved
to
produce
in
the
1970s.

I
am
not
going
to
discuss
the
Los
Angeles
County
wildfires,
except
to
remark
that
Hollywood
didn’t
make
these
up.
You
have
all
seen
photos
and
watched
the
reports
on
“linear”
television
or
various
social
media
outlets.
Who
said
“a
picture
is
worth

a
thousand
words”?

Just
as
in
any
other
natural
disaster,
we
are
all
touched
by
it,
even
if
we
don’t
suffer
a
personal
loss.
Colleagues,
friends,
family,
relatives.
Just
like
what
has
happened
in
other
parts
of
the
country
during
disasters,
we
are
numb
and
in
shock.
Familiar
places
gone.
Homes
gone.
Places
of
worship
rubble.
Businesses
gone.
Life
as
it
has
been
for
many
will
never
be
the
same.

To
all
of
you
who
have
texted,
emailed,
called,
or
donated
to
various
agencies
helping
those
displaced
and
dispossessed,
thank
you.
You
know
who
you
are.
But
to
those
who
have
flooded
social
media
with
nasty,
mean-spirited,
disparaging
comments
—
and
you
know
who
you
are
—
shame
on
you.

The
court
system
here
has
not
emerged
unscathed.
At
least
one
dozen
state
judicial
officers
and
a
similar
number
of
court
staff
have
lost
homes.
For
the
federal
district
court,
the
number
is
smaller,
but
no
less
distressing. 
Patricia
Guerrero,
chief
justice
of
the
California
Supreme
Court,
has
advised
that
it
would
be
a

violation
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Ethics
(Canon
4(d)
6)
for
any
judicial
officer
to
accept
any
gift,
even
in
these
times.
Thus,

fire
aid
is
limited
under
ethical
rules.
However,
Guerrero
said
that
the
court
is
considering
how
to
help
those
affected,
including
by
financial
assistance.
Each
situation
is
different
so
it
remains
to
be
seen
what
the
court
decides
to
do,
if
anything.
The
California
Constitution
prohibits
any

gift
of
public
funds.

The
Los
Angeles
County
Superior
Court
is
the
largest
trial
court
in
the
country.
It
stretches
from
Lancaster
in
the
high
desert
(approximately
70
miles
from
Downtown
LA)
to
Long
Beach
alongside
the
Pacific.
The
fires
broke
out
in
two
different
parts
of
the
county.
During
the
fires,
courts
were
open,
but
there
were
concerns
as
to
whether
some
of
the
courts
(in
smoke-filled
areas)
should
have
been
closed.
For
those
who
needed
to
appear
in
court
for
whatever
reason,
the

court’s
stern
handling
did
not
create
any
favorable
impressions.

Evacuation
orders
and
warnings
were
sent
to
cellphones,
but
for
those
sitting
on 
a
jury,
the
court
did
not
permit
cellphones
to
be
on.
That
presented
a
problem
for
those
who
didn’t
know
whether
there
were
evacuation
orders
or
warnings
to
be
followed
in
their
areas.
How
can
you
concentrate
on
the
trial
at
hand
when
you
don’t
know
whether
you
would
have
a
home
to
go
home
to?
How
do
you
prepare
for
a
possible
evacuation
if
you
don’t
know?
You
tell
me.
Is
this
a
case
of
damned
if
you
do,
damned
if
you
don’t?

This
is
not
the
first
time
the
LA
Superior
Court
has
taken
flak
for
its
decisions
during
crises.
The
court
took
it
on
the
chin
during
Covid-19
for
multiple
health
and
safety
violations.

The
fires
are
pretty
much

contained,
but
not
controlled.
Lawsuits
have
already
been
filed,
with
many
more
surely
to
come.
There
will
be
enough
blame
to
go
around.
Full
employment
for
many
lawyers
for
years.

The
wildfires
are
already
yesterday’s
news,
just
like
hurricanes
Helene,
Milton,
and
all
the
other
weather
events
that
have
happened
in
recent
memory.
Just
like
a
judge
who
tells
counsel
not
to
belabor
a
point
and
move
on,
we
keep
going.

And
moving
on,
when
the
Elias
Law
Group
told
its
associates
to
sign
a
mandatory
arbitration
agreement,
there
was,
not
surprisingly,
pushback.
Three
lawyers
have
already
voluntarily
boogied
and
the
fourth
was
forced
out
after

refusing
to
sign
the
agreement.

The
firm
has
said
that
it
wishes
the
departing
“the
best
of
luck
in
their
future
endeavors.”
Does
anyone
else
think
that
the
phrase
is
code
for
“don’t
let
the
door
hit
you
on
the
way
out”?

2025
is
well
underway.
As
the
racetrack
announcer
says,
“and
they’re
off.”
So
are
we.
For
counsel
who
have
cases
with
attorneys
in
LA
County,
especially
those
who
have
lost
homes
or
businesses,
please
cut
them
some
slack.
Show
some
professional
courtesy.
Everyone
here
has
been
affected
by
what
has
happened.
But
it’s
not
just
the
physical
losses,
it’s
the
mental
health
challenges
too.
And
we
all
know
or
should
know
about
mental
health
issues
in
our
profession.
Don’t
make
them
worse
by
being
an
unyielding
putz.

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at




[email protected].

Elon
Musk’s
cost-cutting
efforts
are
mostly
a
farce
to

sell
chintzy
merchandise
to
America’s
most
gullible
marks.
The
“Department
of
Government
Efficiency”
is
not
an
actual
cabinet
department,
but
rather
rebrand
of
the
existing
US
Digital
Service,
an
organization
that
—
despite
Musk’s
self-branding
—
cannot
actually
do
much
but

break
the
White
House
website.

