Who
could
have
predicted
what
2025
would
bring?
As
the
legal
profession
kicked
off
last
year,
we
expected
another
tour
de
force
of
Biglaw
standing
up
for
those
targeted
by
the
Trump
administration
like
the
firms
did
in
2017,
we
figured
that
AI
hallucinations
would
become
a
thing
of
the
past
as
lawyers
learned
from
others,
and
we
felt
confident
that
at
least
we
wouldn’t
be
talking
about
summer
associates
biting
people
at
elite
law
firms.
We
flopped
on
all
of
those.
In
fact,
this
year
managed
to
throw
doubt
on
the
Third,
Fourteenth,
and
Twenty-Second
Amendments,
foiling
many
a
2025
Bingo
card.
But
2026
is
a
new
year!
With
hours
to
go
on
this
steaming
dumpster
fire
of
a
year
in
legal,
let
us
usher
in
the
next
year
with
a
bolus
of
positivity
and
gaze
into
our
crystal
balls
to
predict
the
many
ways
the
legal
profession
will
make
the
world
better
over
the
coming
year.
Though
to
avoid
the
graveyard
of
whiffed
predictions
we’ll
discuss
this
time
next
year,
let’s
focus
exclusively
on
the
predictions
that
in
any
rational
profession
would
come
true
in
2026,
with
the
full
understanding
that
—
as
lawyers
—
absolutely
none
of
this
will
actually
happen.
The
Death
Of
The
Billable
Hour
Rumors
of
the
billable
hour’s
demise
have
been
greatly
exaggerated
for
decades.
Forecasting
the
end
of
hourly
billing
is
a
cheap
way
to
spice
up
a
prediction
roundup.
The
thousand,
“well,
actually,
the
billable
hour
isn’t
going
anywhere”
takes
this
item
will
trigger
generates
enough
smug
self-satisfaction
to
keep
offices
warm
for
weeks.
But
there’s
something
different
about
it
this
time,
right?
Famous
last
words
in
the
prediction
racket…
but
that’s
why
we’re
focused
on
predictions
that
aren’t
going
to
come
true.
Billing
by
the
hour
remained
strong
in
2025,
and
probably
will
into
2026.
But
it
has
shown
some
cracks
and
the
chisel
is
the
growing
adoption
of
artificial
intelligence.
Every
previous
death
sentence
for
time-based
billing
rested
upon
client
pressure
and
firm
competition,
two
factors
that
grossly
underestimate
the
legal
profession’s
fear
and
laziness.
Or
“caution”
or
“commitment
to
tradition”
or
whatever
kinder
euphemism
you
want.
Clients
might
have
thought
alternative
fee
arrangements
made
more
sense,
but
it’s
daunting
work
to
go
to
the
Board
and
justify
handing
over
lump
sums
of
money
when
hourly
billing
is
a
tried
and
true
methodology.
And
firms
might
have
wanted
to
seek
some
advantage
over
their
rivals
by
offering
less
burdensome
pricing,
but
it’s
scary
to
commit
to
a
fixed
price
that
could
leave
the
firm
underpaid
on
an
assignment.
Artificial
intelligence
provides
an
exogenous
kick
in
the
ass.
According
to
the
Harbor
Law
Department
Survey,
clients
spent
2025
jumping
on
the
AI
bandwagon.
Some
85
percent
of
corporate
legal
teams
now
have
dedicated
AI
resources,
and
they’re
using
that
newfound
capacity
as
leverage
to
demand
alternative
fee
arrangements,
consolidate
their
panels,
and
pull
work
in-house.
Outside
counsel
spending
projections
cratered
from
58
percent
expecting
increases
to
just
37
percent.
At
the
same
time,
law
firms
have
watched
AI
eat
into
many
of
the
time-consuming
tasks
that
used
to
be
the
bread
and
butter
of
law
firm
leverage.
A
DISCO
white
paper
found
that
even
as
law
firms
embrace
AI
tools,
there’s
one
lingering
fear:
“the
premise
that
speed
will
reduce
revenue
remains
a
challenge.”
Ethics
rules
prevent
law
firms
from
billing
for
the
time
that
might
have
been
in
an
alternate
universe
without
an
AI
tool
crunching
deposition
transcripts.
