Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

During
yesterday’s
oral
arguments
in

Free
Speech
Coalition
v.
Paxton,
which
will
determine
the
constitutionality
of
a
Texas
law
that
requires
age
verification
before
accessing
sexually
explicit
material
online,
which
Supreme
Court
justice
wondered
if
Pornhub
was
“like
the
old
Playboy
magazine,”
asking,
“You
have
essays
there
by
the
modern-day
equivalent
of
Gore
Vidal
and
William
F.
Buckley
Jr.?”

Hint:
Derek
Shaffer, attorney
for
the
Free
Speech
Coalition
,
conceded
the
site
does
not
have
the
kind
of
navel
gazing
think
pieces
the
justice
seems
to
recall,
but
noted
there
are
“sexual
wellness
posts
about
women
recovering
from
hysterectomies
and
how
they
can
enjoy
sex.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

LexCheck,
a
legal
technology
company
specializing
in
contract
review,
is
launching
a
new
AI-powered
contract
analysis
tool
that
aims
to
solve
two
persistent
challenges
in
contract
technology:
the
ability
to
handle
complex
agreements
beyond
routine
contracts
such
as
NDAs,
and
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
contract
playbooks.

The
company’s
new
product,
LexCheck
Insights,
combines
know-how
from
its
legacy
product
with
cutting-edge
AI
techniques
to
review
and
redline
contracts
of
any
length
and
complexity
and
automatically
generate
contract
playbooks.

It
differentiates
itself
from
other
AI
contract
review
products
by
combining
traditional
natural
language
processing
with
advanced
large
language
models
(LLMs)
to
analyze
contracts
of
any
length
and
complexity,
while
also
offering
the
ability
to
automatically
generate
customized
playbooks
from
existing
agreements.

Learn
more
about
LexCheck
in
the

LawNext
Legal
Technology
Directory.

The
product,
which
integrates
with
Microsoft
Word,
uses
a
hybrid
approach
that
first
breaks
down
contracts
into
their
component
parts
using
traditional
natural
language
processing,
then
analyzes
those
components
using
LLMs.

This
methodology
allows
the
system
to
handle
longer
and
more
complex
agreements
that
have
traditionally
proven
challenging
for
AI-based
contract
analysis
tools,
the
company
says.

“The
dirty
secret
of
contract
tech
is
that
nothing
is
that
good
beyond
NDAs,”
said

Gurinder
Sangha,
LexCheck’s
founder,
during
an
exclusive
product
demonstration.
“If
you
see
any
demo,
it’s
going
to
be
on
an
NDA.
If
you
see
any
live
demo,
it’s
an
NDA.
You
rarely
see
anyone
trying
to
pitch
something
on
a
more
complex
document.”

By
contrast,
he
said,
LexCheck
Insights
is
built
to
handle
a
wide
variety
of
contract
types
—
from
routine
NDAs
and
MSAs
to
highly
intricate
agreements
—
with
high
degrees
of
accuracy
and
speed.

‘Playbooking
As
A
Service’

A
key
feature
of
the
new
product
is
its
ability
to
dynamically
generate
contract
negotiation
playbooks.
Users
can
upload
their
preferred
contract
templates
or
previously
negotiated
agreements
they’re
satisfied
with,
and
the
system
automatically
creates
a
playbook
within
moments.

Sangha
said
that
this
represents
a
significant
departure
from
traditional
playbook
creation,
which
typically
requires
weeks
of
manual
work
and
consultation.

“What
this
means
is
you
now
almost
have
‘playbooking
as
a
service,’”
Sangha
said.
“You
literally
can
now
create
unlimited
playbooks
that
are
very
dynamic
and
custom
to
the
situation,
which
you
could
never
do
in
the
past
because
it
was
so
onerous
to
even
build
that
document.”

The
system
makes
it
easy
for
users
to
create
multiple
playbooks
for
different
situations
–
such
as
separate
playbooks
for
different
contract
types,
geographic
regions
or
client
types.
Playbooks
can
be
continuously
refined
and
updated
as
users
encounter
new
preferred
language
during
contract
negotiations.

When
analyzing
contracts,
the
system
presents
deviations
from
the
playbook
in
a
clean
interface
that
allows
users
to
quickly
navigate
between
issues.
For
each
deviation,
the
system
provides
an
explanation
of
why
it
flags
the
issue
as
problematic,
generated
by
its
AI
engine.
Users
can
choose
to
accept
the
original
language,
insert
their
preferred
language
from
their
playbook,
or
generate
new
suggested
language
using
the
AI.

Waitlist
for
Free
Access

The
product
has
been
in
a
soft
launch
with
select
customers
for
several
months
and,
as
of
today,
is
now
making
its
official
launch
and
opening
a
waitlist
for
free
access.

