The Fifth-Year Dilemma: Do I Stay Or Do I Go (In-House)? – Above the Law

Five
years
into
a
private
practice
legal
career,
things
can
start
to
feel
pretty
tough.
The
excitement
of
those
early
days
of
being
a
lawyer
is
long
gone
and
partnership
might
still
be
a
long
way
off.
It’s
no
surprise
that
a
lot
of
lawyers
start
considering
their
options.

A

survey

by
the
International
Bar
Association
(IBA)
of
young
lawyers
found
that
more
than
half
(54
percent)
were
likely
to
consider
leaving
their
jobs
within
the
next
five
years,
citing
work-life
balance,
salary,
and
mental
health
reasons
as
motivators.

Many
of
those
lawyers
will
consider
an
in-house
role.
Over
the
past
15
years,
the
U.S.
in-house
counsel
population
has
grown
by

80
percent

from
78,000
in
2008
to
140,000
in
2023,
driven
in
large
part
by
the
escalating
appetite
from
corporations
to
build
their
legal
teams.
The
total
number
of
lawyers
in
the
U.S.
has
also
grown
in
that
time,
but
more
and
more
are
choosing
to
pursue
their
careers
outside
private
practice.
Today,
in-house
lawyers
make
up
nearly
one
fifth
of
the
total
U.S.
lawyer
population,
compared
to
14
percent
at
the
time
of
the
global
financial
crisis,
according
to

data

from
the
Association
of
Corporate
Counsel.

For
the
competent
and
ambitious
midlevel
attorney
looking
ahead
at
a
long
career,
there
are
many
benefits
to
a
move
in-house.
Work-life
balance
has
long
been
seen
as
a
key
motivator,
and
was
particularly
front
of
mind
post-COVID,
with
in-house
roles
often
allowing
attorneys
more
free
time
in
the
evenings
and
weekends.
But
there
are
plenty
of
corporate
roles
that
also
demand
long
hours
and
come
with
heavy
workloads.
So
while
an
easier
life
may
not
be
guaranteed,
the
upside
is
being
closer
to
the
business,
seeing
the
direct
impact
of
your
work
on
an
organization,
diversifying
the
legal
work
you
do,
and
getting
access
to
opportunities
to
build
broader
business
skills.

It’s
a
big
jump
and
a
decision
that
no
lawyer
wants
to
take
lightly.
It
may
be
time
for
a
change,
but
how
do
you
work
out
where
your
skills
will
be
most
valued?
What
are
the
realities
of
a
corporate
career?
Will
you
fit
into
a
new
organizational
culture
and
way
of
working?


Charting
a
path
with
project-based
legal
roles

One
exciting
way
to
try
out
different
in-house
environments
is
a
move
into
contract
work.
There
is
huge
demand
from
the
world’s
leading
businesses
for
interim
support
from
first-class
mid-career
lawyers.
Contract
work
allows
attorneys
to
steer
their
careers
in
whichever
way
they
choose
by
trying
different
roles,
for
different
organizations,
in
different
industries.
Whether
you
are
looking
for
more
control,
choice,
or
variety,
you’ll
get
the
chance
to
pick
the
best
roles
for
you.

At

Peerpoint
,
we’ve
been
helping
lawyers
build
their
careers
for
more
than
a
decade.

Sally
McCrossin
,
Resourcing
and
Talent
Manager
for
Peerpoint
U.S.,
says:
“We
work
with
our
lawyers
to
understand
what
they
want
to
do,
and
why,
and
then
we
place
them
into
interim
roles
that
match
their
personalized
career
plans.
You’ll
be
working
in
a
really
supportive
environment,
allowing
you
to
focus
on
your
professional
growth.
And
as
we’re
part
of
A&O
Shearman,
one
of
the
world’s
leading
law
firms,
you
benefit
from
access
to
training,
networking,
knowledge
resources,
and
even
partner
support
when
needed.”

The
great
thing
is,
whether
you
choose
contract
legal
work
as
a
means
to
experience
different
environments
before
identifying
your
dream
permanent
role,
or
decide
to
keep
building
your
career
as
an
interim
lawyer,
you
can
be
confident
your
resume
will
benefit.

Peerpoint
attorneys
are
always
learning,
working
on
complex
matters
alongside
expert
teams
in
high
performing
environments.
“That
means
that
just
because
you
are
not
in
permanent
employment,
your
resume
will
be
no
worse
off,”
says
Sally.
“You
can
build
the
skills
you
want
to
hone
and
push
yourself
to
expand
your
horizons
in
new
industries
and
workstreams.”

Have
you
always
wanted
to
work
in
a
start-up
but
feared
a
wrong
move?
Do
you
harbor
a
burning
curiosity
to
explore
the
fintech
world,
or
work
in
a
more
global
business?
Interim
roles
let
you
experiment
and
grow
on
your
own
terms,
without
the
need
to
commit
for
the
long
term.


A
move
that
works
for
you

Interim
assignments
can
allow
you
more
flexibility
to
spend
your
time
doing
what
matters
most
to
you.
Flexibility
can
take
many
forms,
whether
you
choose
to
take
on
an
assignment
with
hours
that
work
better
for
you
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
or
take
extended
breaks
between
roles
to
travel
or
spend
time
with
family.

With
Peerpoint,
you
can
shape
not
only
the
role
but
the
working
life
that
suits
you:
it
might
suit
you
to
step
back
from
office
politics,
or
you
could
forge
new
connections
and
expand
your
coaching
and
mentoring
responsibilities.

If
you’re
facing
the
Fifth-Year
Dilemma,
stepping
out
of
private
practice
might
feel
like
a
big
leap,
but
there
are
ways
to
test
the
water
and
see
what
you
are
getting
into
before
you
fully
commit
to
a
new
long-term
position.
Or
you
might
find
the
freelancer
lifestyle
works
for
you
and
decide
to
stick
with
it
for
years.
We
have
plenty
of
experience
supporting
lawyers
through
career
transitions

if
you
feel
you
might
be
ready
for
a
change,
please
get
in
touch.


Get
in
touch
with
us
today…


If
you’re
ready
to
explore
a
legal
career
on
your
own
terms,
contact
us
at


[email protected]

or
find
out
more
at

peerpoint.com/join-our-panel
.

Typo More Honest About Sullivan & Cromwell’s Hours Than Intended – Above the Law

Sullivan
&
Cromwell
are

going
back
to
a
five-day
office
work
week
,
bucking
the
post-pandemic
trend
among
Biglaw
firms
opting
for
three
or
four
days
of
forced
commuting.
During
the
lockdown,
law
firms
saw
profits
soar
and
many
took
it
as
a
sign
that
the
most
efficient
way
to
run
a
firm
would
be
heavy
on
associate
flexibility
and
lighter
on
office
overhead.
But
as
the
last
pandemic
fades
into
memory
and
we
await
the
next
one,
many
firms
have
ordered
lawyers
back
to
their
desks
so
they
can
pass
along
the
rent
of
their
oversized
luxury
offices
to
clients.

Someone
has
to
pay
for
that
view.

There
are,
to
be
sure,
advantages
to
office
attendance.
It
builds
esprit
de
corps
and
provides
needed
soft
learning
opportunities
for
rookie
lawyers.
But
these
policies
are
also,
in
no
small
part,
the
product
of
old
lawyers
demanding
a
permanent
audience
of
young
attorneys
to
stroke
their
egos
and
laugh
at
their
jokes.
When
considering
the
marginal
benefit
of
adding
another
day
in
the
office,
firms
need
to
really
look
in
the
mirror
and
decide
which
of
these
motives
are
driving
the
decision.

In
the
meantime,
S&C
is
going
to
five
days
and
the
American
Lawyer
wrote
it
up
with

a
perfectly
placed
typo
:

The
article
has
corrected
the
line
to
“5:30
p.m.”

an
even
less
believable
number
than
the
5:30
a.m.
option.
Who
are
these
people
leaving
S&C
at
5:30
p.m.?
Whoever
it
is
won’t
likely
be
in
“good
standing”
come
bonus
time.
Yes,
the
staff
works
closer
to
a
normal
business
hours
schedule
and
there
could
be
an
advantage
to
lawyers
being
in
the
office
at
the
same
time,
except
firms
have
round-the-clock
word
processing
teams
and
keep
assistants
staying
late
all
the
time.
There
are
few
if
any
administrative
support
tasks
that
a
lawyer
can’t
get
at
any
hour
of
the
day.
Branding
5:30
p.m.
“normal
business
hours”
is
an
all-timer
“pee
on
my
leg
and
say
it’s
raining”
moment.

Which
is
what
makes
this
slip
so
telling.
Biglaw
doesn’t
actually
expect
lawyers
to
be
working
until
5:30
a.m.
every
day

though
they
absolutely
expect
at
least
some
lawyers
to
be
working
at
that
time

but
they
don’t
expect
anyone
to
leaving
before
8
or
9
either.
There’s
a

truthiness

to
a
Biglaw
firm
saying
the
business
day
ends
at
5:30
a.m.

And
this
all
underscores
the
ridiculousness
of
a
five-day
office
week.
It’s
about
mimicking
a
“normal
business”
routine
that
has
no
basis
in
the
reality
of
Biglaw
lawyering.
What
do
“normal
business
hours”
mean
to
people
working
at
9
p.m.
on
a
Saturday?
There’s
an
insulting
artificiality
to
thinking
that
Biglaw
adheres
to
a
factory
timetable.
There
might
be
an
advantage
to
having
attorneys
in
the
office
more,
but
it’s
not
grounded
in
the
idea
that
there’s
something
sacrosanct
about
2
p.m.
on
a
Friday.


