Former
Skadden
Partner
David
Eisman
Makes
A
Huge
Career
Shift:
Don’t
worry
—
he’ll
still
be
on
the
legal
side
of
things.
The
Biggest
In
Texas:
See
if
your
firm
places
on
this
regional
prestige
list.
Charging
Is
Easy;
The
Collecting
Is
Hard:
The
most
important
part
of
getting
paid
is
the
collection
cycle.
Drake
Law
Shuts
Down
Their
Wrongful
Convictions
Clinic:
All
over
a
$154k
estate
dispute.
Reconsider
The
Reconsideration:
Judge
Brown
puts
the
ball
back
in
the
DOJ’s
court.
A
bipartisan
group
of
lawmakers
recently
introduced
companion
versions
of
the
Medicare
Advantage
Improvement
Act
of
2026
in
both
the
House
and
Senate,
aiming
to
strengthen
oversight
of
Medicare
Advantage.
The
bill
was
introduced
in
the
Senate
on
Monday
by
Senators
Roger
Marshall
(R-Kansas)
and
Sheldon
Whitehouse
(D-Rhode
Island).
It
was
introduced
last
week
in
the
House
by
Mariannette
Miller-Meeks
(R-Iowa),
John
Joyce
(R-Pennsylvania),
Greg
Murphy
(R-North
Carolina),
Jimmy
Panetta
(D-California),
Ami
Bera
(D-California),
Beth
Van
Duyne
(R-Texas)
and
Kim
Schrier
(D-Washington).
It
comes
as
Medicare
Advantage
enrollment
is
on
the
rise,
with
more
than
half
of
Medicare
beneficiaries
enrolled
in
Medicare
Advantage
plans.
However,
the
program
is
facing
increasing
scrutiny
over
care
delays
and
administrative
barriers.
Specifically,
the
bill
would:
Require
standard
prior
authorization
approvals
within
72
hours,
expedited
decisions
within
24
hours
and
real-time
approvals
for
routine
low-risk
services.
Ban
coverage
from
being
retroactively
denied
once
a
service
is
authorized,
unless
there
is
fraud
or
error.
Require
MA
plans
to
publicly
report
prior
authorization
data.
Ban
MA
plans
from
applying
stricter
medical
necessity
standards
than
original
Medicare.
Strengthen
network
adequacy
requirements
for
rehabilitation
hospitals
and
long-term
care
hospitals.
“Americans
are
rightfully
fed
up
with
health
care
bureaucracy,
and
prior
authorization
is
one
of
the
worst
offenders:
delaying
treatment,
driving
up
costs,
and
putting
paperwork
ahead
of
patients.
We
need
to
cut
this
red
tape
so
providers
can
deliver
timely,
high-quality
care,”
Sen.
Whitehouse
said
in
a
statement.
Rep.
Miller-Meeks
echoed
these
comments.
“For
too
long,
cases
of
abuse
have
crept
into
Medicare
Advantage,
pulling
it
away
from
its
core
mission
of
serving
America’s
seniors,”
said
Miller-Meeks
in
a
statement.
“As
a
physician,
I’ve
seen
how
these
practices
delay
care,
create
unnecessary
barriers,
and
increase
the
cost
of
healthcare.
This
bill
restores
accountability,
cracks
down
on
bad
actors,
and
ensures
Iowa
seniors
can
access
the
care
they
need,
without
delay,
without
denial,
and
without
interference
from
bureaucratic
red
tape.”
The
American
Health
Care
Association
and
National
Center
for
Assisted
Living
applauded
the
introduction
of
the
bill.
“The
Medicare
Advantage
Improvement
Act
of
2026
represents
a
significant
step
towards
ensuring
Medicare
Advantage
delivers
on
its
promise
to
America’s
seniors,”
said
Clif
Porter,
president
and
CEO
of
AHCA/NCAL,
in
a
statement.
“We
commend
these
lawmakers
for
developing
a
better
way
to
enable
seniors
to
have
timely
access
to
care
and
hold
plans
accountable.
We
urge
continued
bipartisan
support
and
swift
passage
through
Congress.”
Recorded
live
at
the
annual
meeting
of
theLegal
Marketing
Associationin
New
Orleans,
this
episode
features
my
conversation
withRachel
Shields
Williams,
president
of
the
LMA
and
director
of
client
intelligence
at
Sidley
Austin,
where
she
has
spent
17
years
building
out
roles
at
the
intersection
of
marketing,
business
development,
knowledge
management
and
data.
Earlier
this
year,
Rachel
was
named
a
recipient
of
ALM’sMonica
Bay
Women
in
Legal
Tech
Award.
Rachel
and
I
discuss
how
AI
is
reshaping
the
work
of
legal
marketers,
and
why
she
believes
the
marketing
community
is
uniquely
positioned
to
help
law
firms
move
past
the
“I’m
curious,
I
want
to
click
the
buttons”
stage
of
AI
adoption
to
sustained,
repeatable
value.
