Author: TSA Press

SCOTUS
Justices
Spend
170
Pages
Airing
Office
Drama:
Supreme
Court
nukes
Trump’s
tariffs
and
treat
us
to
all
their
petty
grievances.
Except
for
Thomas
who
just
wrote
some
ramblings
about
the
powers
of
the
crown.
Another
Biglaw
Firm
Decides
Two’s
Company
When
It
Comes
To
Partnership
Tiers:
Global
giant
unveils
shiny
nonequity
track
and
tweaked
lockstep,
pushing
the
single-tier
partnership
model
doomsday
clock
closer
to
midnight.
Trump
Judge
Admits
The
Constitutional
House
Is
On
Fire:
If
it’s
not
yet
a
“constitutional
crisis,”
it’s
rounding
third
with
a
head
of
steam.
DOJ
Plays
‘Name
The
Crime’
And
Loses:
Trump
administration
wanted
to
prosecute
Democratic
lawmakers
but
never
bothered
to
figure
out
a
single
statute
that
got
broken.
No
Facts,
Pound
The
Law.
No
Law,
Pound
The
Table.
No
Table,
Pound
The…
Uh
Oh:
Texas
prosecutors
argue
that
a
defendant
masturbating
during
testimony
wasn’t
“inappropriate”
if
the
judge
and
jury
didn’t
notice.
Another
Am
Law
100
Firm
Discovers
AI
Is
Not
A
Lawyer:
Major
firm
accused
of
filing
a
hallucination-laced
brief.
When
will
this
end?
Pentagon
Decide
Its
Lawyers
Need
To
Be
Dumber:
Defense
Department
tells
future
military
lawyers
that
they
can
no
longer
attend
the
best
law
schools
in
the
country.
Deposition
Advice
Of
The
Year
Goes
To
“I’ll
F—ing
Kill
You”:
Brevity
is
the
soul
of
wit
and
depostion
responses.
Judge
Declares
Mistrial
Over
Shirt:
Lawyer’s
civil
rights
celebration
shirt
causes
judge
to
cry
bias.
Law
Professor
Arrested
On
50
Counts
Of
Child
Sexual
Abuse
Material:
Barry
University
law
professor
and
interim
associate
dean
arrested
in
Florida;
prosecutors
say
hundreds
of
thousands
of
images
were
found.

FBI
Omitted
Crucial
Facts
To
Get
What
They
Wanted:
They
didn’t
let
truth
get
in
the
way
of
revenge.
SCOTUS
Justices
Swing
Over
How
Wrong
They
Are:
Related,
Trump’s
tariffs
were
unconstitutional.
Are
You
Taking
The
Piss?:
Report
says
judge
who
allegedly
urinated
himself
during
traffic
stop
had
a
BAC
over
3x
the
legal
limit.
Sometimes
A
Death
Threat
Is
Just
A
Good
Attorney-Client
Relationship:
Les
Wexner’s
lawyer
gets
caught
on
a
hot
mic.
Penn
Law
Students
Taught
How
To
Deal
With
ICE:
Knowing
your
rights
is
a
big
first
step!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

What
former
personal
Trump
lawyer
was
nominated
for
a
seat
on
the
8th
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals?

Hint:
He
represented
Donald
Trump
in
Trump’s
appeal
of
the
jury
verdict
finding
him
civilly
liable
for
sexually
assaulting
E.
Jean
Carroll.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

WASHINGTON
—
The
Pentagon’s

Chief
Technology
Officer

today
weighed
in
on
a

reported
clash
between
the
Department
of
Defense
and
AI
giant
Anthropic,
publicly
rejecting
what
he
called
attempts
by
the
company
to
limit
military
use
of
its

Claude
AI
as
undemocratic.

“Congress
writes
bills,
the
president
signs
them,
agencies
write
regulations,
and
people
comply,
and
we’ve
always
complied,”
Under
Secretary

Emil
Michael
told
reporters
after
his
remarks
to
the

Microelectronics
Commons
consortium.

“What
we’re
not
going
to
do
is
let
any
one
company
dictate
a
new
set
of
policies
above
and
beyond
what
Congress
has
passed,”
Michael

said.
“That
is
not
democratic.
That
is
giving
any
one
company
control
over
what
new
policies
are,
and
that’s
for
the
president,
that’s
for
Congress,
and
that’s
for
the
agencies
to
determine
how
to
implement
those
rules.”

Last
summer,
the
Pentagon’s

Chief
Digital
&
AI
Office
awarded

Anthropic,
Google,
xAI,
and

OpenAI
contracts
worth
up
to
$200
million
apiece
to
customize
their
popular
generative
AI
applications
for
military
use.
Classified
versions
of
Anthropic’s
Claude
AI
are
also
available
to
Defense
Department
personnel through
Amazon
and
Palantir,

Semafor
has
reported.