Sullivan
&
Cromwell
Signals
5-Day
RTO
Expectation
as
Law
Firms
Remain
Split
on
Optimal
Attendance

[American
Lawyer]


Earlier
:

Biglaw
Firm
Breaks
With
Trend,
Requires
Associates
To
Be
In
Office
5
Days
A
Week




HeadshotJoe
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
.

Tracking Top Boutique Law Firms – Above the Law

Boutique
law
firms
are
transforming
the
legal
industry
by
prioritizing
personalized
client
service
and
specialized
expertise.
While
there
is
no
universally
accepted
definition
of
“boutique”
law
firm
,
there
are
a
few
commonly
accepted
criteria.
Unlike
large
firms,
boutique
practices
focus
on
building
close
relationships
with
clients,
offering
tailored
legal
solutions,
and
providing
direct
access
to
attorneys.
Their
smaller
size
enables
greater
agility
in
adapting
to
client
needs
and
industry
changes,
streamlined
operations,
and
reduced
bureaucracy.

These
firms
often
attract
lawyers
passionate
about
specific
areas
of
law,
resulting
in
dynamic
and
targeted
representation.
Clients
benefit
from
faster
response
times
and
deeper
engagement,
while
attorneys
enjoy
a
better
work-life
balance
and
more
hands-on
experience.
As
the
demand
for
personalization
and
efficiency
grows,
boutique
law
firms
are
paving
the
way
for
innovation
and
a
client-centered
approach
in
the
legal
profession.

Five
of
the
main
advantages
to
boutique
law
firms
can
be
described
as:


  1. Specialized
    Expertise
    :
    Boutique
    law
    firms
    focus
    narrowly
    on
    specific
    legal
    areas,
    offering
    state-of-the-art
    solutions
    and
    unmatched
    efficiency
    for
    specialized
    problems.

  2. Client-Friendly
    Fee
    Structures
    :
    They
    provide
    competitive
    and
    tailored
    pricing,
    often
    more
    favorable
    than
    Biglaw
    firms.

  3. Talented
    and
    Experienced
    Lawyers
    :
    Boutique
    firms
    are
    frequently
    staffed
    by
    top-tier
    lawyers
    with
    Biglaw
    experience,
    bringing
    high-level
    expertise
    to
    a
    focused
    practice.

  4. Leverage
    Technology
    :
    These
    firms
    use
    cost-effective
    tools
    like
    cloud
    storage
    and
    virtual
    office
    solutions
    to
    reduce
    overhead
    and
    remain
    competitive.

  5. Personalized
    Service
    :
    Boutique
    firms
    excel
    in
    offering
    deeply
    personal
    and
    customized
    legal
    solutions,
    distinguishing
    themselves
    in
    a
    technology-driven
    legal
    market.

There
are
many
different
rankings
of
boutique
law
firms
but,
of
course,
the
ranked
firms
depend
on
the
definition
of
this
type
of
firm.
One
of
the
more
widely
accepted,
or
at
least
prolific
rankings
of
boutique
law
firms
is
from
the
website

Vault
.

To
get
a
sense
of
boutique
law
firms’
business
I
took
a
look
at
the
top
six
ranked
boutique
law
firms
according
to
Vault:
Susman
Godfrey,
Kellogg
Hansen,
Bartlit
Beck,
Keker
Van
Nest,
Selendy
Gay,
and
Hecker
Fink.
Here
are
a
few
ways
to
think
about
boutique
law
firms
and
the
work
they
do.
First
a
look
at
the
extent
of
their
business
over
the
last
12
months
based
on
opinions
where
a
member
or
more
of
the
firm
was
listed
as
counsel.

Susman
Godfrey
works
on
quite
a
few
more
litigation
matters
than
the
other
firms.
To
drill
down
into
why,
here
are
a
few
data
points
on
each
of
these
law
firms
from
Vault’s
firm
profiles:

In
order
to
assess
these
firms’
reaches,
here
is
a
look
at
the
courts
where
these
firms
were
listed
on
opinions
across
the
same
period
as
the
graph
above.

To
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
particularized
work
these
firms
do,
the
following
tracks
three
cases
where
these
firms’
lawyers
authored
briefs
over
the
past
12
months.
Each
case
assessment
looks
at
(1)
what
the
case
is
about,
(2)
what
the
brief’s
position
is,
and
(3)
why
the
brief
argues
that
the
position
is
correct.
This
should
provide
an
deep
look
at
the
type’s
of
matters
these
firms
handle
and
how
they
design
their
arguments.


Roberts
v.
Roberts
(Court
of
Appeals
of
Texas)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Vineet
Bhatia,
Shawn
L.
Raymond,
Scarlett
Collings,
Daniel
Wilson


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about
    :
    This
    case
    involves
    a
    dispute
    between
    Nicole
    Roberts
    and
    her
    brother,
    Scott
    Roberts,
    regarding
    breaches
    of
    the
    operating
    agreement
    for
    R
    Partnership,
    a
    family
    business.
    Nicole
    alleges
    that
    Scott
    unilaterally
    entered
    into
    unauthorized
    multi-million-dollar
    contracts,
    misclassified
    personal
    expenditures
    as
    capital
    contributions,
    and
    misused
    partnership
    funds,
    leading
    to
    financial
    and
    operational
    harm
    to
    the
    partnership.

  • What
    the
    brief’s
    position
    is
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    trial
    court
    erred
    in
    awarding
    Scott
    $5.9
    million
    for
    purported
    capital
    contributions
    and
    denying
    Nicole’s
    claims.
    It
    contends
    that
    Scott
    breached
    the
    operating
    agreement,
    acted
    without
    required
    member
    consent,
    and
    improperly
    benefited
    financially
    from
    his
    unauthorized
    actions,
    which
    violated
    the
    partnership’s
    governing
    terms.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    asserts
    that
    the
    operating
    agreement’s
    explicit
    terms
    prohibit
    Scott’s
    unilateral
    actions,
    making
    his
    expenditures
    void
    or
    voidable.
    It
    argues
    that
    the
    trial
    court
    misapplied
    the
    agreement
    by
    crediting
    Scott
    for
    unauthorized
    expenditures
    and
    improperly
    treating
    them
    as
    capital
    contributions.
    Correcting
    these
    errors
    would
    uphold
    the
    agreement’s
    terms,
    prevent
    unjust
    enrichment,
    and
    fairly
    compensate
    Nicole
    for
    the
    partnership’s
    losses
    caused
    by
    Scott’s
    actions.


FS
Credit
Opportunities
v.
Saba
(US
Supreme
/
Petition
Stage)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Mark
Musico,
Jacob
W.
Buchdahl,
Zach
Fields


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about
    :
    This
    case
    deals
    with
    whether
    people
    or
    companies
    can
    sue
    to
    cancel
    contracts
    that
    break
    certain
    rules
    in
    the
    Investment
    Company
    Act
    (ICA).
    It
    focuses
    on
    a
    past
    decision
    by
    the
    Second
    Circuit
    Court.

  • The
    brief’s
    position
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    court’s
    decision
    was
    right,
    saying
    the
    law
    does
    allow
    people
    to
    sue
    to
    cancel
    these
    contracts,
    and
    there’s
    no
    reason
    for
    the
    Supreme
    Court
    to
    change
    it.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    that
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    says
    the
    law
    clearly
    says
    that
    people
    should
    be
    able
    to
    cancel
    contracts
    that
    violate
    the
    ICA.
    It
    also
    points
    out
    that
    past
    legal
    decisions
    support
    this
    understanding.


Risk
Point
v.
Santander
(Court
of
Appeals
of
Texas)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Ophelia
F.
Camiña,
Shawn
L.
Raymond,
Mary
Katheryn
Sammons,
Larry
Y.
Liu


  • What
    this
    case
    is
    about
    :
    The
    case
    involves
    a
    dispute
    over
    whether
    a
    company,
    Santander,
    had
    the
    right
    to
    request
    an
    audit
    after
    the
    time
    limit
    specified
    in
    a
    contract
    with
    Risk
    Theory.
    The
    contract
    set
    a
    deadline
    for
    audits
    to
    occur
    within
    a
    quarter
    after
    the
    end
    of
    a
    policy,
    and
    Santander
    made
    a
    request
    outside
    that
    period.

  • What
    is
    the
    brief’s
    position
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    Santander’s
    audit
    request
    was
    not
    made
    on
    time
    and
    that
    the
    contract
    clearly
    limits
    the
    time
    frame
    for
    such
    requests.
    It
    states
    that
    the
    audit
    should
    only
    happen
    within
    a
    specific
    period
    after
    the
    policy
    ends,
    not
    long
    after.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    allowing
    Santander’s
    late
    audit
    request
    would
    violate
    the
    contract’s
    clear
    terms,
    and
    the
    court
    should
    enforce
    the
    deadline.
    If
    the
    court
    rules
    in
    favor
    of
    Santander,
    it
    could
    lead
    to
    unfair
    outcomes
    by
    letting
    audits
    happen
    too
    late,
    which
    the
    contract
    did
    not
    intend.


In
re
Securities
Technology
and
Pay
Tel
Communications
(US
Supreme
Court
/
Petition
Stage)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Scott
H.
Angstreich,,
Justin
B.
Berg,
Jordan
R.G.
Gonzalez


  • What
    this
    case
    is
    about:

    The
    case
    concerns
    a
    dispute
    over
    the
    proper
    court
    to
    handle
    appeals
    related
    to
    decisions
    made
    by
    the
    Federal
    Communications
    Commission
    (FCC).
    The
    issue
    is
    whether
    petitions
    for
    review
    of
    the
    FCC’s
    rules
    should
    be
    heard
    in
    the
    Fifth
    Circuit
    or
    another
    court,
    particularly
    given
    the
    timeliness
    of
    when
    petitions
    were
    filed.