Not
that
his
lack
of
actual
authority
matters
much.
Musk
is
still
boasting
about
bringing
the
same
energy
to
America
that
Javier
Milei
brought
to
Argentina
where
he
haphazardly
slashed
government
departments
to
deliver
a
government
surplus.
He’s
also
doubled
the
poverty
rate.
Here
in
America
we
actually
know
how
to
deliver
a
budget
surplus
because
the
Democrats
did
it
in
the
90s
and
every
Democratic
president
curtails
the
budget
deficit
year
after
year
only
to
watch
it
explode
under
every
Republican
president
since
Nixon
has
left
office
having
thrown
the
country
into
deeper
budget
shortfalls
than
when
they
arrived.

But
that
would
require
“rich
people
paying
taxes”
so
instead
Musk
and
Trump
will
engage
in
the
kayfabe
that
there’s
a
magical,
untapped
reserve
of
government
“waste”
that
can
just
be
eliminated
to
cover
the

couple
trillion
dollar
hole
in
the
deficit
that
Trump’s
tax
cuts
create.

Somehow
I
don’t
think
they’re
going
to
get
there
by
firing
a
handful
of
public
service
attorneys
but
that’s
not
really
the
point.

When
the
new
administration
took
office,
it
trumpeted
a
Federal
Civilian
Hiring
Freeze.
Like
most
of
the
administration’s
efforts,
many
assumed
this
would
be
a
slipshod
publicity
stunt
from
the
gang
that
couldn’t
shoot
straight.
But
now
we’ve
heard
from
young
lawyers
expected
to
start
work
with
multiple
government
agencies
finding
out
that
their
jobs
have
been
cut
as
part
of
the
farcical
efficiency
experiment.

The
annual
Attorney
Honors
Programs
run
by
the
DOJ
and
other
executive
agencies.
These
are
the
jobs
that
recent
law
school
graduates
can
do
while
maintaining
their
eligibility
for
a
competitive
job
offer
while
they
are
not
yet
ready
to
start
full-time
employment.

It’s
a
uniquely
harsh
knee
to
the
genitals
because
the
Attorney
Honors
Program
attracts
a
lot
of
candidates
who
have
now
missed
out
on
last
fall’s
interview
cycle
and
have
now
learned
—
a
few
months
from
graduation
—
that
the
solid
service
jobs
they’d
opted
to
take
are
just
gone.
Some
tipsters
who
reached
out
to
us
confirmed
that
they
turned
down
returning
offers
for
Biglaw
firms
to
accept
the
DOJ
position.

Hours
before
inauguration,
the
IRS
seemingly
expected
to
go
forward
as
usual,
probably
expecting
any
hiring
freeze
to
come
with
the
usual
carve
outs
for
positions
like
these.
Often
highly
credentialed
positions
are
excluded
from
freezes
because
the
government
requires
some
key
competencies.
But
competency
is
not
a
priority
for
DOGEheads
and
so
—
by
the
end
of

that
very
evening
—
the
IRS
was
already
sending
out
offer
retractions.

Obviously
the
IRS
is
an
agency
that
this
administration
holds
in
particularly
low
regard,
but
it’s
not
the
only
one
facing
cuts.
We’ve
heard
but
haven’t
been
able
to
hear
back
about
the
CFPB,
a
perennial
GOP
hobby
horse.
Nor
have
we
locked
down
reports
of
this
is
happening
at
DHS,
which
one
would
think
is
the
agency
Trump
most
needs
staffed
up
to
deal
with
the
bazillion
lawsuits
he’s
about
to
get
for
trying
to
start
a
mass
deportation
including
a
bunch
of
American
citizens.

One
might
have
thought
main
Justice
would
avoid
staffing
hiccups,
but
apparently
not.
The
DOJ
Civil
Division
blasted
its
Honors
lawyers
with
an
automated
email
from
the
Office
of
Attorney
Recruitment
and
Management
informing
them
that
their
jobs
were
gone.
We
already
know
the
administration
is
straight
up

shuttering
the
civil
rights
division
for
retooling,
so
it’s
hard
to
imagine
anyone
got
to
keep
their
jobs
over
there
either.

The
bleeding
may
not
be
limited
to
the
incoming
Honors
folks.
Above
the
Law
is
hearing
unconfirmed
reports
that
other
term
employees
at
DOJ
have
been
affected
as
well.
Online
boards
include
reports
of
DOJ
SLIP
(2L
summer
internships)
having
offers
revoked
and
that’s
almost
certainly
spilling
over
to
other
agencies.

Now
might
be
a
good
time
to
make
a
run
on
your
bank
like
an
extra
from

It’s
A
Wonderful
Life,
because
the
FDIC
is
sending
out
messages
revoking
job
offers
to
lawyers.
One
tipster
reports
that
people
who’ve
had
their
jobs
lined
up

for
months
are
getting
dropped
with
little
more
than
a
“We
wish
you
success
in
your
future
employment
endeavors.”

Yes,
they’re
making
cuts
at
the
“people
who
make
sure
your
bank
doesn’t
lose
your
money”
agency.

The
real
damage
from
this
assault
on
young
lawyers
will
be
felt
down
the
road.
A
whole
crop
of
attorneys
will
not
now
enter
public
service
and
future
law
students
will
look
askance
at
federal
jobs.
At
least
if
they’re
applying
in
an
election
year.
For
positions
that
rely
on
quality
applicants
willing
to
trade
compensation
for
prestige
and
job
security,
the
government’s
talent
pool
could
take
a
measurable
hit
going
forward.

But
Elon
will
report
that
he
managed
to
claw
back
$100,000
here
and
there.
I’m
sure
that
will
take
care
of
that
deficit
once
he
finds…
let’s
see
here…
30
million
federal
government
lawyers.

---

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.