Unlike
some
competitors
in
the
contract
analysis
space,
LexCheck
has
chosen
to
focus
solely
on
core
contract
analysis
functionality
rather
than
adding
additional
features
like
contract
summarization
or
proofreading
tools.

“We
took
the
view
that
we’re
just
going
to
live
and
die
by
the
AI
engine,”
Sangha
said.
“Our
AI
engine
is
just
better
than
anything
else
out
there.
We
also
want
to
get
the
user
in
and
out
of
the
software
as
quickly
as
possible.
We
don’t
want
the
user
to
live
within
our
product.
We
want
to
get
it
in
and
out
and
get
their
job
done.”

While
the
system
can
automatically
generate
redlines
for
any
agreement,
it
is
designed
to
give
users
more
control
when
working
with
complex
documents,
allowing
them
to
review
and
approve
changes
individually.
This
approach
recognizes
that
even
with
sophisticated
AI
assistance,
contract
negotiation
still
requires
human
judgment
and
discretion.

“This
is
not
going
to
replace
anybody,”
Sangha
noted.
“It’s
just
going
to,
if
you
want
to
be
faster,
it
can
make
you
faster.
If
you
want
to
be
more
accurate
and
not
miss
things,
it’ll
help
you
not
miss
things.
Or
ideally
both.”

LexCheck
is
offering
free
access
to
LexCheck
Insights
on
a
limited
basis.
Anyone
interested
can
visit

www.lexcheck.com
to
join
the
waitlist.

What’s
your
take
on
legal
trade
shows?
Are
they
an
important
way
to
learn
about
the
latest
trends? 

A
valued
opportunity
to
meet
potential
clients? 

Or
an
exhausting
blur
of
tech
talk
and
marketing
speak
that
leaves
you
with
little
but
an
expense
report
and
a
headache?

Whether
you
regularly
attend
trade
shows
or
avoid
them
like
the
plague,
we
want
to
know
what
you
think.
Please
take
our


brief,
anonymous
survey

to
share
your
views. 

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

You
have
associates
making
almost
$500,000,
so
in
a
sense,
[counsel]
get
squeezed
by
firms
because
the
firms
feel
like,
‘What
options
do
we
have?’
Generally
speaking,
they’re
less
likely
to
have
business
than
someone
who
has
a
partner
designation,
so
that
makes
their
ability
to
move
more
challenging.
They’re
more
senior
so
they
can’t
slot
into
the
associate
world
at
all.
So
it
has
to
be
a
firm
looking
for
someone
with
their
particular
expertise,
and
it’s
just
gotten
to
be
more
challenging
as
the
years
have
gone
by.

—
Jeff
Lowe,
senior
managing
partner
and
market
president
for
CenterPeak,
a
Washington,
D.C.,
consulting
firm,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
the
“no
man’s
or
no
woman’s
land”
counsel
often
find
themselves
when
it
comes
to
their
compensation
in
comparison
to
associates
working
at
firms
with
lockstep
pay
models.

---

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.

In
September,
Penn
Law’s
Amy
Wax
received

a
tepid
slap
on
the
wrist
from
the
University
following
years
of
racist
antics.
Wax
repeatedly
disgraced
the
University,
from

writing
racist
opinion
columns
and
telling
the
school
paper
that
when
it
comes
to
“white”
culture,

“I
don’t
shrink
from
the
word,
‘superior’”
to
publicly
insulting
Black
Penn
students
—
without
evidence
—
claiming
that,
as
an
ethnicity,
they

“rarely”
graduate
in
the
top
half
of
the
law
school
class
to
bringing

recognized
white
nationalist
figures
to
campus.

Through
it
all,
Wax

draped
herself
in
“academic
freedom”
and
managed
to
hold
the
school
at
bay
for
a
lot
longer
than
you’d
have
thought
considering
her
“academic”
work
amounted
to

citing
Wikipedia
to
spout
off
in
newspapers
and
webcasts
rather
than
submit
any
scholarship
to
scrutiny.
Finally
though,
the
school
had
enough
and
sanctioned
her
to
one
year
at
half
pay
and
no
summer
pay,
a
public
reprimand,
the
loss
of
her
named
chair,
and
a
requirement
that
she
must
always
clarify
that
she’s
not
speaking
for
or
as
a
member
of
Penn
Law.

But
MAGA
means
never
saying
you’re
sorry
and
that
the
only
racism
that
counts
is
“racism”
against
white
people
so
Wax
is
planning
to
sue
the
school
for
“racial
discrimination”
unless
it
drops
the
sanctions
and
lets
her
get
back
to
using
her
position
to

explain
that
the
country
needs
“fewer
Asians.”