  • What
    is
    the
    brief’s
    position:

    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    petitions
    challenging
    the
    FCC’s
    rules
    were
    filed
    too
    early,
    before
    the
    rules
    were
    published
    in
    the
    Federal
    Register,
    making
    them
    invalid.
    It
    contends
    that
    the
    petitions
    should
    have
    been
    filed
    in
    the
    Fifth
    Circuit,
    which
    is
    the
    proper
    court
    for
    these
    cases.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    that
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome:

    The
    brief
    claims
    that
    the
    law
    requires
    petitions
    to
    be
    filed
    within
    specific
    time
    limits
    to
    ensure
    fairness
    and
    clarity.
    By
    not
    following
    these
    rules,
    the
    petitioners
    caused
    confusion
    and
    forum-shopping,
    which
    could
    delay
    the
    legal
    process.
    The
    correct
    outcome
    is
    to
    transfer
    the
    cases
    to
    the
    Fifth
    Circuit
    as
    the
    law
    mandates.


Pomona
Hospital
v.
Kaiser
(CA
Ct.
Appeals)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Daniel
G.
Bird,,
Eric
J.
Maier,
Kathleen
W.
Hickey


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about:

    This
    case
    involves
    a
    dispute
    between
    Kaiser
    and
    Pomona
    about
    how
    much
    Kaiser
    should
    pay
    Pomona
    for
    emergency
    services.
    The
    issue
    is
    whether
    an
    expert’s
    valuation
    of
    the
    payments
    was
    correct,
    especially
    since
    the
    expert
    used
    certain
    rates
    that
    he
    previously
    said
    were
    not
    comparable
    to
    the
    services
    in
    question.

  • The
    brief’s
    position:

    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    expert’s
    opinion
    should
    be
    excluded
    because
    he
    used
    inconsistent
    methods,
    like
    comparing
    rates
    that
    were
    not
    similar.
    The
    expert
    also
    invented
    a
    “premium”
    calculation
    with
    no
    logical
    explanation,
    making
    his
    valuation
    unreliable
    and
    not
    based
    on
    sound
    reasoning.

  • Why
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome:

    The
    brief
    contends
    that
    excluding
    the
    expert’s
    opinion
    is
    the
    right
    decision
    because
    it
    lacked
    a
    solid
    foundation
    and
    logical
    consistency.
    Additionally,
    the
    trial
    court
    incorrectly
    applied
    a
    higher
    prejudgment
    interest
    rate,
    which
    should
    have
    been
    7%
    according
    to
    California
    law,
    not
    10%.
    Therefore,
    the
    judgment
    should
    be
    modified
    to
    reflect
    this
    legal
    error.


Durnell
v.
Monsanto
(MO
Ct.
Appeals)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
David
C.
Frederick,
Derek
C.
Reinbold


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about
    :
    The
    case
    concerns
    whether
    the
    government’s
    actions
    in
    a
    specific
    situation
    were
    legal.
    The
    dispute
    centers
    around
    whether
    the
    government
    violated
    laws
    or
    constitutional
    rights
    while
    making
    a
    decision.
    The
    outcome
    could
    affect
    the
    legal
    boundaries
    of
    government
    power
    and
    individuals’
    rights.

  • What
    the
    brief’s
    position
    is
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    government’s
    actions
    were
    unlawful
    and
    should
    be
    declared
    illegal.
    It
    contends
    that
    the
    law
    was
    not
    properly
    followed,
    and
    that
    certain
    rights
    were
    violated
    in
    the
    process.
    The
    brief
    advocates
    for
    a
    ruling
    that
    holds
    the
    government
    accountable
    for
    its
    actions.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    government’s
    conduct
    caused
    harm
    and
    undermined
    individuals’
    rights.
    It
    believes
    that
    enforcing
    the
    law
    in
    this
    case
    will
    prevent
    similar
    violations
    in
    the
    future.
    Upholding
    the
    law
    ensures
    that
    the
    government
    operates
    within
    its
    constitutional
    limits
    and
    protects
    fairness
    for
    all.


Appvion
v.
Price
Waterhouse
Coopers
(Ct.
App.
WI)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Philip
S.
Beck,
Christopher
D.
Landgraff,
Cindy
L.
Sobel,
Joshua
P.
Ackerman,
Joseph
C.
Smith
Jr.


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about:
     The
    case
    involves
    a
    claim
    by
    an
    Employee
    Stock
    Ownership
    Plan
    (ESOP)
    against
    PricewaterhouseCoopers
    (PwC)
    for
    negligent
    misrepresentation.
    The
    ESOP
    argues
    that
    PwC’s
    audit
    misrepresented
    information
    that
    influenced
    the
    company’s
    share
    price.
    The
    circuit
    court
    dismissed
    this
    claim,
    and
    the
    ESOP
    is
    appealing
    the
    decision.

  • What
    the
    brief’s
    position
    is
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    court’s
    dismissal
    of
    the
    negligent
    misrepresentation
    claim
    was
    correct.
    It
    states
    that
    the
    ESOP
    failed
    to
    meet
    the
    legal
    requirements
    for
    proving
    fraud
    or
    negligence,
    as
    they
    did
    not
    provide
    specific
    details
    about
    who
    relied
    on
    PwC’s
    audit
    or
    how
    it
    impacted
    them.
    Therefore,
    the
    claim
    should
    not
    have
    proceeded.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome:
     The
    brief
    contends
    that
    the
    ESOP
    did
    not
    show
    sufficient
    evidence
    or
    specifics
    about
    how
    PwC’s
    audit
    affected
    anyone
    involved.
    Under
    the
    law,
    they
    are
    required
    to
    clearly
    identify
    the
    misrepresentations
    and
    who
    relied
    on
    them,
    which
    the
    ESOP
    failed
    to
    do.
    For
    these
    reasons,
    the
    brief
    requests
    that
    the
    court
    uphold
    the
    dismissal.


Sunoco
Partners
v.
Trinity
Industries
(Ct.
App.
Texas)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Christopher
D.
Landgraff,
Tulsi
Gaonkar,
Ignacio
Sofo,
Mac
Lebuhn


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about
    :
    This
    case
    involves
    a
    dispute
    between
    Sunoco
    and
    Trinity
    over
    a
    lease
    agreement.
    Trinity
    claims
    it
    is
    owed
    damages
    for
    railcars
    that
    were
    supposed
    to
    be
    modified,
    but
    Sunoco
    disagrees
    and
    argues
    that
    the
    charges
    and
    interest
    are
    not
    justified.

  • What
    the
    brief’s
    position
    is
    :
    Sunoco
    argues
    that
    the
    trial
    court
    wrongly
    awarded
    prejudgment
    interest
    and
    that
    the
    damages
    Trinity
    is
    claiming
    are
    not
    appropriate.
    Sunoco
    believes
    that
    the
    interest
    and
    damages
    should
    not
    be
    calculated
    as
    if
    they
    were
    already
    due,
    because
    they
    represent
    future
    costs,
    not
    present
    ones.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    Sunoco
    claims
    that
    awarding
    prejudgment
    interest
    would
    unfairly
    benefit
    Trinity,
    since
    they’ve
    already
    received
    rent
    payments
    and
    now
    damages
    for
    the
    railcar
    modifications.
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    such
    a
    windfall
    goes
    against
    Texas
    law,
    which
    prevents
    one
    party
    from
    getting
    more
    than
    they
    are
    owed.


Tricarichi
v.
Price
Waterhouse
Coopers
(Sup.
Ct.
NV)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Mark
L.
Levine,
Christopher
D.
Landgraff,
Katharine
A.
Roin,


  • What
    the
    case
    is
    about
    :
    This
    case
    involves
    Tricarichi
    rejecting
    two
    settlement
    offers
    from
    PwC
    related
    to
    a
    legal
    claim
    he
    filed.
    The
    district
    court
    decided
    that
    Tricarichi
    acted
    unreasonably
    by
    rejecting
    the
    offers,
    considering
    the
    weaknesses
    in
    his
    claim
    and
    the
    limitations
    on
    potential
    damages.

  • The
    brief’s
    position
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    district
    court
    was
    correct
    in
    finding
    Tricarichi’s
    rejection
    of
    the
    2021
    settlement
    offer
    unreasonable.
    It
    explains
    that
    Tricarichi
    knew
    his
    claim
    had
    serious
    legal
    problems,
    including
    a
    statute
    of
    limitations
    issue,
    and
    that
    the
    settlement
    was
    fair
    given
    the
    situation.

  • Why
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    asserts
    that
    the
    district
    court
    acted
    properly
    by
    awarding
    PwC
    attorney’s
    fees
    because
    Tricarichi’s
    decision
    to
    reject
    the
    offers
    forced
    unnecessary
    legal
    costs.
    It
    argues
    that
    the
    court’s
    decision
    should
    stand
    because
    it
    was
    based
    on
    a
    thorough
    examination
    of
    the
    facts
    and
    legal
    standards.


Associated
General
Contractors
of
CA
v.
CA
Dept.
of
Industrial
Relations
(CA
Ct.
App)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Steven
A.
Hirsch,
Reaghan
E.
Braun


  • What
    the
    Case
    is
    About
    :
    This
    case
    examines
    the
    validity
    of
    regulatory
    amendments
    made
    by
    the
    CAC,
    specifically
    regarding
    their
    economic
    impact
    on
    the
    construction
    industry.
    Petitioners
    claim
    that
    the
    CAC
    failed
    to
    thoroughly
    assess
    the
    impact
    and
    that
    their
    analysis
    was
    flawed.

