Category: News Feeds

Say
you’re
working
in-house
at
a
prominent,
profitable
company,
and
you’ve
got
a
major
legal
problem
on
your
hands.
It’s
a
bet-the-company
litigation
matter,
and
you’re
not
quite
sure
which
law
firm
to
choose
to
handle
the
issue.
You
turn
to
a
colleague
for
advice,
and
luckily
enough,
they’re
ready
to
make
a
recommendation
to
you
on
the
spot
thanks
to
one
firm’s
superior
client
service.

Unprompted
recommendations
from
legal
decision
makers
in
the
corporate
world
are
like
liquid
gold
for
law
firms.
Just
one
unprompted
recommendation
can
lead
to
an
attorney/client
relationship
that
can
last
for
decades,
prompting
more
and
more
such
recommendations,
leading
to
more
and
more
satisfied
clients
(not
to
mention
more
and
more
money
for
the
recommended
law
firms).

But
which
law
firms
receive
the
most
unprompted
recommendations?
Thanks
to
a new
study that
was
recently
released
by
BTI
Consulting
Group,
we
now
know.

As
noted
by
BTI’s

Mad
Clientist
blog,
peer
recommendations
rank
among
the
most
important
factors
when
securing
legal
representation,
with
86%
of
all
law
firm/client
relationships
starting
with
an
unprompted
recommendation.
Unfortunately,
these
referral
rates
have
dropped
dramatically
in
recent
years.

Law360
has
additional
details:

The
report,
based
on
interviews
with
over
500
corporate
legal
decision-makers
conducted
between
June
and
December
2024,
found
that
less
than
28%
would
recommend
their
primary
outside
counsel
to
a
peer
—
a
sharp
decline
from
69%
four
years
ago.
…

In
an
interview
with
Law360
Pulse,
BTI
President
Michael
Rynowecer
said
that
the
decline
in
referral
rates
indicates
law
firms
are
failing
to
meet
client
expectations,
with
this
dissatisfaction
prompting
clients
to
explore
alternatives.

“Fundamentally,
this
says
that
client
expectations
are
different
than
what
law
firms
are
delivering,
and
that
is
never
an
ongoing
good
thing,”
Rynowecer
added.
He
also
noted
that
clients
are
increasingly
demanding
law
firms
to
be
proactive
—
anticipating
problems
and
acting
swiftly
—
especially
in
the
face
of
new,
urgent
challenges.

Without
any
further
ado,
these
are
the
23
firms
that
earned
the
most
recommendations
overall
from
corporate
counsel,
despite
that
downward
tick
in
referrals
(in
alphabetical
order):

• 
  Arnold
  &
  Porter
• 
  Baker
  McKenzie
• 
  Cooley
• 
  DLA
  Piper
• 
  Faegre
  Drinker
• 
  Gibson
  Dunn
• 
  Goodwin
• 
  Greenberg
  Traurig
• 
  Hogan
  Lovells
• 
  Jackson
  Lewis
• 
  Jones
  Day
• 
  King
  &
  Spalding
• 
  Kirkland
  &
  Ellis
• 
  Latham
  &
  Watkins
• 
  Littler
• 
  Morgan
  Lewis
• 
  Morrison
  &
  Foerster
• 
  Ogletree
  Deakins
• 
  Reed
  Smith
• 
  Ropes
  &
  Gray
• 
  Seyfarth
• 
  Sidley
• 
  Skadden

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
firms
that
continue
to
be
recommended
by
their
corporate
clients.
If
you
want
your
firm
to
someday
be
among
those
on
this
list,
then
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
encourage
attorneys
to
intimately
get
to
know
your
clients’
business,
and
then
show
them
how
deep
your
understanding
of
their
business
really
is
—
after
all,
that’s
all
they
really
want
from
their
attorneys.
Try
it
out
sometime
and
reap
the
rewards.

Clients
Single
Out
23
Most
Recommended
Law
Firms
[Mad
Clientist
/
BTI
Consulting
Group]

23
Firms
Remain
GC’s
Top
Picks
Despite
Referral
Drop
[Law360]

---

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.

President
Trump’s
tariffs
may
be
unpopular
with
financial
markets,
economists,
and
anyone
with
a
retirement
account,
but
they
have
given
Senator
Rand
Paul
a
golden
opportunity
to
be
Right
About
a
Thing™.
The
Kentucky
Republican
makes
it
a
rule
to
be
RABT
once
a
quarter,
so
as
to
preserve
his
status
as
a
“maverick,”
so
he’s
pointing
out
that
the
president
imposing
tariffs
is
not
only
stupid,
but
also
completely
contrary
to
the
Constitution.