We
get
into
the
state
of
innovation
in
big
law
—
including
Rachel’s
view
that
firms
cannot
use
AI
or
money
to
“skip
the
canyon
of
despair”
in
change
management
—
and
why
she
thinks
meaningful
innovation
often
looks
less
like
a
headline
and
more
like
getting
one
percent
better
every
week.
The
conversation
also
covers
the
changing
competitive
landscape
facing
traditional
firms,
from
AI-native
entrants
like
Norm
AI
to
MSOs
and
a
resurgent
ALSP
market;
the
long-running
debate
over
the
billable
hour;
the
four
interrelated
elements
Rachel
sees
at
the
heart
of
every
law
firm’s
data
—
documents,
clients,
matters,
and
people;
and
what
firm
leaders
should
be
doing
right
now
to
stay
competitive
over
the
next
decade.
Throughout,
Rachel
returns
to
a
theme
about
which
she
calls
herself
an
“unapologetic
humanist”
—
technology
and
process
will
keep
changing,
but
the
firms
that
win
will
be
the
ones
that
put
the
right
people
in
the
room
first.
Listen
here:
Watch
here:
Thank
You
To
Our
Sponsors
This
episode
of
LawNext
is
generously
made
possible
by
our
sponsors.
We
appreciate
their
support
and
hope
you
will
check
them
out.
If
you
enjoy
listening
to
LawNext,
please
leave
us
a
review
wherever
you
listen
to
podcasts.
We
believe
there
are
about
1,000,000
non-practicing
lawyers
(NPLs)
in
the
US.
It
is
impossible
to
know
with
absolute
certainty
as
the
ABA
and
state
bar
associations
do
not
accurately
track
this.
Some
state
bar
associations,
such
as
New
York
State,
offer
an
option
to
select
“retired
from
the
practice
of
law”
in
the
state’s
required
Biennial
Registration
but
do
not
compile
a
count
—
at
least
one
that
is
publicly
available.
In
California,
on
the
other
hand,
the
state
bar
can
tell
you
that
as
of
the
last
registration,
there
were
71,000
inactive
attorneys.
Inactive
being
essentially
the
same
as
retired.
(Source:
State
Bar
of
California’s
Profile
of
California’s
Inactive
Attorneys,
March
2025)
But
here’s
the
thing.
Pretty
much
all
the
non-practicing
lawyers
we
know
in
the
U.S.
maintain
their
law
license
at
registration
—
even
though
they
don’t
work
as
lawyers.
Meaning
in
every
state
in
the
country,
there
are
a
substantial
number
of
people
counted
as
practicing
who
are
non-practicing
lawyers.
These
are
the
invisible
NPLs.
You
knew
this
was
coming.
AI,
in
this
case
ChatGPT
5.0,
arrives
at
roughly
1,000,000
non-practicing
lawyers
this
way:
Since
the
mid-1970s,
U.S.
law
schools
have
produced
~35,000–40,000
graduates
per
year.
Over
roughly
50
years,
that
produces
about
1.7–1.9
million
people
with
JDs.
These
figures
are
derived
from
long-term
enrollment
and
graduation
statistics
from
the
American
Bar
Association.
Reasonable
midpoint
—
1.8
million
Americans
with
a
JD
The
latest
data
from
the
U.S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
shows
that
800,000
people
were
reported
as
employed
in
the
occupation
“lawyer,”
“attorney,”
“counsel,”
etc.
Leaving
about
1,000,000
non-practicing
lawyers
in
the
U.S.
We
founded
exjudicata.com
three
years
ago
as
a
resource
to
help
any
lawyer
or
3L
considering,
or
committed
to,
moving
to
a
nonlegal
career. We
launched
a
second
platform,
the
EXJ
Community,
in
January
2026
as
the
first
network
for
those
lawyers
already
working
in
nonlegal
jobs
(and
those
that
aspire
to
be
—
practicing
lawyers
interested
in
learning
more
and
networking
with
lawyers
who
were
once
in
their
shoes).
We
have
used
“NPL”
sporadically,
preferring
to
use
non-practicing
lawyer
simply
because
we
were
new
and
this
was
a
new
concept.
Now
we’ve
ratcheted
it
up
and
use
NPL
interchangeably
with
non-practicing
lawyer.
The
goal
is
straightforward
to
create
the
first
new
U.S.
workforce
demographic
in
decades,
the
NPL.
Why
does
a
community
of
NPLs
matter?
1.
There
are
hundreds
of
communities
for
practicing
lawyers
sliced
every
which
way.
By
practice
area,
by
geography,
by
age,
by
sexual
orientation,
state
bar
groups,
city
bar
groups,
the
ABA.
Shouldn’t
there
be
one
for
NPLs?
2.