  • The
    Brief’s
    Position
    :
    The
    brief
    maintains
    that
    the
    CAC
    followed
    proper
    procedures,
    including
    considering
    public
    input
    and
    revising
    their
    analysis
    as
    necessary.
    It
    asserts
    that
    the
    agency’s
    actions
    were
    legally
    sound
    and
    consistent
    with
    administrative
    requirements.

  • Why
    the
    Brief
    Argues
    This
    is
    the
    Correct
    Outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    CAC’s
    approach
    was
    reasonable,
    and
    any
    adjustments
    made
    during
    the
    process
    were
    minor
    and
    did
    not
    require
    reopening
    the
    public
    comment
    period.
    It
    concludes
    that
    the
    rule
    changes
    align
    with
    legal
    standards
    and
    should
    be
    upheld.


Kaufman
v.
Adani
(CA
Ct.
App.)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Jan
Nielsen
Little,
Julia
L.
Allen,
Amos
J.
B.
Espeland


  • What
    the
    Case
    is
    About: 
    The
    case
    involves
    a
    dispute
    between
    Plaintiffs
    and
    the
    QOZ
    Entities,
    which
    manage
    investments
    through
    specific
    agreements.
    The
    Plaintiffs
    argue
    that
    certain
    claims
    should
    be
    handled
    through
    arbitration
    based
    on
    prior
    agreements
    between
    the
    parties.
    They
    challenge
    the
    QOZ
    Entities’
    role
    in
    receiving
    investments
    and
    whether
    these
    agreements
    apply
    to
    the
    dispute.
    The
    central
    issue
    is
    whether
    the
    case
    should
    be
    resolved
    in
    court
    or
    through
    arbitration.

  • The
    Brief’s
    Position: 
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    all
    of
    the
    Plaintiffs’
    claims
    against
    the
    QOZ
    Entities
    should
    be
    resolved
    through
    arbitration.
    It
    emphasizes
    that
    the
    claims
    are
    tied
    to
    previous
    agreements,
    which
    include
    mandatory
    arbitration
    clauses.
    The
    brief
    insists
    that
    these
    agreements
    cover
    the
    issues
    raised
    by
    the
    Plaintiffs,
    so
    the
    dispute
    should
    go
    through
    arbitration
    instead
    of
    court.
    It
    also
    contends
    that
    any
    confusion
    about
    arbitration
    applicability
    should
    not
    prevent
    it.

  • Why
    the
    Brief
    Argues
    This
    is
    the
    Correct
    Outcome: 
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    arbitration
    is
    the
    proper
    venue
    because
    the
    claims
    are
    directly
    linked
    to
    agreements
    that
    include
    arbitration
    clauses.
    It
    explains
    that
    splitting
    the
    case
    between
    court
    and
    arbitration
    would
    lead
    to
    confusion,
    inconsistent
    rulings,
    and
    wasted
    resources.
    The
    brief
    further
    asserts
    that
    arbitration
    will
    provide
    an
    efficient
    resolution
    of
    the
    claims.
    Lastly,
    it
    suggests
    that
    the
    trial
    court’s
    decision
    risks
    delaying
    justice
    and
    complicating
    the
    legal
    process.


Matterport
v.
Gay

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Jennifer
Selendy,
Joshua
S.
Margolin,
David
A.
Coon,
Corey
Stoughton


  • What
    the
    Case
    is
    About: 
    This
    case
    involves
    a
    dispute
    over
    interpreting
    specific
    “Lockup
    Provisions”
    in
    an
    agreement
    following
    the
    merger
    of
    two
    companies.
    Brown
    claims
    that
    Matterport
    wrongly
    restricted
    his
    ability
    to
    sell
    shares
    and
    seeks
    damages
    based
    on
    what
    he
    alleges
    is
    the
    highest
    intermediate
    value
    of
    the
    shares
    during
    the
    restricted
    period.
    Matterport
    argues
    its
    enforcement
    of
    these
    restrictions
    was
    proper
    and challenges
    the
    damages
    calculation.
    The
    case
    also
    addresses
    how
    post-judgment
    interest
    rates
    should
    be
    applied
    in
    cases
    with
    complex
    judgment
    phases.

  • The
    Brief’s
    Position: 
    Matterport
    argues
    that
    it
    properly
    applied
    the
    Lockup
    Provisions
    in
    good
    faith
    and
    that
    Brown’s
    damages
    calculations
    are
    legally
    flawed.
    It
    contends
    the
    trial
    court
    initially
    ruled
    on
    key
    issues
    in
    its
    favor
    during
    Phase
    1
    and
    that
    this
    should
    control
    subsequent
    damages
    analysis.
    The
    company
    opposes
    using
    the
    highest
    intermediate
    value
    methodology
    for
    damages,
    claiming
    it
    is
    not
    applicable
    here.
    It
    also
    supports
    the
    trial
    court’s
    decision
    on
    post-judgment
    interest
    rates,
    which
    it
    sees
    as
    equitable.

  • Why
    This
    is
    the
    Correct
    Outcome: 
    Matterport
    believes
    its
    actions
    were
    lawful
    and
    consistent
    with
    the
    court’s
    earlier
    rulings,
    meaning
    the
    damages
    analysis
    should
    align
    with
    those
    rulings.
    It
    argues
    that
    applying
    Brown’s
    damages
    method
    would
    lead
    to
    unfair
    outcomes
    and
    financial
    windfalls
    not
    supported
    by
    the
    law.
    On
    post-judgment
    interest,
    it
    states
    that
    using
    an
    older,
    lower
    rate
    would
    allow
    for
    manipulation
    and
    fail
    to
    reflect
    rising
    interest
    rates.
    The
    brief
    emphasizes
    that
    Matterport
    acted
    in
    good
    faith,
    which
    should
    weigh
    heavily
    in
    its
    favor.


Building
and
Realty
Institute
of
Westchester
v.
New
York
(US
Supreme
/
Petition
Stage)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Corey
Stoughton,
Counsel
of
Record,
Faith
E.
Gay,
Sean
P.
Baldwin,
Babak
Ghafarzade


  • What
    this
    case
    is
    about
    :
    The
    petitioners
    are
    challenging
    a
    law
    known
    as
    the
    Housing
    Stability
    and
    Tenant
    Protection
    Act
    (HSTPA),
    which
    affects
    rent-controlled
    housing
    in
    New
    York.
    They
    argue
    that
    the
    law
    harms
    their
    ability
    to
    make
    a
    profit
    from
    their
    properties,
    claiming
    it
    violates
    their
    rights
    under
    the
    U.S.
    Constitution.
    The
    law
    limits
    rent
    increases
    and
    makes
    it
    harder
    to
    remove
    tenants.
    The
    petitioners
    are
    asking
    the
    Court
    to
    overturn
    the
    law.

  • What
    is
    the
    brief’s
    position
    :
    The
    brief
    defends
    the
    HSTPA,
    arguing
    that
    it
    serves
    a
    legitimate
    purpose
    of
    providing
    affordable
    housing
    and
    maintaining
    neighborhood
    stability.
    It
    explains
    that
    the
    petitioners
    failed
    to
    provide
    clear
    evidence
    that
    the
    law
    harmed
    them
    in
    a
    way
    that
    violates
    constitutional
    protections.
    The
    brief
    also
    says
    that
    the
    petitioners’
    claims
    are
    based
    on
    speculation,
    not
    concrete
    facts.
    It
    stresses
    that
    the
    law
    has
    valid,
    public
    interests
    that
    are
    not
    unconstitutional.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    that
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    petitioners
    did
    not
    show
    they
    were
    directly
    affected
    by
    the
    law,
    so
    their
    case
    should
    be
    dismissed.
    It
    highlights
    that
    the
    petitioners
    did
    not
    use
    all
    available
    options
    to
    challenge
    the
    law,
    making
    their
    claims
    premature.
    It
    also
    points
    out
    that
    the
    HSTPA
    was
    enacted
    for
    the
    public
    good,
    and
    courts
    should
    not
    second-guess
    legislative
    decisions.
    Therefore,
    the
    brief
    says
    the
    Court
    should
    deny
    the
    petition
    and
    leave
    the
    law
    in
    place.


Ocean
Trails
CLO
v.
MLN
Topco
Ltd.
(Supreme
Court,
Appellate
Division,
First
Department,
New
York)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Jennifer
Selendy,
Andrew
Dunlap,
David
A.
Coon,
Stephen
Federowicz


  • What
    this
    case
    is
    about: 
    The
    case
    revolves
    around
    a
    dispute
    between
    Defendants
    and
    Mitel
    over
    the
    assignment
    and
    refinancing
    of
    loans.
    The
    Defendants
    are
    accused
    of
    breaching
    contractual
    terms
    by
    exchanging
    loans
    for
    new
    debt,
    which
    the
    Plaintiffs
    argue
    is
    not
    allowed
    under
    the
    agreement.
    This
    is
    important
    because
    it
    involves
    how
    loan
    transactions
    should
    be
    conducted
    according
    to
    the
    contract.
    The
    case
    examines
    whether
    Mitel’s
    actions
    violated
    specific
    provisions
    in
    the
    loan
    agreement.