From
the
Daily
Pennsylvanian:

In
a letter to
Interim
Penn
President
Larry
Jameson
and
the
University
Board
of
Trustees,
Wax’s
lawyers
argued
that
the
University’s
speech
policies
are
“inconsistent”
and
violate
Titles
VI
and
VII
of
the Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964.
These
titles
prohibit
discrimination
and
employment
discrimination
based
on
race,
color,
religion,
sex,
and
national
origin.
The
lawyers
also
cited
a
federal
code
prohibiting
racial
discrimination.
Furthermore,
they
claimed
that
the
policies
breach
Pennsylvania
contract
law,
noting
that
Wax’s
contract
with
the
University
includes
provisions
safeguarding
free
speech.

It
remains
confusing
how
Wax
finances
her
attorneys,
since
she’s
said
in
the
past
that
donations
to
her
legal
defense
are
tax
deductible
which

would
seem
contrary
to
federal
tax
laws
that
prohibit
entities
set
up
to
benefit
a
private
individual
from
claiming
tax
deductible
status.
But
maybe
she
paid
taxes
on
the
money
she
raised
on
the
back
end.

In
any
event,
her
legal
counsel
cites
a
number
of
potentially
inflammatory
statements
from
other
faculty
members
who
were
not
punished
the
same
way,
implying
a
selective
and
discriminatory
process.
For
example,
the
letter
cited
a
faculty
member
for
drawing
a
cartoon
that
Wax’s
counsel
say
depicts
blood
libel
with
three
men
drinking
blood
from
glasses
marked
“Gaza”
while
they
call
a
peace
dove
an
anti-Semite.
The
letter
notes:

You,
President
Jameson,
issued
a
statement
condemning
this
cartoon,
but
lecturer
Booth
has
to
date
received
no
official
sanctions
as
levied
against
Professor
Wax.
In
fact,
the
Jameson
Statement
(available
at

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/announcements/statement-political-cartoons-j-larry-jameson-interim-president-university)
implied
that
Penn’s
“bedrock
commitment
to
open
expression
and
academic
freedom”
required
that
Penn
impose
no
sanction
against
Booth
because
Booth
and
other
speakers
with
his
views
have
the
“right
and
ability
…
to
express
their
views,
however
loathsome
we
find
them.”

If
anything,
this
proves
how

consistent
the
school’s
disciplinary
process
is.
Wax
wrote
her
article
about
white
culture
being
superior
in
2017.
She
made
up
her
unfounded
attack
on
Black
students
in
2018.
She
was
publicly
citing
Wikipedia
in
2019.
Amy
Wax
had

at
least
an
eight-year
runway
before
the
school
took
even
modest
disciplinary
action
(she
was
taken
off
the
1L
teaching
rotation
in
2018…
which
seems
more
like
a
reward).

The
school
didn’t
publicly
discipline
a
professor
over
a
single
incident?
When
it’s
a
political
cartoon
and
not,
for
example,
a
false
claim
about
student
academic
records?
No
kidding!

The
crux
of
Wax’s
reasoning
is
that
the
school’s
stated
commitment
to
expression
of
“loathsome”
ideas
should
apply
her
behavior
like
apples
apply
to
oranges.
If
Wax
limited
herself
to
penning
articles
endorsing
mass
deportation
she’d
get
properly
roasted
by
the
critics
and
probably
denounced
in
the
same
way
the
cartoonist
was,
but
she’d
fall
within
the
broad
confines
of
academic
freedom.
Telling
the
world
that
you
don’t
think
a
specific
racial
category
of
students
are
smart
enough
for
law
school
is
not,
on
the
other
hand,
remotely
passable
as
a
scholarly
commentary
on
geopolitics.

But
worse
than
being
merely
inconsistent,
the
University’s
speech
policies—including
its
actions
against
Professor
Wax—transparently
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
race,
including
most
notably
the
race
of
the
subject
of
the
speech
at
issue.
As
such,
they
violate
federal
law’s
various
prohibitions
against
race-based
discrimination,
including
Titles
VI
and
VII
and
42
U.S.C.
§
1981.

It’s
discrimination
based
on
“the
race
of
the
subject
of
the
speech
at
issue.”
Denigrating
minority
students

should
be
protected
by
anti-discrimination
laws
because
the
school
didn’t
punish
OTHER
instances
of
discrimination
is
a
true
Galaxy
Brain
take.
If
anything,
this
suggests
the
school
should
punish
more
people,
not
that
Wax
shouldn’t
get
punished.

In
addition,
the
University’s
content-based
discrimination
against
the
speech
that
is
at
issue
here
violates
the
University’s
contractual
promise
to
Professor
Wax
(and
all
other
tenured
professors)
to
abide
by
First
Amendment
principles.

Yeah,
the
First
Amendment
doesn’t
really
get
people
out
of
hostile
work
environment
allegations.
“Look,
I
was
just
kidding
about
that
slur”
might
be
protected
from
prosecution,
but
you’re
still
going
to
get
written
up.