If
a
community
of
NPLs
can
scale,
suddenly
CHROs
and
other
talent
executives
at
organizations
of
every
size
and
stripe
will
start
seeing
tangible
evidence
of
the
scope
and
breadth
of
lawyers
working
in
nonlegal
careers.
In
other
words,
it’s
one
thing
to
talk
to
a
talent
executive
and
tell
them
that
they
should
consider
lawyers
for
a
marketing
opening
at
their
company.
It’s
quite
another
to
be
able
to
approach
that
same
person
and
show
them
500
NPLs
in
the
community
working
in
marketing
jobs
around
the
country.
And
here’s
who
they
are.
3.
A
community
of
NPLs
ties
into
the
evolving
definition
of
the
JD
degree.
Old:
A
JD
is
a
law
degree
New:
A
JD
is
a
degree
in
complex
problem-solving,
and
if
there
is
one
thing
every
business
needs
more
of,
it
is
complex
problem-solvers.
4.
Emotional
and
psychological
support
for
all
practicing
lawyers
and
3Ls,
struggling
with
concerns
about
leaving
law
to
do
something
more
in
line
with
their
passion
and/or
purpose.
While
we
can
point
to
so
many
examples
of
former
practicing
lawyers
thriving
in
business
careers,
it
would
be
great
for
those
struggling
to
see
the
size,
the
data.
To
see
hundreds
of
thousands
of
JDs
currently
working
in
nonlegal
jobs,
the
power
of
the
JD
applied
to
countless
business
roles.
5.
Law
school
career
services
offices
struggle
to
advise
students
and
alumni
who
want
to
pursue
alternative
careers.
It
would
be
extraordinary
if
they
could
look
to
an
organized
community
of
non-practicing
lawyers
for
guidance,
support,
and
jobs
for
their
students
and
alumni.
Have
ideas
for
building
out
a
community
of
NPLs,
we’d
love
to
hear?
Email
us
at
[email protected].
The
authors
of The
Great
Escape column, Neil
Handwerker
and Kimberly
Fine, are
the
founders
of
exjudicata.com,
a
platform
designed
to
help
lawyers
move
to
nonlegal
careers.
They
just
launched a
new
related
platform,
the
EXJ
Community,
the
first
ever
peer-to-peer
network
of
non-practicing
lawyers.
The
metaphor
is
a
wrecking
ball.
There
are
still
parts
of
the
VRA
that
are
operative,
but
the
two
main
pillars
are
now
virtually
dead
letters.
—
Professor
Rick
Hasen,
an
election
law
expert
at
UCLA
Law,
in
comments
given
to
Reuters,
concerning
the
Supreme
Court’s
handling
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act.
Over
the
course
of
the
last
decade,
the
Roberts
Court
has
slowly
but
surely
chipped
away
at
the
landmark
law,
leaving
it
on
its
last
legs.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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.
Law
school
clinics
offer
hands-on
experience
to
students
and
serve
communities
in
need.
Some
schools
are
known
for
their
clinic
offerings.
Drake
Law
had
a
respected
Wrongful
Convictions
Clinic,
but
an
abrupt
suspension
of
the
program
has
put
its
future
in
question.
KCCI
has
coverage:
The
abrupt
closure
followed
the
firing
of
Erica
Nichols
Cook,
the
professor
who
created
and
ran
the
Wrongful
Convictions
Clinic.
“I
received
a
notice
that
I
was
terminated
and
that
all
my
classes
were
canceled,”
Nichols
Cook
said.
Nichols
Cook,
who
has
more
than
a
decade
of
experience
working
on
wrongful
convictions,
said
she
believes
her
termination
stemmed
from
a
misunderstanding
and
distrust
by
members
of
the
administration.
The
disagreement
involved
a
$154,000
check
from
the
estate
of
Bill
Amor,
a
former
client
of
Nichols
Cook.
“He
wanted
to
take
care
of
the
remaining
family
he
had
and
support
my
work,”
Nichols
Cook
said.
Nichols
Cook
had
taken
on
Amor’s
case
in
2012
while
working
for
the
Illinois
Innocence
Project,
which
is
not
affiliated
with
Drake.
Amor’s
estate
left
$2.5M
to
Drake
Law’s
Wrongful
Convictions
Clinic.
A
separate
$154k
was
given
directly
to
Nichols
Cook
by
Amor’s
trustee
who
stated
that
she
wasn’t
happy
with
how
the
law
school
intended
to
use
Amor’s
gift.
He
definitely
wouldn’t
be
happy
with
the
school
showing
entitlement
toward
money
that
explicitly
wasn’t
earmarked
for
them.
That
said,
error
on
the
part
of
Amor’s
trustee
may
get
in
the
way
of
Amor’s
wishes
being
followed:
In
an
email
dated
Feb.
6,
Amor’s
trustee
apologized
to
Nichols
Cook
for
the
mistake,
writing,
“Bill
expressed
so
many
times
his
desire
to
have
the
funds
put
under
your
control.