And
the
senator
isn’t
the
only
libertarian
who
noticed
that
allowing
a
deranged
autocrat
to
drive
the
economy
off
a
cliff
is
very
much

not
what
our
founding
forbears
had
in
mind.
The

New
Civil
Liberties
Alliance,
a
conservative
law
shop
that
represented
one
of
the
plaintiffs
in

Loper
Bright,
is
challenging
the
first
round
of
tariffs
on
China
imposed
in
February
and
March.
But
the
legal
reasoning
applies
equally
to
the
sweeping
excises
levied
yesterday.

Politico’s
Josh
Gerstein

flagged
the

complaint,
which
was
filed
in
the
Middle
District
of
Florida
on
behalf
of
a

small
business
that
sells
“premium
planners,
organizational
tools,
and
home
management
products.”
Emily
Ley,
the
eponymous
business
owner,
alleges
that
the
tariffs
will
cripple
her
company,
which
buys
its
wares
from
China
and
cannot
feasibly
find
new
domestic
suppliers.
She
also
points
out
all
the
ways
these
tariffs
are
facially
illegal
—
something
the
media
has
largely

yadda-yadda-ed
over
on
the
assumption
that
neither
Congress
nor
the
courts
would
do
a
damn
thing
about
it.

First
she
notes
that
Trump’s
first-term
tariffs
were
made
pursuant
to
the
Trade
Act
of
1974,
and
followed
a
statutory
procedure
that
included
publication
and
a
finding
by
the
US
Trade
Representative
that
other
countries
are
violating
trade
negotiated
trade
agreements.
But
that
takes
time,
and
US
Trade
Representative
Jamieson
Greer
was
only
confirmed
on
February
27.
So
this
go
round,
the
president
just
gestured
vaguely
in
the
direction
of
the
International
Emergency
Economic
Powers
Act
of
1977
(IEEPA)
and
crashed
the
economy.

In
February
and
March,
he

claimed
to
be
sanctioning
China
over
the
opioid
crisis.
In
April,
he

mumbled
something
about
the
trade
deficit
and
then
vomited
out
a

laughable
formula
imposing
tariffs
more
or
less
at
random
on
our
allies
(but
not
Russia,
North
Korea,
or
Belarus).

As
Ley
points
out,
IEEPA

isn’t
a
tariff
statute

at
all.
It
allows
the
president
to
impose
economic
sanctions
and
freeze
assets
of
hostile
foreign
actors
on
an
emergency
basis.
But
Trump
has
never
even
bothered
to
pretend
that
the
tariffs
are
tied
to
any
opioid
“emergency,”
instead
promising
that
we
will
all
buy
American
now
while
simultaneously
filling
the
Treasury’s
coffers
with
levies
paid
by
evil
foreigners.
Or
maybe
we’ll
just
tip
over
the
board
and
force
other
nations
to
renegotiate
bilateral
trade
deals.

The
IEEPA
limits
presidents
to
actions
that
are
“necessary”
to
address
the
specific
emergency
at
hand.
Here,
President
Trump
declared
an
emergency
relating
to
China
because
of
illegal
opioids
entering
the
United
States.
But
his
China
Executive
Orders
show
no
connection
between
the
opioid
problem
and
the
tariff
he
ordered—much
less
that
the
tariff
is
“necessary”
to
resolve
that
problem.
The
means
of
an
across-the-board
tariff
does
not
fit
the
end
of
stopping
an
influx
of
opioids,
and
is
in
no
sense
“necessary”
to
that
stated
purpose.

In
fact,
President
Trump’s
own
statements
reveal
the
real
reason
for
the
China
tariff,
which
is
to
reduce
American
trade
deficits
while
raising
federal
revenue.
While
the
“emergency”
is
not
challenged
here,
the
“fit”
of
the
tariffs
to
the
declared
emergency
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
the
IEEPA.

The
complaint
goes
on
to
note
that
even
if
IEEPA

did
empower
the
president
to
impose
tariffs,
such
a
delegation
of
congressional
authority
would
be
illegal
under
the
…

…

wait
for
it
…

MAJOR
QUESTIONS
DOCTRINE.

Yes,
the
theory
magicked
up
out
of
whole
cloth
to
allow
a
conservative
judiciary
to
cancel
executive
actions
by
Democratic
presidents
is
now
being
invoked
as
justification
to
stop
a
Republican
president
from
doing
crazy
shit.
And
the

Chevron-slayers
are
the
ones
doing
the
invoking.
Wild
times!