While
clients
would
love
to
see
the
firm’s
300
hour
bill
drop
to
30,
law
firms
aren’t
in
the
business
of
giving
away
money
like
that.
Law
firms
finally
face
genuine
pressure
to
work
out
the
value
of
the
output
instead
of
charging
clients
for
inputs.
But
instead,
they’ll
probably
just
adopt
a
$10,000
billable
hour.
Because
if
lawyers
invented
the
internal
combustion
engine,
we’d
be
driving
mechanical
horses
instead
of
cars.
Law
Schools
End
The
Accelerated
Recruiting
Pipeline
Remember
when
law
school
grades
mattered?
Maybe
not
for
the
Yalies
out
there,
but
for
the
rest
of
us.
Back
in
the
day,
employers
actually
waited
to
see
how
students
performed
before
hiring
them.
“OK
Boomer,”
say
current
law
students.
But
it’s
true!
We
used
to
wait
for
a
whole
year’s
worth
of
grades
before
getting
an
offer
for
the
summer
before
3L
year.
The
current
law
school
recruiting
timeline
now
begins
roughly
fifteen
minutes
after
orientation.
Biglaw
has
started
handing
out
offers
before
students
finish
their
first
final,
replacing
grades
with
vibe
recruiting
—
complete
with
firms
handing
out
walking
around
money
to
students
that
they’ve
already
worked
with,
asking
these
older
students
to
identify
and
recruit
promising
potential
summers.
The
weird
part
is
that
nobody
wants
this.
The
law
schools
hate
it.
The
law
firms
aren’t
enthusiastic
about
it.
The
students
are
overwhelmed.
And
yet
no
one
can
do
anything
about
it.
Any
solution
would
involve
collective
action
—
from
either
the
law
schools,
the
law
firms,
or
both
—
and
no
one
appears
willing
to
risk
being
accused
of
collusion.
Without
action
from
the
participants
in
this
catastrophe,
the
only
alternative
would
be
the
regulators.
If
state
licensing
authorities
created
some
sort
of
minimum
check
on
law
clerk
qualifications
it
could
put
the
brakes
on
the
accelerated
cycle,
but
the
pressure
on
licensing
is
currently
arrayed
toward
reducing
obstacles
to
practice
rather
than
imposing
more.
In
a
sane
2026,
the
law
schools
manage
to
get
together
and
impose
a
requirement
that
firms
can’t
recruit
students
until
the
first
semester
grades
arrive.
The
Supreme
Court
Will
Go
Back
To
Writing
Actual
Opinions
Instead
Of
Post-It
Notes
In
a
probably
apocryphal
story,
Andrew
Jackson
said
of
the
Supreme
Court,
“John
Marshall
has
made
his
decision;
now
let
him
enforce
it.”
And
that
was
before
a
bunch
of
late-1970s,
early-1980s
law
review
articles
invented
“unitary
executive
theory.”
Even
if
the
Jackson
quote
never
actually
happened,
the
point
remains
sound:
the
Supreme
Court’s
authority
derives
entirely
from
the
persuasive
power
of
its
written
opinions.
That’s
it.
Nine
unelected
people
in
robes
reshape
American
life
because
we
collectively
accept
that
they’ve
issued
reasoned
opinions.
Faced
with
the
daunting
task
of
imposing
ideas
like
the
unitary
executive
theory
—
concepts
divorced
from
any
reasonable
textual
or
historical
reading
—
the
current
Court
simply
dispensed
with
the
“persuasive
power
of
written
opinions”
thing
and
decided
to
just
issue
rulings
under
the
doctrine
of
“because
we
said
so.”
The
shadow
docket
became
the
primary
vehicle
for
reshaping
American
law
this
year,
with
terse
orders
issued
without
briefing,
argument,
or
explanation.
Once
upon
a
time,
these
orders
were
understood
to
be
glorified
preliminary
injunctions,
but
this
year
the
Supreme
Court
majority
voiced
its
frustration
when
lower
courts
kept
applying
actual
written
precedent
instead
of
divining
the
vibes
from
unsigned
orders.
Calvinball
par
excellence.