  • What
    is
    the
    brief’s
    position: 
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    Defendants
    broke
    the
    contract
    by
    treating
    the
    loan
    exchange
    as
    a
    “purchase,”
    which
    is
    not
    allowed
    under
    the
    agreement.
    It
    asserts
    that
    the
    transaction
    was
    an
    “exchange”
    of
    debt,
    not
    a
    cash
    purchase,
    and
    thus
    violates
    the
    terms
    of
    the
    loan
    agreement.
    The
    brief
    challenges
    the
    idea
    that
    such
    exchanges
    are
    permitted
    as
    purchases
    under
    the
    contract.
    It
    further
    argues
    that
    the
    Defendants
    also
    breached
    rules
    around
    refinancing
    and
    the
    ranking
    of
    new
    debt.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome:

    The
    brief
    believes
    the
    court
    should
    recognize
    that
    the
    term
    “purchase”
    means
    a
    transaction
    involving
    cash
    or
    its
    equivalent,
    not
    an
    exchange
    of
    loans.
    It
    argues
    that
    the
    Defendants’
    actions
    go
    against
    the
    plain
    meaning
    of
    the
    contract
    and
    create
    an
    unfair
    advantage
    for
    Mitel.
    The
    brief
    also
    insists
    that
    the
    actions
    hurt
    the
    Plaintiffs’
    interests
    by
    violating
    agreed-upon
    terms
    about
    the
    ranking
    of
    debt.
    Therefore,
    the
    brief
    asks
    the
    court
    to
    correct
    these
    breaches
    and
    reinstate
    certain
    claims.


Brown
v.
Johnson
(Ct.
App.
LA)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Thomas
B.
Wahlder,
Stephen
J.
Hecker,
Laurie
Ann
Simms


  • What
    the
    Case
    is
    About
    :
    This
    case
    involves
    a
    car
    accident
    where
    Martha
    Brown,
    driving
    a
    bus,
    collided
    with
    Arkita
    Johnson,
    who
    was
    driving
    a
    car.
    The
    issue
    is
    whether
    Martha
    Brown
    or
    Arkita
    Johnson
    is
    at
    fault
    for
    the
    accident.
    Witnesses
    testified
    that
    Martha
    Brown
    had
    a
    green
    light
    when
    entering
    the
    intersection.
    Arkita
    Johnson
    was
    allegedly
    distracted
    by
    her
    cellphone
    and
    failed
    to
    stop
    for
    a
    red
    light.

  • What
    the
    Brief’s
    Position
    Is
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    Arkita
    Johnson
    was
    solely
    responsible
    for
    the
    accident.
    It
    claims
    that
    Martha
    Brown
    did
    not
    cause
    the
    crash
    and
    was
    not
    negligent.
    The
    brief
    highlights
    that
    Martha
    Brown
    was
    following
    traffic
    rules,
    and
    the
    collision
    happened
    too
    quickly
    for
    her
    to
    react.
    The
    evidence
    shows
    that
    Arkita
    Johnson’s
    actions,
    like
    using
    her
    phone,
    were
    the
    main
    cause
    of
    the
    crash.

  • Why
    the
    Brief
    Argues
    This
    is
    the
    Correct
    Outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    the
    jury
    correctly
    found
    Arkita
    Johnson
    at
    fault
    based
    on
    the
    evidence
    and
    witness
    testimony.
    It
    states
    that
    the
    trial
    was
    fair
    and
    the
    jury
    had
    reasonable
    grounds
    to
    believe
    Martha
    Brown
    was
    not
    at
    fault.
    Any
    mistakes
    in
    jury
    instructions
    or
    expert
    testimony
    should
    not
    change
    the
    outcome.
    The
    brief
    insists
    that
    there
    is
    no
    reason
    to
    overturn
    the
    jury’s
    decision,
    as
    it
    was
    based
    on
    solid
    facts.


Carroll
v.
Trump
(Second
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals)

Attorneys
on
the
case:
Joshua
Matz,
Kate
Harris,
;
Roberta
A.
Kaplan,
Matthew
Craig


  • What
    this
    case
    is
    about:

    This
    case
    involves
    a
    defamation
    lawsuit
    where
    E.
    Jean
    Carroll
    accused
    Donald
    Trump
    of
    sexual
    assault
    and
    defamation.
    Carroll
    claims
    Trump
    lied
    about
    the
    assault
    and
    ruined
    her
    reputation.
    The
    trial
    included
    testimony
    from
    Carroll
    and
    other
    witnesses
    who
    supported
    her
    claims.
    Trump
    disagrees
    with
    the
    court’s
    decisions
    and
    argues
    that
    key
    evidence
    should
    not
    have
    been
    allowed.

  • What
    is
    the
    brief’s
    position:

    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    Trump’s
    objections
    to
    the
    trial
    and
    evidence
    are
    not
    valid.
    It
    explains
    that
    the
    court
    correctly
    allowed
    testimony
    from
    other
    women
    who
    claimed
    similar
    behavior
    by
    Trump.
    It
    also
    defends
    the
    jury
    instructions,
    which
    limited
    how
    the
    jury
    could
    use
    the
    “other
    acts”
    evidence.
    Trump’s
    claim
    that
    this
    evidence
    unfairly
    influenced
    the
    trial
    is
    dismissed
    as
    exaggerated.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome:

    The
    brief
    argues
    the
    trial
    was
    fair
    and
    that
    the
    evidence
    strongly
    supported
    Carroll’s
    case.
    It
    highlights
    that
    Carroll’s
    testimony,
    along
    with
    other
    reliable
    witnesses,
    was
    the
    core
    of
    the
    case.
    The
    inclusion
    of
    “other
    acts”
    evidence
    was
    secondary
    and
    did
    not
    change
    the
    outcome.
    Ultimately,
    the
    brief
    says
    the
    court’s
    decisions
    were
    right
    and
    should
    be
    upheld
    because
    Carroll’s
    case
    was
    compelling
    and
    credible.


NRA
v.
Vullo
(US
Supreme
/
Merits
Case)

Attorneys
on
the
case: Trevor
W.
Morrison


  • What
    this
    case
    is
    about
    :
    The
    case
    centers
    around
    the
    National
    Rifle
    Association
    (NRA)
    challenging
    the
    actions
    of
    Maria
    Vullo,
    a
    former
    official
    at
    the
    New
    York
    Department
    of
    Financial
    Services
    (DFS).
    The
    NRA
    argues
    that
    Vullo’s
    statements
    and
    actions
    pressured
    private
    companies
    and
    violated
    its
    free
    speech
    rights.
    The
    case
    explores
    whether
    Vullo’s
    statements
    were
    coercive
    or
    just
    regular
    government
    speech.
    It
    addresses
    whether
    government
    officials
    can
    be
    sued
    for
    expressing
    opinions
    that
    may
    indirectly
    affect
    certain
    businesses.

  • What
    is
    the
    brief’s
    position
    :
    The
    brief
    defends
    Maria
    Vullo’s
    actions,
    asserting
    that
    she
    was
    exercising
    her
    legitimate
    authority
    as
    a
    government
    official,
    not
    coercing
    anyone.
    It
    argues
    that
    referencing
    “reputational
    risk”
    in
    the
    letters
    sent
    to
    businesses
    is
    a
    legitimate
    regulatory
    concern,
    not
    a
    threat.
    The
    brief
    claims
    that
    the
    NRA’s
    interpretation
    of
    the
    situation
    is
    overly
    broad
    and
    ignores
    the
    context
    of
    Vullo’s
    actions.
    It
    maintains
    that
    Vullo
    was
    within
    her
    rights
    to
    highlight
    risks
    and
    hold
    the
    NRA
    accountable
    for
    violations.

  • Why
    the
    brief
    argues
    this
    is
    the
    correct
    outcome
    :
    The
    brief
    argues
    that
    adopting
    the
    NRA’s
    interpretation
    would
    harm
    government
    officials’
    ability
    to
    speak
    freely
    and
    do
    their
    jobs
    effectively.
    It
    warns
    that
    allowing
    this
    kind
    of
    lawsuit
    could
    deter
    officials
    from
    engaging
    in
    important
    regulatory
    actions
    for
    fear
    of
    being
    accused
    of
    retaliation.
    The
    brief
    emphasizes
    that
    government
    officials
    need
    to
    be
    able
    to
    discuss
    risks
    and
    legal
    compliance
    without
    facing
    constant
    lawsuits.
    It
    concludes
    that
    protecting
    this
    ability
    is
    essential
    for
    the
    proper
    functioning
    of
    government
    and
    law
    enforcement.
  • Susman
    Godfrey’s
    size
    and
    geographic
    diversity
    help
    explain
    the
    larger
    share
    of
    litigation.
  • Several
    of
    these
    firms
    focus
    on
    matters
    related
    to
    antitrust
    law.
  • The
    majority
    of
    these
    firms
    have
    only
    one
    office.
  • All
    of
    the
    firms
    are
    based
    in
    major
    cities.
  • Starting
    salaries
    are
    comparable
    to
    those
    at
    Biglaw
    firms.

If
you
enjoyed
reading
this
post
you
may
think
about
becoming
a
paid
subscriber
to
have
access
to
all
posts
on Legalytics.
Also
please
consider
sharing
this
with
others
and
feel
free
to
post
any
questions
or
comments.



Read
more
from
Legalytics
here….




Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
Check
out
more
of
his
writing
at

Legalytics

and

Empirical
SCOTUS
.
For
more
information,
write
Adam
at [email protected]
Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.

HHS’ Proposed HIPAA Changes Are a Step in the Right Direction, But Some Providers May Struggle to Comply – MedCity News

Among
myriad
acronyms
in
the
healthcare
industry,

HIPAA

is
one
of
the
most
referenced. 

At
the
end
of
last
year,
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services

proposed

major
updates
to
this
law

named
the
Health
Insurance
Portability
and
Accountability
Act

for
the
first
time
in
more
than
a
decade. 