But,
according
to

a
January
report
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
Anthropic’s
policies
forbidding
Claude’s
use
in
weapons
or
surveillance
programs
had
created
a
rift
with
the
Pentagon
that

put
its
contract
at
risk.

The
Journal
also
reported
that
least
one
instance
of
Claude
was
used
to

help
plan
the
raid
that

captured
Venezuelan
strongman
Nicolas
Maduro.

In
the
Journal’s
report
on

the
Maduro
raid,
an
Anthropic
spokesperson
declined
to
discuss
that
specific
operation
but

said,
“Any
use
of
Claude
—
whether
in
the
private
sector
or
across
government
—
is
required
to
comply
with
our
Usage
Policies,
which
govern
how
Claude
can
be
deployed.”

Those
policies
prohibit
using
the
AI
to
“produce,
modify,
design,
or
illegally
acquire
weapons”
or
to
“track
a
person’s
physical
location,
emotional
state,
or
communication
without
their
consent,
including
using
our
products
for
…
battlefield
management
applications.”
(Note
the
prohibition
covers
any
person,
not
just
US
citizens).

The
disagreement
has
reportedly
risen
to

the
attention
of
Defense
Secretary

Pete
Hegseth,
who’s

pushed
the
Pentagon
to
embrace
AI
but
also
chafes
against
outside
restrictions
on
the
military.
An
unnamed
senior
Pentagon
official
even

told
Axios
that
Hegseth
was
“close”
to
designating
the
company
a
“supply
chain
risk,”
a
draconian
measure
which

could
require
any
company
doing
business
with
the
Defense
Department
—
including
giant
corporations
like
Microsoft,
Google,
and
Amazon
—
to
cut
all
ties
with
Anthropic,
including
any
use
of
Claude.

An
official
statement
from
Pentagon
chief
spokesman
Sean
Parnell
was
more
restrained,
telling

The
Hill
that
“The
Department
of
War’s
relationship
with
Anthropic
is
being
reviewed.”

Michael
today
refrained
from
making
threats
and
said
he
hoped
for
Anthropic’s
success,
even
while
emphasizing
current
government
safeguards
should
be
enough.

“We
have
a
robust
set
of
laws
about
surveillance
in
this
country
that
have
been
run
through
the
democratic
process,”
he
said.
“In
terms
of
autonomy,
again,
[there]
are]
lots
of
regulations
that
have
been

promulgated
for
years
in
the
Department,”
he
added,
covering
such
questions
as,
“if
a
drone
swarm
is
coming
at
a
military
base,
what

are
your
options
to
take
it
down
if
the
human
reaction
time
is
not
fast
enough?”

Anthropic
did
not
immediately
respond
to
Breaking
Defense’s
request
for
a
response
to
Michael’s
remarks.

‘We
Want
Guardrails,’
But
…

Despite
the
impasse
over
usage
polices,
Michael
explicitly
said
that
he
considered
Anthropic
one
of
America’s
“national
champions”
in
AI
and
he
hoped
the
company
would
drop
its
restrictions
and
keep
working
with
the
military,
much

as
Google
did
after
an

internal
revolt
led
it
to
withdraw
from
the
military’s
Project
Maven
in
2018.

“The
great
news
in
AI
is
that
the
United
States
is
leading,”
Michael
told
the

annual
meeting
of
the
Microelectronics
Commons,
a
public-private
consortium
of
chipmakers,
academics,
and
others
that
work
with
the
Defense
Department.
“We
have
at
least
four
—
no,
probably
more
—
true
national
champions
that
are
investing,
between
them,
a
trillion
dollars
over
the
next
several
years
in
facilities,
in
R&D.”

When
a
reporter
asked
him
after
those
remarks
about
the
future
of
Anthropic’s
Pentagon
contracts,
Michael
swiftly
pivoted
to
the
positive:
“The
Secretary
has
said
the
relationship
is
under
review,
so
it’s
under
review.
We
want
all
our
American
champion
AI
companies
to
succeed.
I
want
Anthropic,
xAI,
OpenAI,
Google
to
succeed.”

“We
want
to
take
advantage
of
all
the
capabilities
that
…
I
believe
will
be
world
changing,”
he
went
on.
“And
if
you
think
back
to
2018
where
Google
didn’t
want
to
have
the
Department
of
War
use
its
cloud
business,
this
is
a
similar
moment.”