It
probably
doesn’t
hurt
that
issuing
all
their
rulings
this
way
affords
them
flexibility
to
run
it
all
back
under
a
future
Democratic
president
and
say,
“hold
on,
we
didn’t
actually
RULE
on
any
of
this
stuff.”
The
Supreme
Court
majority’s
embrace
of
legislating
by
post-it
note
carries
dangerous
consequences.
Several
federal
judges
called
bullshit,
placing
the
rise
in
violent
threats
aimed
at
lower
court
justices
in
part
on
the
Supreme
Court’s
unwillingness
to
articulate
its
decisions.
When
SCOTUS
overturns
lower
courts
without
explaining
itself,
it
allows
the
administration
free
rein
to
drag
judges
as
wild-eyed
activists
worthy
of
going
to
“war”
against.
As
one
judge
told
NBC
News:
“They
don’t
have
our
backs.”
As
the
threats
mount
and
the
administration
places
the
Supreme
Court
in
increasingly
uncomfortable
positions
with
its
loony
requests,
2026
should
bring
out
the
latent
pride
of
the
Court’s
conservatives.
The
majority
made
its
decision;
now
let
them
explain
it.
But
they
won’t.
More
States
Will
Consider
Sidelining
The
Bar
Exam
The
bar
exam
is
a
flaming
sack
of
Scantron-bubbled
garbage.
We’ve
known
this
for
decades.
It’s
a
generalist
exam
in
an
era
of
specialists.
It’s
a
doctrinal
memory
test
in
a
profession
that
—
rightly
—
considers
practicing
off
the
dome
as
malpractice.
The
bar
exam
exists
to
limit
the
supply
of
attorneys
and
protect
incumbents
from
competition.
This
year,
Utah
went
ahead
and
created
an
actually
sensible
alternative
licensing
path.
Imagine
an
exam
based
on
the
principle
that
an
experienced,
competent
attorney
should
be
able
to
pass
it
without
studying…
because
that’s
what
minimum
competence
would
suggest.
What
a
concept!
Utah’s
proposal
allows
prospective
lawyers
to
replace
the
bar
exam
with
a
combination
of
formal
education,
supervised
professional
experience,
and
this
real
minimum
competence
exam.
Other
states
should
follow.
But
then
we
wouldn’t
have
as
many
Rule
Against
Perpetuities
jokes.
Biglaw
Firms
Realize
That
Cooperation
With
Authoritarianism
Isn’t
Sustainable
Throughout
2025,
Biglaw
firms
mostly
operated
between
the
art
of
strategic
quiet
and
active
collaboration.
After
law
firms
frustrated
his
first
term’s
wildest
acts
of
overreach,
Trump
entered
the
White
House
in
2025
in
full
“kill
all
the
lawyers”
mode.
Firing
off
executive
orders
designed
to
destroy
global
law
firms,
Trump
managed
to
get
his
wish
with
nine
Biglaw
firms
confessing
past
disloyalty
to
the
crown
and
pledging
millions
in
pro
bono
commitments
to
conservative
causes.
Other
firms
took
the
opportunity
to
erase
references
to
diversity
or
other
vaguely
progressive
work
from
their
websites.
And
many
more
just
stopped
representing
vulnerable
clients
facing
the
administration’s
wrath.
The
surrendering
firms
took
their
lumps.
Paul
Weiss
chair
Brad
Karp
got
heckled
at
a
Bar
Foundation
gala,
with
another
attendee
yelling
“FOR
TRUMP?!”
every
time
he
mentioned
their
public
service
accomplishments.
Young
lawyers
were
not
happy.
Clients
pulled
business
from
firms
that
showed
no
willingness
to
stand
up
for
themselves.
When
it
all
shakes
out,
the
firms
will
likely
end
the
year
no
worse
for
the
ordeal.
The
legal
profession
is
supposed
to
be
the
last
line
of
defense
for
the
rule
of
law.
Lawyers
in
other
countries
have
marched
through
tear
gas
to
defend
judicial
independence.
Many
of
America’s
most
elite
legal
institutions
could
barely
muster
a
strongly
worded
op-ed.
But
the
thing
about
Faustian
bargains
is
that
they’re
rarely
one-time
transactions.