HHS
said
its
proposal
is
designed
to
“better
protect
the
U.S.
healthcare
system
from
a
growing
number
of
cyberattacks.”
The
announcement
was
made
at
the
end
of
a
year
in
which
several
high-profile
cybersecurity
incidents
occurred
in
healthcare,
such
as
the
ransomware
attacks

Change
Healthcare

and

Ascension


the
former
exposed
more
than
100
million
patient
records,
and
the
latter
exposed
more
than
5
million.

These
proposed
changes
seek
to
strengthen
cybersecurity
protocols
for
electronic
health
data
by
standardizing
certain
security
processes
among
providers.
HHS
is
accepting
comments
on
its
proposal
until
March
7.

Healthcare
cybersecurity
leaders
are
mainly
in
favor
of
the
proposed
changes,
as
the
regulation
will
force
providers
to
address
longstanding
gaps
in
their
data
infrastructure
and
security
preparedness.
However,
the
experts
interviewed
for
this
article
noted
that
smaller
providers
may
struggle
with
the
financial
and
operational
burdens
of
compliance.


What
changes
is
HHS
seeking
to
make?

HHS’
proposal
seeks
to
make
several
changes
to
the
way
providers
manage
health
data
under
HIPAA,
with
a
key
change
being
the
elimination
of
the
distinction
between
“required”
and
“addressable”
implementation
specifications.

Currently,
HIPAA
has
two
types
of
security
rules
for
protecting
sensitive
health
information

“required”
rules
that
must
be
followed
and
“addressable”
rules
that
providers
can
choose
not
to
obey.

By
getting
rid
of
these
two
categories,
HHS
is
aiming
to
make
all
cybersecurity
rules
mandatory
for
healthcare
organizations,
as
well
as
emphasizing
the
need
for
comprehensive
security
measures
across
all
health
data.
This
means
several
cybersecurity
protocols
will
be
required
for
all
providers,
such
as
two-factor
authentication,
data
encryption
and
network
segmentation.

If
instated,
these
changes
would
help
providers
get
on
the
same
page
and
follow
shared
cybersecurity
standards,
pointed
out
Aaron
Neiderhiser,
CEO
of
open-source
healthcare
data
platform

Tuva
Health
.

This
standardization
will
be
beneficial
for
the
healthcare
industry

because
any
provider
that
isn’t
using
protocols
like
multi-factor
authentication
and
data
encryption
is
“not
protecting
data
to
the
extent
that
they
should
be,”
Neiderhiser
said.

But
other
changes
are
“more
esoteric”
and
will
be
more
difficult
for
some
providers
to
implement,
he
noted.

For
instance,
the
proposed
changes
to
HIPAA
would
also
require
providers
to
maintain
detailed
written
documentation
for
all
of
their
cybersecurity
policies
and
procedures.
HHS
wants
providers
to
continually
maintain
documents
for
asset
inventory,
network
mapping
and
risk
analyses.

The
main
goal
behind
these
new
documentation
requirements
is
to
ensure
providers
can
effectively
map
out
the
way
their
data
is
being
stored
and
transferred,
noted
Mitesh
Rao,
CEO
of

OMNY
Health
,
a
national
data
ecosystem
that
facilitates
medical
research.

“That
goes
beyond
cybersecurity

that’s
almost
into
the
infrastructure
space,”
he
said.
“[HHS]
is
saying,
‘Look,
you
guys
are
sitting
on
a
lot
of
data,
you
need
to
really
have
your
hands
wrapped
around
it.
You
need
to
know
where
it
is,
know
how
it’s
moving,
know
how
everything
is
set
up.’”

The
changes
reflect
the
fact
that
data
“is
now
driving
everything”
in
healthcare,
but
many
organizations
lack
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
where
all
their
data
sits
and
how
it
can
best
be
leveraged,
Rao
explained.

Gaining
this
understanding
is
no
easy
task,
he
pointed
out.
Health
systems
house
massive
amounts
of
data
that
sprawls
across
various
systems
and
divisions,
such
as
inpatient
services,
surgery,
pharmacy,
imaging
and
clinical
trials.

Still,
having
a
strong
grasp
on
data
mapping
is
crucial,
Rao
declared.

Once
a
provider
knows
exactly
where
all
of
its
information
sits
and
how
that
data
can
best
be
leveraged,
data
“becomes
more
of
an
asset
and
less
of
a
liability,”
he
said. 


How
prepared
are
providers
to
meet
these
new
requirements?

Last
year
was
the
sector’s

worst
year
in
history

in
terms
of
breached
healthcare
records,
with
more
than
200
million
patient
records
exposed.
Healthcare
providers
are
well
aware
of
what
a
problem
data
breaches
have
become
in
the
past
few
years,
and
most
organizations
realize
that
they
need
to
work
on
shoring
up
their
defenses,
Rao
noted.

In
order
to
do
this,
providers
have
to
partner
with
tech
companies,
he
said.

“The
infrastructure
that
exists
right
now
across
the
provider
world
isn’t
really
designed
to
meet
a
lot
of
these
capabilities

but
there
are
a
lot
of
great
platforms
that
are
designed
to
do
this.
So
it’s
a
question
of
who
to
partner
with,”
Rao
remarked.

Neiderhiser
of
Tuva
Health
also
highlighted
the
fact
that
providers
aren’t
tech-savvy
enough
to
meet
new
cybersecurity
regulations
on
their
own.
These
responsibilities
sit
outside
providers’
core
competency.

“Some
organizations
that
we
work
with
will
say
things
like,
‘We
don’t
know
how
to
log
into
AWS.’
They’re
provider
organizations

their
business
is
not
technology,
it’s
care
delivery,”
Neiderhiser
stated.

Larger
organizations
can
easily
strike
partnerships
with
tech
companies
that
have
expertise
in
data
management
and
security.
For
smaller
healthcare
organizations
that
may
not
have
deeply
established
relationships
with
tech
partners,
there
could
be
a
longer
adjustment
period,
Neiderhiser
said.

A
large
health
system
may
have
already
had
its
IT
personnel
preparing
for
a
potential
change
in
HIPAA
for
months

but
a
small
rural
hospital
probably
didn’t
have
the
resources
or
staff
to
account
for
this,
he
noted.
In
his
view,
smaller
providers
will
certainly
face
a
bigger
burden
when
it
comes
to
complying
with
these
new
regulations.


What
about
the
cost
of
compliance?

The
smaller
provider
organizations
that
Neiderhiser
mentioned

often
operate
on
tight
margins


meaning
it
might
be
a
struggle
to
come
up
with
the
cash
to
pay
a
tech
company
to
manage
their
cybersecurity
compliance
functions.

Another
cybersecurity
expert

Sean
Kelly,
chief
medical
officer
at
health
IT
security
company

Imprivata


noted
that
he
is
worried
about
the
cost
of
compliance.

“It’s
difficult
just
to
put
forth
unfunded
mandates

and
it’s
really
difficult,
without
any
kind
of
funding
or
incentivization,
to
just
put
penalties
in
front
of
hospital
systems
that
already
have
limited
budgets,
particularly
when
you
look
at
critical
care
access
hospitals
and
rural
practices,”
Kelly
declared.

If
the
proposed
changes
to
HIPAA
are
instated,
Kelly
said
he
hopes
the
federal
government
establishes
a
system
in
which
hospitals
with
fewer
resources
can
qualify
for
grant
money
or
“some
sort
of
incentivization”
for
compliance.
For
instance,
perhaps
these
hospitals
could
obtain
Medicare
payments
more
quickly
as
an
incentive,
he
stated.

He
also
pointed
out
that
if
Congress
conducted
an
analysis
of
the
cost
of
cybersecurity
breaches
versus
the
cost
of
a
pool
of
money
going
toward
preventive
cybersecurity
measures
at
hospitals,
it
would
find
that
the
breaches
are
much
more
expensive.

“The
cost
of
these
breaches
is
enormous

not
just
for
the
hospitals
and
the
patients
that
go
through
it,
but
even
for
the
local
hospitals
around
it.
When
a
hospital
shuts
down,
then
the
ambulances
go
elsewhere,
and
patients
get
seen
elsewhere.
There’s
unnecessary
tests,
there’s
morbidity,
mortality,
lawsuits,
and
costs
associated
with
the
local
area
around
a
hospital
that
goes
down,”
Kelly
explained.

In
2024,
the
average
cost
of
a
healthcare
data
breach
was
$9.77
million,
according
to

research

from
IBM.


What
are
the
potential
risks
of
these
changes?

HHS’
proposed
changes
to
HIPAA
may
adversely
affect
clinicians’
workflows
at
times,
Kelly
pointed
out. 

If
a
provider
doesn’t
execute
its
staff
cybersecurity
training
flawlessly,
employees
might
fail
multi-factor
authentication
tests
or
run
into
other
mishaps
that
lock
them
out
of
their
systems,
he
noted.
In
other
words,
if
any
small
aspect
of
the
training
is
inadequate,
such
as
the
training
not
happening
quickly
enough
for
new
employees
or
not
being
detailed
enough,
there
are
risks
that
staff
members
won’t
be
able
to
access
critical
information.

“That
means
they
can’t
access
systems
to
do
things
like
look
up
medical
records,
and
they
don’t
have
the
interoperability
between
different
record
sets
to
properly
diagnose
and
treat
patients,”
Kelly
added.

Getting
locked
out
of
an
account
due
to
cybersecurity
protocols
can
be
annoying
as
a
consumer,
but
it’s
a
whole
different
situation
as
a
clinician,
he
explained.