And
the
procedures
that
the
University
employed
to
determine
that
discipline
was
warranted
were
also
gravely
flawed
and
violated
the
contractual
tenure
protections
of
basic
due
process
and
fundamental
fairness
that
Professor
Wax
enjoys.
The
procedures
further
contravened
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
since
they
failed
to
accommodate
Professor
Wax’s
then-ongoing
cancer
treatments
adequately
(or
even
minimally).

From
the
outside,
it’s
hard
to
assess
the
extent
of
accommodations
provided
to
Wax.
But
the
process
was
quite
slow.

It’s
hard
to
believe
there’s
a
serious
claim
for
racial
discrimination
in
here.
On
the
other
hand,
by
tying
her
case
to
high-profile
statements
made
about
the
Gaza
war
and
the
UnitedHealthcare
CEO
killing,
Wax
sets
the
stage
for
a
cable
news
tour
decrying
the
campus
free
speech
“crisis”
that
outlets
love
to
hype.
They
had
a
field
day
getting
university
presidents
—
including
Penn’s
—
tossed.
This
seems
like
the
sort
of
manifesto
they
could
build
a
segment
around.

Of
course,
maybe
this
is
the
prelude
to
a
real
claim
that
we’ll
see
as
soon
as
the
school
tells
her
to
pound
sand.
But
generally
never
underestimate
a
publicity
hound’s
nose
for
publicity.

Penn
Carey
Law
professor
Amy
Wax
threatens
to
sue
University
on
basis
of
racial
discrimination
[Daily
Pennsylvanian]

Earlier:

Amy
Wax
Sanctioned
But
Keeps
Her
Job,
Tenure,
Confidence
That
School
Can’t
Do
Anything
More

The
Amy
Wax
Case
Has
Nothing
To
Do
With
Academic
Freedom

Professor
Declares
Black
Students
‘Rarely’
Graduate
In
The
Top
Half
Of
Law
School
Class


Law
Professors
Say
White
’50s
Culture
Is
Superior,
Other
Racist
Stuff

Amy
Wax
Moves
To
Dismiss
Disciplinary
Action,
Still
Raising
Legal
Defense
Funds
That
She
Claims
Are
Tax-Deductible

Amy
Wax
Says
Her
Legal
Defense
Fund
Is
A
501(c)(3)
Charity
And
That
Seems…
Odd

Law
School
Professor
Amy
Wax
Cites
Wikipedia
And
We
Need
To
Stop
Pretending
Tenure
Was
Made
For
This

If
You’re
Just
Finding
Out
Amy
Wax
Invited
A
White
Supremacist
To
Her
Class,
There’s
So,
So
Much
More!

---

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.

Once
you
get
locked
into
a
serious
collection
of
contempt
findings,
the
tendency
is
to
push
it
as
far
as
you
can.

That
sentiment
—
borrowed
from
Hunter
Thompson
—
developed
into
a
mantra
for
former
mayor
Rudy
Giuliani,
and
much
like
the
famed
author
he
seems
to
have
gotten
away
with
it,

settling
the
case
after
forcing
the
court
and
opposing
parties
to
wait
around
for
hours.

Already
held
in
contempt
by
two
different
courts
—
courtesy
of
SDNY

Judge
Lewis
Liman
and
DC

Judge
Beryl
Howell
—
Rudy
decided
to
go
all
in
this
morning
and
completely
skipped
out
on
his
in-person
trial
before
Judge
Liman.

Giuliani
was
due
in
court
for
a
limited
trial
to
determine
if
he
could
declare
his
Florida
condo
as
his
primary
residence
to
avoid
having
to
forfeit
it
to
satisfy
the
$148
million
he
owed
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss,
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
he
defamed
by
accusing
them
of
stealing
the
election
from
Donald
Trump
in
Georgia.
Freeman
and
Moss
were
subsequently
targeted
by
MAGALand
crazies
and
Rudy
took
off
to

fart
on
lawyers
around
the
country
in
a
doomed
effort
to
pretend
the
election
didn’t
happen.

Since
losing
the
defamation
action
to
Freeman
and
Moss,
Rudy’s
been
on
quite
a
journey,
claiming
to
be
bankrupt
and
declaring
takebacksies
on
bankruptcy
(takebankrupt-sies?).
Amidst
his
misadventures
in
bankruptcy
court,
he
listed
his
primary
residence
as
his
New
York
residence,
which
he’s
since
realized
isn’t
as
advantageous
as
claiming
Florida
as
his
home
and
taking
advantage
of
their
generous
laws
shielding
a
primary
residence
from
creditors.
Today,
Judge
Liman
was
set
to
preside
over
a
limited
bench
trial
to
determine
if
Rudy
could
pull
this
switch-in-time-to-save-what’s-mine.

But
Rudy
just
never
showed
up.