He
loved
you,
and
I
overstepped
what
a
trustee
could
legally
do
through
ignorance.
You
paid
the
price,
and
I
am
at
fault.”
The
Wrongful
Convictions
Clinic
did
important
work
and
it
is
a
shame
that
it
was
closed
down
over
cash
squabbling.
The
students
who
were
working
on
cases
had
to
immediately
drop
the
projects
they’d
been
working
on.
The
way
the
school
handled
this
isn’t
just
a
disservice
to
the
students,
it
is
a
double
injury
to
the
people
behind
bars
who
were
hoping
for
a
second
shot
at
justice.
Drake
shared
that
it
wants
to
re-open
the
clinic
next
year,
but
is
being
in
limbo
really
preferable
to
getting
students
the
learning
experience
they
need
and
doing
the
right
thing?
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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.
There’s
a
moment
in
Judge
Gary
R.
Brown’s
April
27th
order
(available
below)
in
Sanchez
Alfaro
v.
Mullin
that
stopped
me
cold.
After
noting
the
detailed
litany
of
constitutional
violations
committed
by
ICE
agents,
Judge
Brown
reveals
that
in
the
Department
of
Justice’s
motion
to
reconsider
the
“description
of
the
efforts
that
would
be
undertaken
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
law”
was…
nothing.
The
Eastern
District
of
New
York
judge
then
dropped
this
line:
“So,
paradoxically,
it
is
this
Court’s
turn
to
ask
respondents
to
reconsider
their
position.”
And
if
the
government
pulls
a
Bartleby
and
prefers
not
to?
“Should
respondents’
answer
remain
unchanged,
the
Court
will
take
appropriate
action.”
That’s
cold
as
ice
(pun
intended).
But
I
guess
that’s
what
happens
when
you
submit
a
brief
that’s
“legally
spurious.”
Let’s
back
up.
The
underlying
facts
here
are
remarkably
egregious,
even
by
the
degraded
standards
we’ve
all
gotten
used
to.
ICE
arrested
William
Enrique
Sanchez
Alfaro
—
a
man
who
had
been
granted
Special
Immigrant
Juvenile
(SIJ)
status,
deferred
action,
and
work
authorization
—
without
a
warrant.
Officers
later
admitted
they
arrested
the
wrong
man.
The
administrative
warrant
and
paperwork
were
issued
after
the
arrest,
as
post-hoc
cover.
Then,
after
the
petitioner
sought
legal
relief,
his
deferred
action
was
revoked,
with
no
explanation
other
than
the
illegal
arrest
itself.
Judge
Brown
found
four
distinct
constitutional
and
statutory
violations.
He
gave
the
government
21
days
to
tell
the
court
what
it
planned
to
do
about
it,
but
got
“nothing”
in
the
way
of
substance.
And
it
actually
gets
worse
because
that
nothingburger
of
a
response
was
wrapped
in
a
motion
for
reconsideration
so
weak
that
Judge
Brown
methodically
dismantled
it
section
by
section,
calling
out
“frivolous”
arguments,
a
“blatant
misstatement,”
selective
quotation
of
case
law
that
was
“misleading,”
and
jurisdictional
arguments
that
were
“entirely
meritless.”
At
one
point,
the
government
cited
DHS
v.
Thuraissigiam
to
claim
that
habeas
corpus
only
allows
for
simple
release
—
and
therefore
the
court’s
work
was
done,
case
over,
nothing
to
see
here.
Brown
spent
several
pages
demonstrating
that
the
government
was
misreading
a
case
that
said
almost
the
exact
opposite
of
what
they
claimed.
He
noted
the
government
“cannot
plead
ignorance”
because
he
had
cited
the
correct
precedents
to
these
same
respondents
in
previous
cases.
They
knew…
or
at
least,
they
should
have.
The
government
also
tried
to
argue
that
the
court
had
improperly
raised
the
issue
of
Sanchez
Alfaro’s
SIJ
and
deferred
action
status
on
its
own.
Brown’s
response
was
withering:
the
petitioner
had
raised
it
in
his
very
first
filing.
The
government
had
briefed
the
issue
in
their
own
papers.
Calling
it
a
surprise
was
a
“blatant
misstatement.”
So
that’s
the
backdrop
against
which
Judge
Brown
wrote
the
line
that
should
have
every
government
attorney
in
the
Eastern
District
of
New
York
paying
very
close
attention.
Because
what
comes
after
“the
Court
will
take
appropriate
action”
is
not
vague.
Brown
spelled
it
out
in
careful,
patient,
devastating
detail.
If
the
government
won’t
tell
the
court
what
it
plans
to
do
to
prevent
future
illegal
ICE
enforcement
actions
—
warrantless
arrests,
post-hoc
paperwork,
disregard
of
legally
awarded
immigration
status,
retaliation
—
then
the
court
will
consider
whether
injunctive
relief
is
necessary.
And
not
just
narrow
relief.