“If
I’m
locked
out
as
an
ER
doctor,
then
I
can’t
see
your
records.
I
don’t
know
that
you’re
on
a
blood
thinner,
and
I
can’t
order
the
CT
to
show
me
that
you
have
an
intracranial
hemorrhage.
I
can’t
treat
you
properly
for
a
stroke
or
for
whatever
your
symptoms
are

so
there
are
very
real
consequences
for
the
workflow
aspects
of
security,”
Kelly
declared.

He
also
highlighted
that
it’s
quite
difficult
to
ensure
all
employees
across
an
entire
health
system
receive
adequate
cybersecurity
training.
Hospitals
are
complex
environments
with
thousands
of
workers
spanning
various
roles,
and
sometimes
staff
members
aren’t
even
directly
employed
by
the
provider,
Kelly
said.

There
are
potential
ways
to
address
this,
such
as
single
sign-on
methods,
he
stated.

Single
sign-on
is
an
authentication
method
that
allows
people
to
access
multiple
applications
or
systems
with
a
single
set
of
credentials,
like
a
username
and
password.
For
instance,
a
hospital
may
give
clinicians
a
badge
they
can
tap
as
a
single
sign-on
token
to
make
log-ins
easier,
Kelly
explained.

“You
can
use
two
factors
once
in
the
day,
but
then
for
the
rest
of
the
day,
you
can
tap
in
and
out.
There
are
ways
to
automate
the
workflow
so
it’s
faster
to
get
into
the
medical
records,”
he
remarked.

Hospitals
may
also
be
able
to
use
facial
recognition
as
a
daily
single
sign-on
key
for
clinicians,
Kelly
added.


Vendor
management
will
become
a
bigger
priority

Through
its
proposal,
HHS
is
seeking
to
ensure
providers
have
a
good
grasp
on
all
the
different
ways
their
data
is
being
used
and
transferred

and
having
this
clear
view
will
likely
influence
providers’
vendor
selection
for
their
various
tools
and
devices,
Kelly
noted.

The
concept
of
third-party
risk
shot
to
the
forefront
of
many
healthcare
leaders’
minds
last
year
amid
the
Change
Healthcare
data
breach,
he
said.
Change
Healthcare
may
have
been
the
only
entity
hit
by
a
ransomware
attack,
but
its
thousands
of
customers
suffered
the
operational
and
financial
consequences
of
the
incident

for
months
.

This
disaster
underscored
the
risks
healthcare
providers
face
by
relying
on
external
partners.
Healthcare
providers
won’t
ever
be
able
to
maintain
their
daily
operations
without
their
network
of
vendor
partners,
so
it’s
imperative
that
they
master
their
vendor
management
and
data
protection
strategies,
Kelly
remarked.
HHS’
proposed
legislation
injects
some
urgency
into
these
efforts,
he
said.

“There
needs
to
be
a
risk
assessment
before
providers
even
select
vendors.
Beyond
that,
providers
need
to
be
making
sure
that
[vendors]
stay
compliant
and
that
every
action
taken
by
those
third
parties
is
secure,”
Kelly
stated.

This
increased
emphasis
on
vendor
management
may
ultimately
lead
to
fewer
breached
records
down
the
road,
he
noted.

Kelly

along
with
Neiderhiser
and
Rao

believes
that
despite
the
potential
cost
and
workflow
concerns,
HHS’
proposal
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
as
the
changes
seek
to
underscore
the
importance
of
third-party
vendor
management
and
comprehensive
cybersecurity
staff
training.
All
three
experts
agree
that
the
proposed
changes
will
likely
become
finalized
in
the
near
future.


Photo:
traffic_analyzer,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket: 01.13.25 – Above the Law

*
Will
the
rest
of
the
Big
4
follow
KPMG’s
lead
into
legal
services?
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Associates
getting
squeezed
by
new
firm
hiring
model.
[ABA
Journal
]

*
TikTok
warns
of
grave
constitutional
consequences
if
Supreme
Court
goes
through
with
ban.
[Reuters]

*
Rare
three-way
law
firm
merger.
[Philadelphia
Business
Journal
]

*
Law
firm
mergers
are
still
all
the
rage,
but
don’t
overlook
the
law
firm
alliance
model.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Alina
Habba
may
just
like
guys
with
sexual
misconduct
allegations
swirling
over
them.
[Yahoo]

*
New
York
joining
NextGen
bar
exam
train
in
2028.
[Law360]

The Biglaw Lateral Market Is Hottest In This Practice Area – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


According
to
Firm
Prospects’
2024
Am
Law
200
Lateral
Hiring
Report,
which
practice
area
accounted
for
the
most
lateral
moves
in
2024?


Hint:
Though
hiring
in
this
area
slowed
down
in
the
fourth
quarter
of
2024,
overall,
it
accounted
for
34%
of
lateral
moves
in
the
Am
Law
200.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Enough Already, CES: Just What Is Agentic AI And Why Should Lawyers Care? – Above the Law

Attendees
at
CES
2025
in
Las
Vegas.
(Photo
by
Artur
Widak/Anadolu
via
Getty
Images)


Much
of
the
buzz
at



CES


and
other
tech
conferences
recently
is
about
agentic
AI
and
the
use
of
AI
agents
to
perform
a
variety
of
tasks
for
us
poor
humans.
I
have
talked
about
AI
agents
in
articles



here


and



here


So,
it
might
be
helpful
to
stop
for
a
minute
and
talk
about
what
agentic
AI
is
and
what
AI
agents
could
really
do
for
lawyers
and
legal
professionals.
On
Wednesday,
a
panel
at
CES
attempted
to
tackle
the
former;
I
will
talk
some
about
the
latter
in
a
moment.


What
Is
Agentic
AI?
Why
Does
It
Matter?


The
presentation
was
entitled



The
Rise
of
AI
Agents
.
The
panel
was
composed
of



Michael
Anderson
,
general
manager
of
Amelis.ai,



Adam
Dumey
,
VP
of
World
Wide
Technology,



Debroah
Matteliano
,
global
head
of
restaurants
at
Amazon,
and



Caroline
Reppert,


technical
director,
National
Retail
Federation.


Anderson
walked
us
through
the
concept
of
an
agentic
AI,
which
is
an
AI
platform
that
can
respond
to
multiple
inquiries
in
one
prompt
and
then
take
action
based
on
those
prompts.
It
can
sort
thoughts
and
understand
goals
and
actions.
Says
Anderson:
An
agentic
agent
“provides
a
high
degree
of
autonomy
that
goes
beyond
traditional
systems
and
are
more
intelligent,
adaptable,
and
resourceful
than
other
AI
tools.”
Agentic
agents
are
smart,
adaptable,
resourceful,
and
can
make
decisions
and
recommendations.
It’s
critical
that
they
also
know
when
to
refer
the
issue
to
a
human
and
provide
an
easy
way
to
do
that.


The
more
important
thing
for
most
of
us,
though,
is
what
agents
can
do
for
us.
Anderson
gave
an
example.
An
AI
agent
could
be
given
the
following
prompt:



I
need
to
reset
my
password
since
I
want
to
look
at
my
insurance
policy
and
see
how
high
my
deductible
is
since
I
am
considering
a
new
plan
for
open
enrollment.
I
am
about
to
have
a
child
and
am
curious
what
is
the
right
plan
to
choose. 


Obviously,
this
is
a
complicated
question
that
cannot
be
answered
by
an
LLM
using
standard
Gen
AI.
It
would
require
the
AI
to
analyze
the
situation,
look
several
places,
and
reason
through
the
necessary
steps
the
inquirer
needed
to
undertake.


AI
Agent
Examples


Anderson
suggested
that
an
AI
agent
could
provide
the
following
answer:



No
problem,
and
congratulations!
I’ve
sent
you
an
email
to
reset
your
password,
along
with
a
login
link
to
open
enrollment.
Your
current
deductible
is
$10,000,
but
as
a
new
parent,
a
low
deductible
plan
is
best
considering
likely
frequent
visits.
If
you
want
to
learn
more
about
a
$2,000
deductible
plan,
I
can
transfer
you
to
our
specialist. 


Anderson
also
mentioned
another
thing
an
AI
agent
could
do
that
hit
home.
Most
of
us
here
at
CES
have
had
trouble
navigating
the
various
venues,
hotels,
schedules,
and
the
always-present
casinos.
An
AI
agent
could
create
a
schedule,
make
some
recommendations,
tell
us
what
the
timeline
would
work
for
us,
and
direct
us
where
to
go
quickly
and
efficiently.
All
with
a
single
prompt.


Other
uses
cited
by
the
panel
include
ordering
retail
goods
by
sorting
through
options
and
sizes
and
then
seamlessly
ordering
what
we
want.
A
personalized
guide
to
health
care
along
with
the
ability
to
schedule
appointments
and
prescriptions.
An
AI
agent
that
could
handle
customer
concerns
and
issues:
We
have
all
screamed
at
the
phone
when
some
bot
provides
no
help.
But
a
good
AI
agent
could
perform
the
functions
and
get
us
to
a
human
quickly
and
easily.
Education
is
another
field;
having
the
ability
to
talk
through
what
a
student
doesn’t
understand
and
provide
help
would
improve
learning.


The
panelists
all
believe
that
in
just
a
few
years,
we
will
all
have
our
very
own
digital
personal
assistant
or
concierge
that
can
take
care
of
various
tasks
that
now
occupy
chunks
of
our
time.
Like
ordering
my
coffee
for
me
to
pick
up,
canceling
my
doctor’s
appointment,
calling
my
wife
and
letting
her
know
I
will
be
late,
and
giving
me
some
good
take-out
dinner
options.


How
AI
Agents
Could
Redefine
Routine
Legal
Tasks


But
what
about
for
law?
After
all,
we
are
a
human
business,
and
people
expect
human
interactions,
right?
Not
so
fast.