As
we
warned
when
these
deals
were
announced,
dealing
with
a
bad
faith
actor
means
they
own
you.
Even
if
they
don’t
alter
the
deal
further,
the
fear
guides
the
relationship.
Perhaps
the
administration
has
moved
on
from
harassing
law
firms.
Probably
not
though.
In
2026,
we
should
see
firms
start
pushing
back
against
the
White
House.
However,
given
the
expected
financials
from
the
surrendering
firms,
it’s
more
likely
other
firms
decide
complicity
has
its
perks.
Lawyers
Will
Stop
Falling
For
AI
Hallucinations
Honestly,
one
would’ve
thought
lawyers
could’ve
cleared
this
one
in
2025,
but
apparently
not.
When
the
first
AI
hallucination
story
broke
in
2023,
the
intense
public
ridicule
led
many
to
believe
the
whole
profession
had
been
duly
chastened.
Some
700
hallucination
filings
later,
that
didn’t
pan
out.
AI
burned
lawyers
across
the
industry
this
year.
The
MyPillow
lawyers
got
dinged.
K&L
Gates
and
Ellis
George
got
dinged.
Butler
Snow
got
kicked
off
a
case.
A
California
court
declined
to
award
fees
to
opposing
counsel
for
failing
to
spot
the
other
side’s
fake
citations.
The
judges
got
in
on
the
action
too.
A
Georgia
case
got
decided
based
off
of
hallucinated
caselaw.
Two
federal
judges
had
to
withdraw
hallucinated
opinions.
This
should
not
be
hard.
The
rule
is
simple:
if
you
cite
a
case,
verify
that
the
case
exists.
This
was
true
before
AI.
It’s
true
after
AI.
The
existence
of
a
technology
that
confidently
fabricates
sources
does
not
relieve
you
of
the
obligation
to
check
your
work.
Everyone
understands
this
in
theory.
But
in
practice,
AI
may
well
be
making
us
dumber.
This
should
end
in
2026.
Between
technological
advances
to
reduce
hallucinations
and
lawyers
rightfully
worried
about
their
reputations,
this
should
end.
But
I
said
that
of
2025
too.
Kim
Kardashian
Will
Finally
Give
Up
On
The
Bar
Exam
Kim
Kardashian’s
ongoing
quest
to
become
a
lawyer
through
California’s
apprenticeship
program
hasn’t
worked
out
so
far.
She
failed
the
bar
exam.
Even
though
the
psychics
promised
she’d
pass.
The
bar
exam
is
a
problematic
professional
gatekeeper,
but
Kardashian
is
the
best
argument
for
the
existence
of
an
exam
of
some
form.
Not
the
stupid
one
we
have,
but
if
the
system
is
going
to
allow
a
path
to
licensure
that
doesn’t
run
through
law
school
there
has
to
be
a
test
of
genuine
minimum
competence.
Perhaps
she
could
try
her
hand
at
Utah’s
new
system?
But
assuming
California
isn’t
junking
the
bar
exam
—
and
they’ve
already
disastrously
tried
to
fix
the
bar
exam
and
then
committed
to
the
worst
of
all
possible
outcomes
by
going
BACK
to
the
old
bar
exam
—
could
2026
be
the
year
that
Kardashian
refuses
to
keep
investing
her
energy
in
this
busted
system?
Kardashian
wants
to
help
the
wrongfully
convicted
and
excessively
sentenced,
and
the
best
way
for
her
to
do
that
is
to
keep
being
a
billionaire
and
funding
the
lawyers
who
are
already
out
there
doing
this
important
work.
There
should
be
no
shame
in
becoming
the
deep
pocketed
philanthropist
behind
a
noble
cause.
The
Kim
Kardashian
Center
For
Justice
has
a
nice
ring
to
it.
The
Point
Of
All
This
The
legal
profession
has
a
remarkable
capacity
to
identify
problems
and
then
do
absolutely
nothing
about
them.
But
we
can
hope.
Hey,
sometimes,
if
people
keep
pointing
out
the
right
path
loudly
and
repeatedly,
things
can
change.
Maybe
in
2027.
Joe
Patrice
is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to
email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on
Twitter
or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.