This
isn’t
a
new
line
of
attack
on
Trump’s
tariffs.
The
brainiacs
at
Lawfare

saw
this
coming
back
in
January.
But
in
light
of
yesterday’s
sweeping
tariff
announcement,
it
seems
all
the
more
apt.
Because
opioids,
the
putative
justification
for
the
February
and
March
tariffs,

are
an
actual
“emergency,”
if
you
squint
at
them
right.
But
trade
deficits
and/or
the
decline
of
American
manufacturing
are
policy
choices.
Or,
as
Ley
put
it
in
her
complaint:

If
the
President
is
permitted
to
use
the
IEEPA
to
bypass
the
statutory
scheme
for
tariffs,
the
President
will
have
nearly
unlimited
authority
to
commandeer
Congress’s
power
over
tariffs.
He
would
be
empowered
to
declare
a
national
emergency
based
on
some
long-running
national
problem,
then
impose
tariffs
purportedly
in
the
name
of
that
emergency—thus
sidestepping
the
detailed
constraints
Congress
has
placed
on
the
tariff
authority
it
has
granted.

In
the
meantime,
China
has
already
announced
that
it
plans
to
impose

actual
reciprocal
tariffs
to
match
Trump’s
folly.

Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
has
the
chance
to
do
the
funniest
thing
ever.

Emily
Ley
Paper
Company
v.
Trump
 [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Remarkable
Things
in
the
Government’s
Alien
Enemies
Act
Briefs
to
the
Supreme
Court”: Marty
Lederman
has this
post at
the
“Just
Security”
blog.

“Trump’s
Pick
to
Argue
at
Supreme
Court
Made
His
Career
in
Culture
Wars;
President
Trump’s
choice
for
solicitor
general,
D.
John
Sauer,
has
long
pushed
for
restrictions
on
abortion
and
access
to
contraception”: Abbie
VanSickle
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“The
Supreme
Court
Precedent
That
Should
Free
Mahmoud
Khalil”: Law
professor
Brad
Snyder
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

“Law
Firm
Kirkland
&
Ellis
in
Talks
With
White
House
to
Avoid
Executive
Order;
The
largest
U.S.
law
firm
by
revenue
tries
to
avoid
being
the
next
Trump
target”: Erin
Mulvaney,
Josh
Dawsey,
and
C.
Ryan
Barber
of
The
Wall
Street
Journal
have this
report.

“Judge
considering
whether
to
hold
Trump
officials
in
contempt
for
violating
court
orders
on
deportation
flights”: Devan
Cole
and
Tierney
Sneed
of
CNN
have this
report.

“Appeals
court:
Trump
pardon
‘plainly’
did
not
cover
Jan.
6
defendants’
unrelated
crimes;
The
mass
pardon
has
resulted
in
confusion
in
the
courts.” Josh
Gerstein
and
Kyle
Cheney
of
Politico
have this
report.

In
the
face
of
Donald
Trump’s
facially
unconstitutional
retaliatory
executive
orders,
we’ve
been
seeing
a
lot
of
folding
from
Biglaw:

Paul
Weiss,

Skadden,

Willkie,

Milbank,
and
potentially

Kirkland.
But
as
you
might
expect,
professors
who
care
about
being
on
the
right
side
of
history
are
doing
a
much
better
job
of
standing
on
principle
than
businessmen
who
are
willing
to
sacrifice
the
rule
of
law
for
their
bottom
line.
Law
professors
at
the
University
of
Virginia
School
of
Law
banded
together
to
speak
out
against
the
Trump
administration’s
strong
arming:

Like
professors
at
other
law
schools,
we
are
concerned
by
the
recent
federal
executive
orders
that
appear
to
target
law
firms
and
individual
lawyers
for
retribution
based
either
on
the
President’s
grievances
or
on
lawful
and
ethical
representation
of
clients
disfavored
by
the
current
administration.
In
the
words
of
the
preamble
to
the
ABA
Model
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct,
“An
independent
legal
profession
is
an
important
force
in
preserving
government
under
law,
for
abuse
of
legal
authority
is
more
readily
challenged
by
a
profession
whose
members
are
not
dependent
on
government
for
the
right
to
practice.”