Not
long
ago,
a
study
was
done
on
responses
to
medical
questions.
A
human
doctor
answered
some
of
the
questions,
and
some
were
answered
by
Gen
AI.
Those
whose
questions
were
answered
by
Gen
AI
were
happier.
Why?
Gen
AI
was
more
empathetic
and
spoke
in
plain
terms,
addressing
the
real
concerns
of
the
questioner. 


I
can
see
the
same
thing
in
legal.
Clients
often
have
questions
and
concerns,
yet
lawyers
talk
over
their
heads,
aren’t
empathetic,
and
don’t
take
the
time
to
address
real
concerns.
Or
if
they
do,
the
bill
for
the
time
spent
is
through
the
roof.
An
AI
agent
that
could
answer
inquiries
and
then
take
steps
like
sending
information,
providing
status,
and
giving
real-time
bill
estimates.
This
would
be
valuable
and
would
address
client
pain
points.
Client
intake,
bill
preparations,
invoicing,
and
routine
correspondence
can
all
be
done
by
an
AI
agent. 


Lawyers
would
also
benefit
from
a
digital
personal
agent.
For
example,
a
lawyer
might
prompt
an
AI
agent
as
follows:
“Agent,
please
open
a
file
in
the
name
of
John
Smith
to
prepare
a
will.
Draft
an
engagement
letter
for
me
to
review
using
standard
language.
Given
Mr.
Smith’s
assets,
a
description
of
which
I
am
uploading,
please
prepare
a
draft
leaving
most
of
the
property
to
his
children
and
his
favorite
charity.
Then
schedule
a
conference
with
me
and
Mr.
Smith
to
go
over
the
final
documents
and
add
it
to
my
schedule.
Oh,
and
send
a
birthday
greeting
to
Mrs.
Smith
for
next
Monday.”


Think
of
the
time
saved.
Think
of
the
improved
service.
Think
happier
clients.
It
also
frees
up
lawyers
from
doing
tasks
for
which
they
are
overqualified. 


Our
ethical
rules,
by
the
way,
require
us
to
bill
reasonably.
AI
agents
who
presumably
would
not
bill
by
the
hour
would
reduce
bills
for
the
client
and/or
eliminate
non-billable
time
for
the
lawyer
and
legal
professional.


The
Downside
of
AI
Agents:
Job
Displacement
and
Inequality


Of
course,
as
with
any
technology,
there
is
a
downside.
AI
agents
will
replace
human
administrative
assistants.
It
will
replace
all
sorts
of
work
humans
do.
And
the
humans
replaced
will
be
the
ones
who
can
least
afford
to
lose
their
jobs.


As
a
profession
and
society,
that’s
something
we
need
to
think
of
and
prepare
for.
We
need
to
look
for
ways
to
find
other
tasks
for
those
displaced
by
helping
them
develop
skills
that
could
be
useful
in
the
brave
new
world.


Technology
Has
No
Soul,
But
Humans
Do


There
is
an
electronic
sign
on
a
building
overlooking
the
Las
Vegas
Civic
Center
that
asks,
“Technology
has
no
soul.
Or
does
it?


Technology
has
no
soul.
Only
us
humans
do.
And
we
need
to
think
about
our
fellow
humans
when
we
engage
in
technology
that
can
do
so
much
and
displace
so
many.




Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads
,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Are You Getting Enough Out Of Your Current Software? – Above the Law


While
it
may
not
be
the



entire


recipe
for
running
a
successful
law
firm

using
modern
technology
is
certainly
a
key
ingredient. 


Without
using
the
right
technology
in
a
law
firm,
it’s
like
trying
to
bake
bread
without
flour,
or
attempting
to
make
bricks
without
straw. 


Now,
when
you
do
have
the
correct
mix
of
legaltech,
your
law
practice
becomes
an
elegant
dish.
So
let’s
stop
with
the
food
analogies

because
I’m
getting
hungry

and
find
out
how.


In
order
to
drill
down
on
why
and
how
technology
can
help
you
build
your
best
law
firm,
we
invited
both
CEO



TJ
Fraser


and
COO



Olivia
Mockel
,
from



ZenCase
,
onto
the
Non-Eventcast,
to
explore
the
studio
space.


TJ
begins
by
discussing
how
he
came
up
with
the
idea
for
ZenCase
.
.
.
in
a
hot
tub

yes,
you
read
that
right
(10:35,
15:47). 


After
that,
Olivia
spoke
to
us
about
the
importance
of
automation
features
in
legal
technology
tools
(22:02),
before
TJ
went
in
on
knowledge
management
features
(26:32),
and
(of
course!)
AI
(32:45). 


After
that,
Olivia
offered
up
an
extremely
helpful
checklist
for
switching
from
one
software
to
another
(42:38).
Finally,
TJ
brought
us
home
by
discussing
the
importance
of
building
“future-proof”
tech
solutions
(46:15).


Are
you
getting
enough
out
of
your
current
software?
That’s
a
rhetorical
question

because
the
answer
is
“no.”
So
listen
to
this
podcast
episode,
and
find
out
how
to
get
more!






Jared
Correia
,
a
consultant
and
legal
technology
expert,
is
the
host
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
the
featured
podcast
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event
for
Tech-Perplexed
Lawyers. 

Lawyers Should Not Be Mad At Other Lawyers For Defending Their Clients – Above the Law

Most
people
understand
that
criminal
defense
lawyers
should
not
be
judged
when
they
make
every
argument
available
to
them
in
order
to
defend
their
clients.
Even
if
lawyers
make
arguments
on
behalf
of
criminal
defendants
that
involve
procedural
mistakes
and
small
errors,
most
people
understand
that
this
is
important
so
that
clients
get
the
best
defense
possible.
However,
in
the
civil
context,
sometimes
parties
and
even
lawyers
do
not
cut
other
lawyers
slack
when
they
use
procedural
errors
and
similar
arguments
to
defend
clients.
Nevertheless,
lawyers
who
employ
these
tactics
should
not
have
it
held
against
them,
since
this
is
usually
just
part
of
the
civil
justice
process.

Throughout
my
career,
I
have
developed
certain
tactics
to
defend
my
clients
in
the
various
types
of
lawsuits
I
frequently
encounter.
For
instance,
some
jurisdictions
in
which
I
practice
require
extra
steps
to
validate
affidavits
that
are
notarized
outside
the
jurisdiction.
If
lawyers
do
not
follow
the
correct
procedure,
I
may
use
this
deficiency
to
defend
my
client.
In
addition,
in
a
jurisdiction
in
which
I
practice,
certain
types
of
businesses
need
to
publish
certain
information
about
the
company
in
newspapers
in
order
to
finalize
their
organization
process.
If
they
do
not
complete
this
step,
the
business
cannot
sue,
and
I
can
get
a
lawsuit
dismissed
on
that
basis.

In
other
circumstances,
I
might
challenge
service
of
process
if
a
lawyer
tried
to
effectuate
service
through
the
mail
or
other
insufficient
means
without
going
through
the
process
outlines
by
law.
Sometimes,
I
might
also
try
to
get
certain
causes
of
actions
dismissed
since
they
are
duplicative
of
other
causes
of
action
that
are
also
included
in
a
given
complaint.
I
can
usually
use
various
other
procedural
issues
to
my
advantage
when
defending
my
clients.

Often,
adversaries
do
not
take
kindly
to
such
tactics.
In
certain
circumstances,
I
get
accused
of
playing
“legal
games”
in
order
to
divert
from
the
substance
of
the
matter
to
be
litigated.
In
other
circumstances,
people
accuse
me
of
being
discourteous
for
using
such
defenses
for
the
betterment
of
my
client.

I
do
not
understand
such
behavior.
When
lawyers
use
such
tactics
against
me,
I
never
accuse
the
lawyer
of
playing
“legal
games,”
and
I
understand
that
the
attorney
is
just
trying
to
do
everything
in
their
power
to
advance
a
client’s
interests.
Most
of
the
time,
I
am
happy
to
see
lawyers
advance
such
defenses
since
this
shows
me
methods
that
I
can
improve
the
way
I
practice
to
avoid
such
defenses
being
advanced
by
adversaries
in
the
future.

However,
some
lawyers
probably
get
their
egos
bruised
when
they
mess
up
some
procedural
aspect
involved
in
litigation,
and
they
do
not
like
such
mistakes
exposed
by
other
lawyers.
Rather
than
look
inward
on
ways
that
they
can
improve
their
service
to
clients,
attorneys
may
lash
out
on
adversaries
and
accuse
them
of
wrongdoing
in
how
they
conducted
themselves
during
a
case.
On
a
superficial
level,
I
understand
this
response
as
a
reaction
to
an
assault
on
the
lawyer’s
abilities,
but
attorneys
should
know
better
than
to
lash
out
in
this
way.

Civil
lawyers,
like
attorneys
who
defend
criminal
defendants,
should
benefit
from
the
assumption
that
everyone
deserves
diligent
representation,
and
lawyers
should
take
every
advantage
available
to
them
when
serving
clients.
Of
course,
lawyers
should
not
advance
frivolous
arguments
or
conduct
themselves
in
a
way
that
has
no
purpose
other
than
to
delay
the
resolution
of
a
case.
However,
lawyers
and
others
should
know
that
lawyers
must
advance
every
substantive
argument
available
to
them
even
if
this
exposes
errors
made
by
the
other
side
in
litigation.




Rothman Larger HeadshotJordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of




The
Rothman
Law
Firm
,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of




Student
Debt
Diaries
,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at





[email protected]
.