Brown
noted
that
if
he’s
not
satisfied
that
an
injunction
confined
to
protecting
this
specific
petitioner
would
be
sufficient,
“equitable
relief
at
the
policy
level
might
be
required.”
This
is
not
a
judge
that’s
bluffing.
He
is
laying
out,
step
by
step,
exactly
what
legal
tools
he
has
available
and
exactly
how
he
plans
to
use
them
if
the
government
comes
back
with
another
round
of
“nothing.”
This
is,
of
course,
part
of
a
pattern
that
has
become
a
drumbeat
across
the
federal
judiciary.
A
Bush-appointed
judge
in
Minnesota
had
to
threaten
to
haul
the
ICE
acting
director
into
court
personally
before
ICE
released
a
man
it
had
been
ordered
to
give
a
bond
hearing
—
and
only
backed
down
when
ICE
blinked
first.
A
Trump-appointed
judge
found
ICE
was
systematically
blocking
detainees’
access
to
counsel
in
Minnesota
and
issued
a
TRO.
A
judge
in
Illinois
had
to
explain
that
you
can’t
freeze
grant
funds,
declare
the
grants
closed,
and
call
it
a
day.
In
West
Virginia,
four
judges
across
the
political
spectrum
spent
weeks
issuing
increasingly
volcanic
opinions,
with
one
noting
the
government
had
“offered
no
evidence
that
they
have
seen
or
even
care
about”
the
court’s
rulings.
And
that
doesn’t
even
get
into
the
Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
saga,
where
the
government
spent
months
trying
to
paper
over
a
wrongful
deportation
to
a
forced
labor
camp.
What
makes
Judge
Brown’s
order
distinct
isn’t
just
the
quality
of
the
benchslap
—
though
it
is
a
good
one,
opening
as
it
does
with
the
federal
officer
oath
of
allegiance,
which,
again,
is
not
subtle.
What
makes
it
notable
is
the
explicit,
almost
tutorial
quality
of
the
warning.
He’s
not
just
ruling
against
the
government.
He
is
explaining
to
them,
in
advance,
in
writing,
exactly
what
is
about
to
happen
to
them
if
they
don’t
change
course.
The
question
is
whether
there’s
anyone
left
at
DOJ
that
cares.
Given
the
track
record,
I
have
my
doubts.
But
Judge
Brown
has
made
the
stakes
about
as
clear
as
a
federal
judge
is
able
to
make
them.
The
next
move
is
theirs.
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
Bluesky @Kathryn1
There
is
a
story
every
lawyer
of
a
certain
generation
tells.
They
were
sworn
in.
Someone
handed
them
a
file.
There
was
a
hearing
in
an
hour.
Maybe
a
deposition
the
next
morning.
Maybe
a
motion
to
draft
with
no
sample,
no
explanation,
and
no
clue
what
the
partner
actually
wanted.
Good
luck.
And
somehow,
they
figured
it
out.
That
is
not
training.
That
is
hazing
with
letterhead.
For
years,
law
firms
confused
exposure
with
education.
We
believed
that
if
you
threw
young
lawyers
into
enough
difficult
situations,
they
would
eventually
become
lawyers.
Sometimes
they
did.
Sometimes
they
became
good
lawyers
despite
us,
not
because
of
us.
Sometimes
they
developed
bad
habits
that
followed
them
for
decades.
Sometimes
they
left
the
practice
altogether.
The
larger
firms
eventually
built
academies,
boot
camps,
internal
universities,
litigation
colleges,
trial
programs,
mentoring
committees,
evaluation
systems,
and
enough
binders
to
fill
a
conference
room.
Smaller
and
medium-sized
firms
looked
at
all
that
and
thought,
“That
sounds
great.
We
have
court
tomorrow.”
But
smaller
firms
cannot
afford
not
to
train
their
lawyers.
The
future
of
a
firm
is
not
its
current
book
of
business.
It
is
not
its
current
partners.
It
is
not
the
cases
on
the
trial
calendar.
The
future
of
a
firm
is
the
young
lawyer
sitting
in
the
office
right
now,
wondering
whether
anyone
is
going
to
teach
her
how
to
practice
law.
If
you
do
not
train
her,
someone
else
will.
Or
worse,
no
one
will.
The
good
news
is
that
small
and
midsize
firms
do
not
need
a
seven-figure
professional
development
budget
to
create
a
meaningful
training
program.
They
need
intention.
They
need
structure.
They
need
repetition.
They
need
accountability.
They
need
partners
willing
to
stop
saying,
“Nobody
trained
me,”
as
if
that
were
an
argument
rather
than
an
indictment.
Start
with
the
work
the
firm
actually
does.
Too
many
training
programs
fail
because
they
are
built
like
law
school
electives.
Interesting
topics.
Smart
speakers.
Nice
PowerPoints.
No
connection
to
what
associates
do
on
Tuesday
morning.