In
fact,
while
already
nearly
two
hours
late
for
the
trial,
Rudy
publicly
let
it
slip
that
he’s
hanging
out
at
Mar-a-Lago
instead
of
showing
up
to
court:

Around
1:30,
Judge
Liman
announced
that
the
trial
would
be
postponed
with
Rudy
still
M-I-A
—
or
M-A-L
as
the
case
may
be
—
and
set
to
reconvene
on
Tuesday.

Presumably
with
additional
contempt
hearings
to
follow
in
due
course.

But
then
everything
seems
to
have
turned
around
for
Rudy:

This
account
makes
it

seem
like
this
was
all
a
big
misunderstanding
and
Rudy
was
at
all
times
locked
in
serious
settlement
conversations
with
Freeman
and
Moss
and
they
just
all
forgot
to
tell
Judge
Liman
to
delay
the
trial
while
they
talked.
Though
this
reading
runs
afoul
of
the
fact
that
plaintiffs’
lawyers
showed
up
on
time
this
morning
expecting
to
have
a
trial
while
Rudy
took
videos
of
his
dog
aiding
and
abetting
contempt
of
court.

Indeed,
the
joint
letter
from
the
parties
to
Judge
Liman
announcing
the
agreement
indicates
that
it
wasn’t
hammered
out
until

after
Liman
postponed
the
trial
to
next
Tuesday.

To
be
clear,
this
is
an
agreement
in
principle
that
the
parties
expect
to
reach
“full
satisfaction”
before
the
end
of
February.
That
said,
the
parties
had
a
long
standing
court
date
this
morning
that
didn’t
work
out
either
so
if
you’re
a
gambler
there’s
even
odds
that
we’re
going
to
be
right
back
here
on
February
25.

(Joint
letter
on
next
page…)

Earlier:

Rudy
Giuliani
And
His
Lawyer
Continue
Their
Courthouse
Vaudeville
Act

Rudy
Guiliani’s
Legal
Strategy
Is
Performance
Art

Giuliani
Bumstumbles
Into
Contempt
And
Sanctions
In
Freeman/Moss
Case

---

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.

There
are
lots
of
flaws
with
Biglaw,
but,
one
of
the
virtues
is
the
transparency
on
compensation.
When
it
comes
to
the
associate
ranks,
the

majority
of
top
firms
have
a
very
clear
salary
and
bonus
schedule
and,

for
the
most
part,
firms
are
up
front
about
the
conditions
needed
to
take
home
the
cash
on
the
grid.
But
all
that
changes
when
you
make
partner.

Obviously,
the
ranks
of
equity
partnership
are
paid
with

often
byzantine
formulas
that
are
queued
off
of
profits.
But
what
about
the

growing
nonequity
partner
ranks?
Figuring
out
compensation
for
those
more
than
an
associate,
not
yet
an
equity
partner
is
a
lot
more
opaque.

According
to

reporting
by
Law.com,
nonequity
partners
are
averaging
less
than
$350,000
in
base
compensation
and
$106,000
in
bonuses.

According
to
a
recent
ALM
flash
survey
of
Am
Law
200
firms
and
midsize
firms,
nonequity
partners
averaged
about
$345,679
per
year,
with
an
average
annual
bonus
of
a
little
more
than
$106,000.

The
survey,
which
took
in
responses
from
286
lawyers
total
and
about
56
nonequity
partners
specifically,
also
pegged
the
median
salary
for
the
non-equity
tier
right
at
$300,000,
and
the
bonus
at
$50,000.
The
respondents
in
both
groups
ranged
from
the
smallest
firms
(1-99
lawyers)
to
the
largest
(1,500+)
scale.

Yeah…
compare
that
to
senior
associate
compensation
at
top
firms
(which,
admittedly,
not
all
of
the
ALM
respondents
work
at).
Associates
can
take
home
$435,000
in
salary,
with
a
$115,000
bonus.
Even
at
the
biggest
of
Biglaw
firms
(more
than
600
attorneys),
the
average
nonequity
payday

isn’t
much
more
than
senior
associates.
Now
it’s
clear
why
there’s
“friction”
between
these
classes
of
attorneys.
As
Blane
Prescott,
managing
shareholder
at
MesaFive,
noted,
“It
definitely
produces
some
friction.
Especially
among
middle
market
firms
who
are
getting
pulled
up
into
the
ranks
of
those
firms
paying
set
class
bonuses
and
special
bonuses.
Many
of
these
firms
are
now
saying
that
they
can
no
longer
guarantee
that
[nonequity
partners]
will
earn
more
than
associates.”

Walking
the
compensation
line
between
senior
associates
and
nonequity
partners
is
also
a
challenge
at
top
Biglaw
firms.
With
a

number
of

firms
adding

nonequity
partners
to
their
ranks,
keeping
everyone
paid
and
happy
is
an
art.