AI
should
include
appropriate
safeguards
against
misuse,
even
by
the
Defense
Department,
Michael
added
—
but
the
definition
of
“misuse”
can’t
be
so
broad
as
to
block
lawful
military
functions.

“We
want
guardrails,”
he
said.
“We
need
the
guardrails
tuned
for
military
applications.
You
can’t
have
an
AI
company
sell
AI
to
the
Department
of
War,
and
don’t
let
it
do
Department
of
War
things,
because
we’re
in
the
business
of
defending
the
country
and
defending
our
troops.”

Even
the
best
lawyers
need
their
clients’
help
to
ensure
that
a
representation
has
the
best
outcome
possible. For
instance,
clients
often
need
to
sign
documents,
review
materials,
provide
discovery
responses,
and
engage
in
other
tasks
associated
with
a
representation. Sometimes,
it
can
be
difficult
to
get
clients
to
complete
such
tasks,
and
it
can
be
frustrating
since
this
can
create
more
work
and
stress
for
lawyers. However,
attorneys
should
recognize
that
clients
are
busy
running
their
businesses
or
otherwise
living
their
lives,
and
clients
have
limited
bandwidth
to
complete
tasks
for
counsel.

Earlier
in
my
career,
I
worked
for
a
client
that
hired
a
few
different
lawyers
to
handle
a
portfolio
of
legal
work. I
was
more
of
the
client’s
outside
general
counsel,
and
other
lawyers
completed
more
specialized
tasks
for
him. One
time,
while
working
for
this
client,
another
attorney
needed
the
client
to
forward
him
discovery
materials
that
would
form
the
basis
for
discovery
responses
that
needed
to
be
sent
out
by
a
given
deadline.

The
client
was
extremely
busy
running
his
business,
and
securing
discovery
responses
was
just
about
the
last
thing
on
his
to-do
list. As
a
result,
the
client
delayed
sending
the
requested
materials
until
the
last
minute.
This
lawyer
ended
up
sending
increasingly
erratic
and
somewhat
rude
messages
to
the
client,
trying
to
get
the
client
to
complete
tasks
on
time.
I
am
not
sure
this
approach
worked,
and
this
only
solidified
my
own
relationship
with
the
client
since
I
did
not
treat
him
that
way.

Lawyers
can
do
only
a
few
things
in
order
to
assist
clients
in
completing
tasks
given
the
low
amount
of
bandwidth
clients
might
have
for
legal
matters. One
strategy
is
to
visit
a
client’s
office
in
person. Clients
are
far
less
likely
to
avoid
a
lawyer
if
the
lawyer
comes
to
the
client’s
office,
and
it
is
usually
easier
for
a
lawyer
and
client
to
work
together
to
complete
a
task
when
they
are
in
the
same
room.

Of
course,
it
can
be
time-intensive
for
lawyers
to
visit
a
client’s
office,
and
this
might
not
be
feasible
in
every
circumstance. I
once
had
a
client
I
visited
every
quarter
since
I
could
not
get
tasks
completed
without
visiting
the
client
in
person. Since
the
client’s
office
was
in
a
hard-to-reach
part
of
the
area,
each
trip
usually
took
half
a
day,
and
it
was
difficult
to
bill
for
all
of
the
time
spent
traveling
to
and
from
the
client’s
office. 
However,
this
was
a
solid
way
to
manage
tasks
for
that
particular
client.

If
lawyers
make
it
easier
for
clients
to
complete
tasks,
this
also
ensures
that
they
can
respond
favorably
with
the
limited
bandwidth
they
have
for
such
matters. For
instance,
I
routinely
send
documents
to
clients
to
sign
electronically
since
it
is
far
more
likely
that
a
client
will
execute
a
document
electronically
than
if
they
need
to
print
out
the
document,
sign
it,
and
scan
a
copy
of
the
signed
document
back
to
me. 
Also,
one
of
the
jurisdictions
in
which
I
practice
recently
permitted
parties
to
affirm
matters
to
be
true
rather
than
require
notarizations
in
most
circumstances. I
immediately
switch
to
affirmations
to
save
my
clients
trips
to
a
notary
to
have
documents
notarized. However,
I
am
amazed
at
how
many
lawyers
still
ask
that
clients
notarize
court
papers
even
though
the
rules
were
explicitly
changed,
and
it
is
far
more
difficult
to
do
this.

All
told,
lawyers
should
keep
in
mind
that
even
though
we
deal
with
legal
matters
all
day,
clients
usually
have
limited
time
to
handle
legal
matters. However,
lawyers
can
accommodate
clients
so
that
legal
tasks
can
be
completed
notwithstanding
this
limited
bandwidth.

Jordan
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 jordan@rothman.law.