A
small
firm’s
training
program
should
begin
with
a
simple
question:
What
must
a
lawyer
here
know
how
to
do
to
serve
our
clients
well?
If
you
are
a
litigation
firm,
that
list
probably
includes
case
evaluation,
written
discovery,
document
review,
deposition
preparation,
taking
and
defending
depositions,
motion
practice,
hearings,
mediation,
expert
work,
trial
preparation,
client
reporting,
billing,
and
professional
communication.
If
you
are
a
transactional
firm,
the
list
is
different;
if
you
are
a
family
law
firm,
it’s
different
again.
Immigration.
Bankruptcy.
Employment.
Insurance
defense.
Plaintiff’s
personal
injury.
Real
estate.
The
curriculum
should
follow
the
work.
Do
not
begin
by
asking
what
a
good
training
program
looks
like
in
the
abstract.
Begin
by
asking
what
mistakes
young
lawyers
in
your
firm
keep
making.
Those
mistakes
are
your
syllabus.
If
associates
write
poor
emails
to
clients,
train
them
in
client
communication.
If
they
do
not
understand
how
to
prepare
for
hearings,
they
should
train
for
hearings.
If
they
cannot
take
a
clean
deposition,
train
for
depositions.
If
their
time
entries
read
like
ransom
notes,
train
billing.
If
they
do
not
understand
the
firm’s
business,
train
them
on
that
too.
Training
should
solve
real
problems.
The
first
part
of
the
program
should
be
an
orientation
to
judgment.
New
lawyers
do
not
simply
need
to
know
where
the
printer
is,
how
to
enter
time,
and
which
conference
room
has
the
good
camera.
They
need
to
understand
how
the
firm
thinks.
What
does
the
firm
value?
What
does
quality
work
look
like?
How
do
we
communicate
with
clients?
How
quickly
do
we
respond?
When
do
we
pick
up
the
phone?
How
do
we
handle
mistakes?
How
do
we
treat
staff?
How
do
we
deal
with
opposing
counsel?
How
do
we
prepare
for
court?
What
does
“ready”
mean
here?
Every
firm
has
a
culture.
Some
fail
to
explain
it.
A
young
lawyer
should
not
have
to
reverse
engineer
the
firm’s
expectations
by
disappointing
five
different
partners
in
five
different
ways.
Put
the
expectations
in
writing.
Say
them
out
loud.
Repeat
them
often.
The
second
part
should
be
skills
training.
Not
theory.
Skills.
How
to
draft
an
answer.
How
to
prepare
discovery
responses.
How
to
object
without
being
obnoxious.
How
to
summarize
medical
records.
How
to
prepare
a
witness.
How
to
build
a
deposition
outline.
How
to
argue
a
motion
in
five
minutes.
How
to
write
a
case
evaluation
that
the
client
can
actually
use.
How
to
prepare
for
mediation.
How
to
think
about
settlement
value.
How
to
close
the
loop
on
assignments.
Every
skill
should
be
taught
the
same
way:
explain,
show,
do,
review,
repeat.
Explain
the
task.
Show
a
good
example.
Let
the
associate
do
it.
Review
the
work
carefully.
Give
specific
feedback.
Then
make
the
associate
do
it
again.
The
magic
is
not
in
the
lecture.
The
magic
is
in
the
repetition.
A
partner
cannot
say,
“You
need
to
write
better,”
and
think
that
is
feedback.
That
is
a
fortune
cookie.
Better
feedback
sounds
like
this:
“Your
facts
are
strong,
but
your
argument
starts
too
late.
Move
the
best
fact
into
the
first
paragraph.
Shorten
the
background.
Use
headings
that
make
the
argument
for
you.
Cut
the
adjectives.
The
judge
does
not
need
outrage.
The
judge
needs
a
reason
to
rule
for
us.”
That
is
training.
The
third
part
should
be
shadowing
with
a
purpose.
Young
lawyers
should
attend
depositions,
hearings,
mediations,
client
calls,
expert
meetings,
and
trial
preparation
sessions.
But
shadowing
alone
is
not
enough.
If
an
associate
sits
quietly
in
the
back
of
the
room
and
no
one
explains
what
happened,
that
is
not
training.
That
is
furniture
placement.
Before
the
event,
tell
the
associate
what
to
watch
for.
During
the
event,
give
them
a
role.
After
the
event,
debrief.
Before
a
deposition:
“Watch
how
I
lock
down
the
timeline
before
getting
into
opinions.
Watch
how
I
use
exhibits.
Watch
how
I
avoid
arguing
with
the
witness.”
After
the
deposition:
“What
worked?
What
did
not?
Where
did
the
witness
hurt
us?
What
would
you
ask
next
time?”
Then,
at
the
next
deposition,
let
the
associate
handle
a
small
section.
Background
questions.
Document
authentication.
Employment
history.
Medical
treatment
chronology.
Something
manageable.