The
statement
doesn’t
come
out
swinging
as
hard
as
the

363-professor
amicus
brief,
but
the
bravery
it
takes
for
professors
to
stand
up
for
the
rule
of
law
despite
the
risk
of
backlash
is
still
commendable.
As
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
warned,

law
schools
have
a
role
to
play
in
upholding
the
legal
norms
that
make
the
rule
of
law
possible
—
you
can
take
a
little
comfort
in
knowing
that
so
many
of
the
faculty
at
UVA
Law
are
doing
their
part
to
fight
for
them.

You
can
read
the
entire
statement
on
the
next
page.

Earlier:

Several
Hundred
Law
Professors
File
Amicus
Brief
Against
Trump’s
Attacks
On
Biglaw

Justice
Sotomayor’s
Optimism
For
The
Rule
of
Law
Under
Trump
Only
Lasted
A
Month

The
American
Constitution
Society
Calls
On
Quiet
Law
School
Deans
To
Speak
Up

Thousands
Of
Lawyers
Sign
Open
Letter
To
Defend
The
Rule
Of
Law
From
Executive
Attack

Over
50
Bar
Organizations
Stand
Up
For
The
Rule
Of
Law

---

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
is
learning
to
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.

According
to

reporting
from
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
the
richest
law
firm
in
the
world
—
Kirkland
&
Ellis
—
is
looking
to
join
the

growing
list
of
Biglaw
firms
bending
a
knee
to
Donald
Trump.
The
firm
is
reportedly
seeking
to
avoid
the likely
unconstitutional Executive
Orders
aimed
at
Biglaw
firms
that
have,
in
some
way,
pissed
off
the
far
right.

But,
as
noted
by
the
WSJ,
no
one
really
gets
*why*
this
is
happening.

Kirkland—a
powerhouse
in
the
worlds
of
private
equity
and
mergers
and
acquisitions—has
been
eager
to
avoid
a
conflict
with
the
White
House
and
has
hired
a
lobbyist
as
part
of
its
efforts,
the
people
said.
It
isn’t
clear
what
objections
Trump
and
his
inner
circle
would
have
to
the
firm’s
activities.

Honestly,
that’s
a
bit
of
an
undersell.
What
gets
me
about
these
guys
is…
who’s
to
say
Trump
would’ve
ever
even
noticed
them?
They’re
the
most
bland
PE
mentality.
The
only
anti-conservative
thing
you
can
tag
on

them
is
parting
ways
with
Paul
Clement…
WHO
IS

SUING
TRUMP
OVER
THIS
SAME
ORDER.

Maybe
Trump
is
just
a
fan
of
White
Lotus?

Put
Kirkland
on
the
list
of
firms
that

prioritize
their
bag
over
the
rule
of
law,
alongside

Paul
Weiss,

Skadden,

Willkie,
and

Milbank.

---

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].

Trump
FCC
boss
Brendan
Carr
isn’t
really
interested
in
doing
his
actual
job
as
head
of
the
FCC.
He’s
not
interested
in protecting
consumers
or
markets
from
notoriously
shitty
telecom
monopolies.
He’s
not
interested
in protecting
consumers
or
markets
from
harmful
consolidation.
He’s
not
interested
in
addressing
the
fact
the
telecom
industry just
saw
the
worst
hack
in
history.

What’s
he
interested
in?
Harassing
companies
that don’t
adequately
bend
the
knee
to
Trump.
And
harassing
companies
that
aren’t
suitably
racist
or
sexist
enough
for
the
Trump
administration’s
liking.

Carr’s
already
announced
he’s launching
phony
“investigations”
into
Verizon
and
Comcast for
not
being
racist
and
sexist
enough
(read:
having
some
bare-bones
inclusivity
efforts
on
a
website).
He’s
doing
this
by
leveraging
looming
approvals
for potential
shitty
mergers to
bully
these
companies
into
submission.
And
because
these
companies
are
routinely
stocked
with
abject
cowards,
it
will
probably
work.

And
Carr
continues
to
expand
his
anti-civil-rights
campaign
on
the
taxpayer
dime.
Last
week
he
announced
he’s
also
“investigating”
Disney/ABC
for
not
being
racist
and
sexist
enough. From
NPR (which
Carr
is
also
“investigating”
for
being insufficiently
deferent to
christofascist
clods):

“In
a letter to
Disney
CEO
Robert
Iger,
Carr
said
the
FCC’s
Enforcement
Bureau
will
review
whether
Disney
or
ABC
have
violated
any
FCC
equal
employment
opportunity
regulations.
He
added
that
the
probe
will
apply
to
both
past
and
current
policies.”