“I
think
it
is
getting
more
complicated
because
you
also
have
a
different
class
of
firm
now
wrestling
with,
‘How
do
we
compensate
our
nonequity
partners?’
that
never
had
to
think
about
it
before,”
said
Jeff
Lowe,
senior
managing
partner
and
market
president
for
Washington,
D.C.
at
consulting
firm
CenterPeak.
“You’ve
seen
over
the
last
five
years,
in
particular
formerly
single-tier
firms
moving
to
a
two-tier
system,
so
they
have
to
continue
to
find
that
line
to
keep
the
partners
happy.
But
they
went
to
two
tiers
specifically
to
divert
more
compensation
to
the
equity
partners.
So,
it
can
be
very
tricky.”

Not
every
firm
balances
this
issues
in
the
same
way.
Betty
Temple,
chair
emeritus
at
Womble
Bond
Dickinson,
told
Law.com
nonequity
partner
compensation
is
“bespoke,”
and
a
nonequity
partners
can
make
“generally,
significantly
more
than
associates,
and
sometimes,
as
much
or
more
than
equity
partners.”
But
Dan
Binstock,
a
recruiter
for
Garrison,
noted
that
is
far
from
the
case
at
every
big
firm.

“There
can
often
be
a
big
gap,
a
sizable
gap
between
the
highest-paid
nonequity
partners
and
the
lowest-paid
equity
partners,”
Binstock
said.
“And
that
can
provide
a
lot
of
extra
profit
for
a
firm,
where
partners
are
reaching
for
the
brass
ring
of
equity
because
they
will
get
a
seven-figure
jump,
and
they’re
willing
to
tolerate
multiple
years
at
a
lower
level
in
order
to
have
a
seat
at
that
table.”

So
a
word
of
caution
for
those
getting
a
“promotion”
to
nonequity
partner
—
the
compensation
may
not
be
the
brass
ring
you
assume
it
is.

---

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].

Imagine
a
world
where
legal
research
doesn’t
consume
hours
of
your
valuable
time.
A
world
where
you
can
get
a
comprehensive
overview
of
complex
legal
issues
in
minutes,
not
days.
Thomson
Reuters’
new
AI-Assisted
Research
tool,
integrated
within
Westlaw
Precision
with
CoCounsel,
brings
this
vision
closer
to
reality.

As
legal
professionals,
we’re
all
too
familiar
with
the
time-consuming
nature
of
traditional
legal
research.
Sifting
through
countless
cases,
statutes,
and
regulations
to
find
relevant
information
can
be
a
daunting
task.
But
what
if
there
was
a
way
to
significantly
jumpstart
this
process?

Thomson
Reuters’
AI-Assisted
Research
tool
represents
a
significant
advancement
in
legal
technology.
Built
on
the
foundation
of
Thomson
Reuters’
vast
legal
database
and
more
than
a
century
of
meticulous
work
by
attorney-editors,
this
tool
combines
proprietary
content
with
the
generative
power
of
a
large
language
model
to
provide
researchers
with
a
substantial
head
start.

In
recent
years,
there
have
been
notable
instances
of
misapplied
technology,
leading
to
some
embarrassing
legal
headlines.
However,
when
properly
harnessed,
generative
AI
can
greatly
enhance
the
efficiency
and
thoroughness
of
legal
research,
providing
you
with
comprehensive
information
faster
than
ever
before.

Superior
Data
Quality
for
Accurate
Results

The
efficacy
of
any
generative
AI
tool
hinges
on
the
quality
of
its
training
data.
AI-Assisted
Research
utilizes
premium
data,
curated
by
Thomson
Reuters’
seasoned
attorney
editors
over
several
decades.
This
robust
foundation
ensures
the
delivery
of
accurate
and
insightful
results,
simplifying
the
research
process
for
legal
professionals.

Simplified
User
Experience

Unlike
other
AI
tools
that
require
complex
prompt
engineering,
AI-Assisted
Research
invites
you
to
engage
with
it
through
straightforward,
conversational
queries.
This
creates
a
user-friendly,
chat-like
workflow
that
resembles
collaborating
with
a
colleague,
rather
than
navigating
intricate
commands.

Maintaining
Accuracy
with
Human
Oversight

While
AI-Assisted
Research
significantly
enhances
research
capabilities,
it
acknowledges
the
occasional
presence
of
inaccuracies.
Therefore,
it
encourages
users
to
verify
findings
against
underlying
authorities,
ensuring
the
integrity
of
legal
conclusions.
AI-Assisted
Research
is
designed
to
complement,
not
replace,
the
critical
role
of
the
legal
researcher.

Getting
Started
with
AI-Assisted
Research

Accessing
AI-Assisted
Research
is
straightforward:
simply
select
up
to
three
jurisdictions
and
enter
your
query
using
conversational
language.
For
instance,
if
you
are
working
on
an
employment
discrimination
case,
you
might
ask:
“Does
the
ADA
require
an
employer
to
reassign
an
employee
to
a
vacant
position
as
a
reasonable
accommodation?”