That
is
how
confidence
is
built.
Not
by
speeches.
By
reps.
The
fourth
part
should
be
mentoring,
but
real
mentoring.
A
mentor
is
not
someone
whose
name
appears
on
an
internal
chart.
A
mentor
is
someone
the
associate
will
actually
call
before
making
a
bad
decision.
Pair
people
thoughtfully.
Common
interests
help.
Common
practice
areas
help.
Common
backgrounds
sometimes
help.
But
the
most
important
thing
is
trust.
A
young
lawyer
needs
someone
who
will
answer
the
awkward
questions
without
making
them
feel
foolish.
How
do
I
tell
a
partner
I
made
a
mistake?
How
do
I
deal
with
a
difficult
assistant?
How
do
I
ask
for
more
work?
How
do
I
say
I
am
overwhelmed?
How
do
I
prepare
for
my
first
argument?
How
do
I
know
whether
I
am
doing
well?
Mentoring
should
include
scheduled
meetings,
but
it
cannot
be
limited
to
them.
The
best
mentoring
happens
in
hallways,
after
hearings,
before
calls,
over
coffee,
and
in
the
five
minutes
after
something
went
sideways.
Small
firms
have
an
advantage
here.
They
are
smaller.
People
know
each
other.
Partners
are
more
accessible.
Associates
can
see
how
lawyers
actually
practice.
Use
that
advantage.
The
fifth
part
should
teach
business
development
from
the
start.
Some
firms
act
as
if
business
development
is
a
mysterious
art
revealed
only
after
a
lawyer
makes
partner.
That
is
a
mistake.
Young
lawyers
should
learn
from
day
one
that
relationships
matter.
Reputation
matters.
Responsiveness
matters.
Writing
matters
and
speaking
matters.
Bar
involvement
matters.
LinkedIn
matters.
Following
up
on
matters.
Helping
others
matters.
No
one
expects
a
first-year
associate
to
bring
in
a
Fortune
500
client.
But
that
associate
can
learn
how
to
build
a
network.
She
can
stay
in
touch
with
classmates.
She
can
write
short
practical
pieces.
She
can
attend
local
bar
events.
She
can
speak
on
small
panels.
She
can
treat
every
person
she
meets
as
someone
worth
knowing,
not
as
a
transaction.
Business
development
is
not
a
switch
someone
flips
in
year
eight.
It
is
a
habit
built
over
time.
The
sixth
part
should
include
technology
and
AI.
No
modern
training
program
can
ignore
AI.
That
does
not
mean
young
lawyers
should
paste
confidential
client
materials
into
public
tools
and
hope
for
the
best.
It
means
firms
need
to
teach
responsible
use.
AI
can
help
organize,
brainstorm,
summarize,
outline,
compare,
and
improve
drafts.
It
can
also
hallucinate,
misstate,
oversimplify,
and
create
confidentiality
problems.
The
lesson
for
young
lawyers
is
simple:
use
tools,
but
own
the
work.
Teach
them
approved
platforms.
Teach
them
what
not
to
upload.
Teach
them
how
to
verify.
Teach
them
that
AI
is
not
an
authority.
Teach
them
that
a
fake
citation
is
still
their
fake
citation.
Teach
them
that
efficiency
without
judgment
is
malpractice
waiting
for
a
caption.
The
seventh
part
should
be
accountability.
Training
cannot
be
something
the
firm
talks
about
at
retreats
and
ignores
during
busy
season.
Someone
must
own
it.
There
should
be
a
training
calendar.
There
should
be
written
materials.
There
should
be
practice
checklists.
There
should
be
sample
motions,
sample
reports,
sample
outlines,
sample
letters,
and
sample
time
entries.
Partners
should
be
expected
to
participate.
Associates
should
be
expected
to
attend.
Feedback
should
be
documented.
Progress
should
be
discussed.
Keep
it
simple.
Monthly
skills
sessions.
Quarterly
workshops.
Shadowing
requirements.
Writing
reviews.
Deposition
labs.
Hearing
practice.
Mentoring
lunches.
Internal
CLEs.
Recorded
programs
for
lawyers
who
miss
them
—
a
shared
folder
of
templates
and
examples.
Small
firms
do
not
need
bureaucracy.
They
need
consistency.
And
they
need
to
stop
making
perfection
the
enemy
of
starting.
You
can
build
the
first
year
of
a
training
program
on
12
sessions:
How
to
receive
and
complete
an
assignment. How
to
communicate
with
clients. How
to
draft
professional
emails. How
to
write
useful
research
memos. How
to
prepare
written
discovery. How
to
review
documents. How
to
prepare
deposition
outlines. How
to
defend
a
deposition. How
to
argue
a
motion. How
to
evaluate
a
case. How
to
prepare
for
mediation. How
to
build
your
reputation
inside
and
outside
the
firm.
That
alone
would
put
many
firms
ahead
of
where
they
are
now.