As
with
all
of
these
investigations,
Carr
is
pulling
his
legal
justifications
entirely
out
of
his
ass.
He’s
basically
trying
to
claim
that
marginal
efforts
to
be
more
inclusive
are
themselves
in
violation
of
anti-discrimination
rules
and
laws.
Rules
and
laws
they’re
trying
to
destroy.
It’s
circular
logic
gibberish
designed
to
give
a
thin
veneer
of
legitimacy
to
pointless
bullshit
harassment.
Sayeth
Carr:

“Numerous
reports
indicate
that
Disney’s
leadership
went
all
in
on
invidious
forms
of
DEI
discrimination
a
few
years
ago
and
apparently
did
so
in
a
manner
that
infected
many
aspects
of
your
company’s
decisions.”

In
telecom,
Carr
has
tried
to
re-interpret
language
in
the
Communications
Act
designed
to
prevent
discrimination
to
attack
efforts
against
discrimination.
It
will
never
hold
up
in
even
the
shittiest
of
courts,
but
Carr
of
course
doesn’t
care
about
that.
He
wants
the
publicity
generated
by
the
fake
investigations
to
do
the
bullying.
He
wants
to
scare
companies
with
fake,
costly
inquiries
into
nonexistent
violations.

Disney,
like
most
feckless
U.S.
corporations,
has been
happy
to
oblige
so
far,
scrubbing
their
websites
and
earnings
reports
of
references
to
equality
and
inclusion, shortening
warnings
on
Disney+ about
how
older
Disney
content
may
feature
racist
stereotypes,
and
shuttering
already
flimsy
programs
designed
to
help
marginalized
populations.

Of
course
the
U.S.
press,
many
of
them
keen
to
avoid
harassment
or
get
tax
cuts
and
merger
approvals,
have
proven
appropriately
feckless
in
their
news
coverage
of
Carr’s
weird
zealotry.

Authoritarian
propagandists
have
hijacked
the
term
“DEI”
to
help
sanitize
and
normalize
sexism/racism,
and
conflate
half-assed
corporate
inclusivity
initiatives
with
popular
civil
rights.
Instead
of
saying
Carr
is
“being
racist,”
“being
sexist,”
“embracing
resegregation,”
or
“attacking
civil
rights,”
they’re
quick
to
adopt
the
more
sterile
“he’s
investigating
DEI”
nomenclature:

And
if
you
read
through
pretty
much
any
coverage
of
these
sham
investigations,
you’ll
find
they
all
go
out
of
their
way
to
frame
Carr’s
racist
and
sexist
harassment
of
companies
as
serious
adult
policymaking.
Because
that’s
what
you
get
when
you
let
journalism
consolidate
at
the
hands
of
feckless
trust
fund
brunchlords
who
are
more
interested
in
tax
cuts
and
access
than
serving
the
public
interest.

Carr’s
a
weird
zealot
launching
baseless
investigations
into
companies
because
they’re
not
being
suitably
racist
and
sexist
enough
for
his
king’s
liking.
It’s
pathetic,
and
the
collective
press
and
corporate
response
so
far
has
been
equally
so.

Trump’s
FCC
‘Investigates’
Disney
For
Not
Being
Racist
And
Sexist
Enough

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Trump
Earlobe
Nibbler
Brendan
Carr
Faces
Inquiry
Into
His
Broad
Abuse
Of
FCC
Power

Anchorage
Police
Department:
AI-Generated
Police
Reports
Don’t
Save
Time

Iowa
Book
Ban
Law
Again
Mostly
Dead
Following
Return
Trip
To
Federal
Court

*
Heritage
Foundation
goes
to
gutless
law
firms
demanding
pro
bono
legal
services
under
the
terms
of
Trump
settlement.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Chemerinsky
lays
out
the
obvious,
explaining
that
firms
and
law
schools
standing
up
for
each
other
would
make
them
all
safer.
[Washington
Post]

*
HSF
and
Kramer
push
back
merger
date
as
economy
melts
down.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Man
who
conned
12
NBA
players
sentenced
to
12
years.
Man
who
conned
Dallas
into
Luka
trade
still
at
large.
[Law360]

*
Quinn
and
Gibson
representing
firms
tagged
in

EEOC
retaliation.
Since
any
of
them
caving
could
compromise
the
case
of
the
others,
any
jointly
represented
firms
must
all
be
planning
to
fight
or
all
planning
to
cave.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Copyright
suits
against
OpenAI
consolidated.
[Reuters]

*
Law
firm
tells
attorneys
to
“avoid
physical
ticks.”
[Roll
on
Friday]