Comparing
AI-Assisted
Research
With
Traditional
Research

Traditional
searches
often
yield
numerous
cases,
statutes,
and
secondary
sources,
necessitating
a
thorough
review
to
extract
relevant
information.
In
contrast,
AI-Assisted
Research
distills
the
data,
providing
direct,
nuanced
answers
and
linking
you
to
pertinent
authorities.

Just
beneath
the
answer
is

a
list
of
supporting
authorities
with
passages
of
relevant
text.
Clicking
directly
on
the
passages
jumps
into
that
specific
language,
eliminating
the
need
to
search
for
complicated
text
within
a
lengthy
document.

A
Conversational
Approach
to
Refining
Queries

Because
legal
issues
are
rarely
entirely
unpacked
by
a
single
inquiry,
AI-Assisted
Research
supports
an
iterative,
dialogue-based
approach.
By
posing
follow-up
questions,
you
can
refine
your
search
until
you
obtain
the
precise
information
needed
for
your
legal
strategy.

The
Bottom
Line

In
conclusion,
AI-Assisted
Research
serves
as
a
force
multiplier
for
legal
professionals.
It
doesn’t
replace
traditional
research
methods
but
enhances
them,
providing
a
valuable
head
start
while
maintaining
the
essential
role
of
human
judgment
and
oversight.
As
the
legal
profession
continues
to
evolve
in
the
digital
age,
having
access
to
AI-Assisted
Research,
where
technology
augments
human
expertise,
and
which
is
grounded
in
accurate
and
trustworthy
legal
content,
leads
to 
more
efficient
and
thorough
legal
work.

Explore
Further

To
learn
more
about
the
capabilities
of
CoCounsel
and
AI-Assisted
Research,


delve
deeper
into
their
features
here.
For
additional
insights
on
related
tools
such
as


Claims
Explorer,
click
here. 

With
the
recent
news
of
Sullivan
&
Cromwell’s

five-day
office
attendance
edict,
law
firms
continually
find
themselves
balancing
their
in-office
needs
against
associates’
and
partners’
hybrid
schedules
—
and
it’s
no
surprise
that
the
flexibility
that
remote
work
offers
makes
in-person
facetime
seem
rather
unappealing.
If
associates
don’t
like
it,
they’ll
of
course
just
have
to
deal
with
it,
but
as
it
turns
out,
the
partners
don’t
like
it
either.

BTI
Consulting
Group
recently
surveyed
more
than
1,000
partners
from
law
firms
of
all
sizes,
ranging
from
Biglaw
to
boutique,
on
their
opinions
of
RTO
mandates.
As
it
turns
out,
a
majority
of
partners
(50.2%)
offered
a
resounding
“hell
no”
to
the
prospect
of
forced
office
attendance.
They
list
the
following
reasons
they’re
against
the
prospect
of
full-time
office
attendance
like
what’s
being
enforced
at
SullCrom:

• No
  one
  else
  will
  be
  there
• I
  am
  more
  productive
  working
  remotely
• Remote
  options
  keep
  the
  edge
  off
• I
  go
  in
  when
  I
  need
  to
• I
  am
  an
  adult
  and
  can
  manage
  my
  schedule
• I
  collaborate
  more
  when
  remote
  —
  it
  is
  easier
  to
  reach
  out
  by
  text
  and
  Zoom
  —
  “and
  can
  you
  believe
  I
  get
  better
  response
  when
  my
  colleagues
  are
  remote”

Wow,
that
must
be
refreshing
for
the
associates
who
are
dealing
with
congestion
pricing
and
toiling
away
in
the
office
to
hear.
A
comparatively
smaller
number
of
partners
(24.3%)
say
they
would
“quietly
resist
any
mandate”
because
“the
benefits
of
flexibility
outweigh
the
drawbacks.”

Now,
you
may
be
an
adult
who
can
manage
their
own
schedule,
but
your
work-life
balance
is
apparently
being
controlled
by
an
even
smaller
group
of
partners
(6.1%)
who
believe
that
being
in
the
office
the
only
proper
way
to
work
at
a
law
firm.
Here’s
why
they
support
in-person
office
attendance
mandates:

Better
collaboration
Training
less
experienced
attorneys
Improved
productivity
Higher
engagement
levels
Builds
firm
culture

All
of
these
wants
can
be,
and
have
been,
achieved
through
hybrid
work
schedules
that
allow
associates
and
partners
alike
to
have
a
sense
of
independence
when
it
comes
to
their
work
lives.

As
we
learned
from
this
survey,
not
even
partners
want
to
be
forced
to
go
to
the
office
—
so
why
mandate
that
associates
do
what
the
partners
can’t
bear
to
do
themselves?