The
final
part
is
leadership.
Training
young
lawyers
is
not
charity.
It
is
leadership.
It
is
succession
planning.
It
is
client
service.
It
is
risk
management.
It
is
culture.
It
is
how
a
firm
says,
“We
are
not
just
using
young
lawyers.
We
are
building
them.”
The
partners
who
complain
that
associates
lack
judgment
should
ask
themselves
who
taught
them
judgment.
The
partners
who
complain
that
young
lawyers
cannot
write
should
ask
who
edits
their
work.
The
partners
who
complain
that
associates
are
not
loyal
should
ask
whether
the
firm
has
invested
in
them
in
a
way
that
earns
loyalty.
Young
lawyers
do
not
need
coddling.
They
need
standards.
They
need
coaching.
They
need
opportunities.
They
need
correction.
They
need
someone
to
tell
them
the
truth
and
then
show
them
how
to
improve.
A
small
firm
can
do
this.
A
midsize
firm
can
do
this.
In
some
ways,
they
can
do
it
better
than
anyone
because
training
can
be
personal,
practical,
and
immediate.
The
old
model
was
simple:
throw
them
in
the
deep
end
and
see
who
swims.
The
better
model
is
also
simple:
teach
them
to
swim,
put
them
in
the
water,
coach
them
from
the
side,
and
gradually
move
them
into
deeper
water.
That
is
how
you
build
lawyers.
That
is
how
you
build
firms.
And
that
is
how
you
make
sure
the
next
generation
does
not
have
to
succeed
despite
us.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.
Wells
Fargo’s
Legal
Specialty
Group
dropped
its
Q1
2026
survey
this
week,
and
everyone’s
giddy
over
the
headline
numbers.
Revenues
are
up
13.1
percent,
a
byproduct
of
jacking
up
billing
rates
up
a
staggering
11.4
percent.
It
seems
the
only
commodity
costlier
than
crude
oil
in
Q1
was
a
midlevel
associate’s
attention
to
detail.
Demand
also
creeped
up
4.5
percent
as
corporate
America
found
itself
in
need
of
more
legal
advice.
But,
it
seems,
corporate
America
also
found
itself
less
interested
in
actually
paying
its
bills.
Inventories
grew
rapidly
for
the
Am
Law
200,
but
the
growth
was
not
uniform,
with
inventory
growing
much
faster
for
the
Am
Law
50
(up
19%)
than
for
the
other
tiers
(11%
for
the
Second
Fifty
and
12%
for
the
Second
Hundred).
With
inventory
growing
faster
than
revenue,
the
inventory
collection
cycle
(number
of
days
it
takes
to
collect
fees
once
work
is
performed)
slowed
by
6.5
days
(3.4%),
with
nearly
all
the
slowdown
occurring
at
the
top
of
the
market.
This
was
a
marked
change
from
this
time
last
year
when
inventories
grew
in
line
with
collections.
The
Trump
era
is
in
full
swing.
The
president
notoriously
spent
his
long
business
career
stiffing
his
vendors,
including
—
and
especially
—
his
attorneys.
He’s
sitting
on
top
of
over
a
million
in
unpaid
legal
fees
right
now.
He
used
to
be
a
model
of
bad
behavior,
but
maybe
the
rest
of
the
business
world
decided
he
was
onto
something.
“All
the
big
AI
firms
are
in
the
process
of
going
through
an
IPO
and
there
are
a
ton
of
other
deals
taking
place
—
data
centers
and
infrastructure
work,”
Wells
Fargo’s
Owen
Burman
told
Bloomberg
Law
News.
“There’s
a
lot
of
work
that
hasn’t
been
collected
on
yet.”
Well,
that’s
what
happens
when
the
industry
propping
up
the
whole
economy
is
just
a
bundle
of
IOUs
passed
back
and
forth
between
NVIDIA,
OpenAI,
and
Oracle
in
an
ouroboros
of
hype.
It’s
just
a
matter
of
time
before
they
ask
the
law
firm
to
send
them
$20
million
so
they
can
pay
the
law
firm
back
$20
million
—
a
stupid
proposition,
but
somehow
EXACTLY
HOW
THE
REST
OF
THE
AI
INDUSTRY
RUNS.
And
getting
the
data
center
deals
done
is
not
the
same
as
having
data
centers.
From
Ed
Zitron:
Of
the
114GW
of
data
centers
supposedly
being
built
by
the
end
of
2028, only
15.2GW
is
under
construction
in
any
way,
shape,
or
form.
And
“under
construction”
can
mean
as
little
as
“there’s
a
hole
in
the
ground.”
It
does
not
—
and
should
not
—
imply
that
the
capacity
that
said
facility
will
provide
is
going
to
be
imminently
available.
In
other
words,
expect
the
collection
cycle
to
keep
slipping.
But,
hey,
bankruptcy
work
is
right
around
the
corner!
That’s
exciting,
right?