Hell
No
We
Won’t
Go:
Partners
Respond
to
RTO
Mandates
[Mad
Clientist
/
BTI
Consulting
Group]

---

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.

Pam
Bondi,
former
Florida
Attorney
General
and

the
sort
of
cartoonish
villain
who
fights
Hurricane
Katrina
victims
over
their
pets,
began
her
confirmation
hearings
yesterday
to
serve
as
Donald
Trump’s
Attorney
General.
After
Trump
flopped
trying
to
help

Venmo
enthusiast
Matt
Gaetz,
Bondi
is
seen
as
a
“reasonable”
option.
Even
the
Washington
Post,
which
took
a
tough
stance
against
injecting
itself
into
partisan
disputes
when
it

tanked
an
endorsement
of
Kamala
Harris,
found
the
wherewithal

to
endorse
Bondi
for
the
Department
of
Justice
post
on
the
strength
of
her
tenure
as
Florida
AG
—
where
she
killed
an
investigation
into

the
Trump
University
fraud
after

Trump
bought
her
off.

All
vibes
that
bode
well
for
her
confirmation
because
heaven
knows
her
answers
didn’t.

In
fairness,
the
America
First
Policy
Institute
where
Bondi
prepared
this
brief
(along
with
former

cosplay
Attorney
General,

toilet
industry
trade
scammer,
and

soon-to-be
NATO
Ambassador
Matthew
Whitaker)
advances
a
Herculean
level
of
nonsensical
legal
claims,
so
one
could
say
it’s
understandable
if
she
forgot
one.
Even
if
it’s
a
massively
consequential
position
that
she
took
a
mere
two
months
ago.

Jose
Pagliery
of
NOTUS
helpfully
reminds
us
of
the
brief:

That’s
quite
the
contradiction.

But
let’s
assume,

arguendo,
that
Bondi
isn’t
suffering
from
transient
global
amnesia
and
does
recall
taking
this
position
in
front
of
a
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
in
November
and
she
just
doesn’t
care
about
the
special
counsel
law
now
that
Trump
isn’t
being
prosecuted
by
one.

Or,
more
ominously,
now
that
she
expects
to
use
the
special
counsel
process
herself
to
harass
Trump’s
political
enemies.

Avoiding
hypotheticals…
the
last
refuge
of
the
scoundrel.
While
this
is
a
tactic
that
couldn’t
get
a
1L
out
of
a
cold
call,
DOJ
and
judicial
nominees
pull
this
in
Senate
confirmation
hearings
all
the
time.
In
the
Trump
administration,
Republican
nominees
used
this
to
avoid
answering

whether
or
not
they
intended
to
bring
back
segregation.

But
as
shady
as
the
“hypothetical”
excuse
may
be
normally,
Bondi
isn’t
being
asked
about
*A*
hypothetical,
she’s
being
asked
about
*HER*
hypothetical.
She
said
it!
On
TV!
Bondi
says
that
“no
one
has
been
prejudged,”
but
she’s
the
one
who
said
“prosecutors
will
be
prosecuted”
which
doesn’t
leave
a
lot
of
wiggle
room.

In
fairness,
a
lot
of
people
who
should
have
read
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
have
started
pleading
ignorance
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
Like
Judge
James
Ho,
who
not
only
understood
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
birthright
citizenship
provision
but

got
himself
published
defending
it,
but
now
responds
with
the
Mariah
Carey
“I
don’t
know
her”
meme

anytime
someone
asks
about
this
now
that
Donald
Trump
has
proposed
a
mass
deportation
of
people
born
here.

Not
that
Bondi
didn’t
deliver
her
share
of
Carey
moments:

The
tape
—

which
cost
multiple
Biglaw
lawyers
their
jobs
—
has
been
played

ad
nauseam
over
the
last
four
years.
It’s
a
key
piece
of
evidence
in
an
election
interference
prosecution


that
Bondi
claims
to
be
improper.
How
can
she
know
if
the
case
is
improper
if
she’s
never
heard
the
evidence?
You
all
know
the
answer…
even
if
she
can’t
say
it.

And
those
are
just
the
answers
she
did
give.
But,
like
jazz,
it’s
all
about
the
notes
you

don’t
play.

Bondi
indignantly
declares
she
doesn’t

have
to
answer
the
Committee’s
questions
to
get
confirmed,
which
is
probably
true
given
where
we
are
right
now.
That
said,
the
question
used
to
have
a
certain

Ghostbusters
quality
in
that
any
time
a
Senator
asked
“are
you
going
to
do
something
illegal
for
the
president?”
you
say
NO.
That
answer
seems
to
be
a
disqualifying
one
in
this
administration.

But
the
Washington
Post
is
satisfied,
so
there’s
that.

---

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.