Author: TSA Press

*
The
most
popular
way
to
win
over
this
Supreme
Court
is
to
quote
Scalia.
Very
originalist
to
be
primarily
swayed
whose
seat
is
still
warm.,
[CNN]

*
Yale
Law
fires
its
law
librarian
—
one
of
only
three
Black
women
on
faculty
—
after
she
filed
a
complaint
which
itself
followed
an
internal
investigation
about
working
conditions
in
the
library.
[Yale
Daily
News]

*
Starbucks
beats
back
Missouri
AG
lawsuit
over
“DEI”
policies.
[Reuters]

*
Lawyers
stepping
up
to
represent
ICE
victims.
[Law.com]

*
Uber
owes
$8.5M
in
sexual
assault
verdict.
[Law360]

*
Baker
McKenzie
layoffs
continue.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
EEOC
rescinds
anti-discrimination
guidance.
[ABA
Journal]

Too
Much
Attention
In
The
Spotlight:
He
remains
a
partner
at
the
firm.
Did
Jones
Day
Represent
Ghislaine
Maxwell?:
Would
explain
the
sums
of
cash
she
transferred
to
the
firm’s
client
trust
account!
“Trading
Russians
Is
One
Thing,
But
I
Draw
The
Line
At
DEI”:
Did
Goldman
Sachs’s
Kathryn
Ruemmler
just
make
a
human
trafficking
joke
or
was
there
something
more?
Charlie
Adelson
Wants
A
Retrial:
His
lawyer
argues
that
the
jury
pool
was
tainted
by
media
coverage.
On
This
Week
Of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer:
Arresting
journalists,
Epstein
files,
and
accountability.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

In
the
new
revival
of
The
Muppet
Show,
what
legal
subplot
is
guest
host
Sabrina
Carpenter
involved
in?

Hint:
This
comes
after

Miss
Piggy’s
“arrest”
at
the
final
show
of
Carpenter’s
Short
n’
Sweet
Tour
for
being
too
hot.

See the
answer
on
the
next
page.

In
2013,
the

Legal
Services
Corporation
published
the
landmark
study,


Report
of
The
Summit
on
the
Use
of
Technology
to
Expand
Access
to
Justice.
The
report
forcefully
made
the
case
that
technology
could
be
a
powerful
–
indeed,
essential
–
tool
in
narrowing
the
justice
gap,
and
its
recommendations
helped
shape
the
last
decade
of
legal
innovation
in
the
United
States.

“Technology
can
and
must
play
a
vital
role
in
transforming
service
delivery
so
that
all
poor
people
in
the
United
States
with
an
essential
civil
legal
need
obtain
some
form
of
effective
assistance,”
that
report
presciently
asserted.

Now,
marking
its
most
comprehensive
technology
initiative
since
that
seminal
report,
the
LSC
has
released
a
new
report,


The
Next
Frontier:
Harnessing
Technology
to
Close
the
Justice
Gap,
which
represents
the
findings
of
an
extensive
two-year
Technology
Summit
process
that
kicked
off
with
LSC’s
50th
anniversary
in
2024.

Related:

LawNext
Episode
58:
Jim
Sandman,
President
of
the
Legal
Services
Corporation.

Like
its
predecessor,
this
new
report
offers
an
ambitious
roadmap
for
leveraging
technology
to
narrow
America’s
justice
gap.
It
presents
seven
detailed
recommendations
aimed
at
helping
the
nation’s
130
LSC-funded
legal
services
organizations
adopt
cutting-edge
technologies
–
particularly
artificial
intelligence
–
to
expand
access
to
justice
for
low-income
Americans.

A
Collaborative
Process

The
report,
which
was
published
in
December,
is
the
end
result
of
a
deliberative
process
that
started
when
more
than
50
technology
leaders,
legal
services
practitioners,
court
personnel,
and
other
stakeholders
participated
in
a
full-day
workshop
in
Charlotte,
N.C.,
in
February
2024,
ahead
of
LSC’s
Innovations
in
Technology
Conference
that
year.

(I
was
among
the
50
who
participated
that
day.)

The
process
continued
over
subsequent
months
through
four
focused
workgroups
that
examined:

• Supporting
  more
  legal
  services
  organizations
  to
  adopt
  baseline
  technologies.
• Supporting
  more
  LSC
  grantees
  to
  adopt
  advanced
  technological
  practices
  and
  processes.
• Supporting
  LSC
  and
  its
  grantees
  to
  use
  technology
  to
  measure
  impact
  more
  effectively.
• Supporting
  LSC
  and
  the
  field
  to
  identify
  and
  promote
  innovative
  solutions
  including
  AI
  technologies,
  to
  drive
  efficiency
  improvements
  that
  would
  result
  in
  greater
  impact.

The
initiative
also
included
extensive
stakeholder
interviews,
focus
groups
with
field
experts
and
grantees,
and
strategic
conversations
among
LSC
leadership
about
strengthening
the
LSC’s
Technology
Initiative
Grant
(TIG)
program
–
which
has
awarded
923
grants
totaling
more
than
$92
million
since
2000.

Seven
Recommendations
to
Narrow
the
Justice
Gap

The
report
opens
with
sobering
context:

LSC’s
2022
Justice
Gap
Report
found
that
low-income
Americans
received
inadequate
or
no
legal
help
for
92%
of
their
civil
legal
problems.
Whether
facing
eviction,
unemployment,
child
custody
issues
or
domestic
violence,
too
many
low-income
Americans
navigate
the
legal
system
alone.

Despite
this
need,
LSC
grantees
had
to
turn
away
one
of
every
two
requests
for
help
they
received
in
the
prior
year
due
to
limited
resources.

To
help
address
this
justice
gap,
the
summit
produced
seven
interconnected
recommendations
that
LSC
characterizes
as
“a
call
to
action”
for
accelerating
transformative
technology
use:

1. 
   Reframe
   Technology
   as
   Core
   Mission

The
report’s
first
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
support
grantees
in
treating
technology
investments
as
essential
to
their
core
mission
–
not
as
a
luxury
–
by
providing
training,
technical
assistance
and
resources
that
help
leadership
prioritize
and
integrate
state-of-the-art
technology
into
service
delivery.

The
report
notes
that
legal
services
organizations
often
struggle
with
a
“scarcity
mindset”
that
causes
them
to
eschew
potentially
game-changing
technology
investments.
The
report
cites
a 
2024
survey
that
found
that
45%
of
nonprofits
said
they
spend
too
little
on
technology,
with
“lack
of
available
budget”
cited
as
the
most
common
barrier.

The
report
identifies
several
ways
in
which
LSC
can
encourage
and
support
LSOs
to
embrace
“culture
change”
on
issues
of
technology.
Among
them:

• Documenting
  compelling
  stories
  about
  technology
  investments
  that
  dramatically
  improved
  efficiencies
  and
  impact.
• Conducting
  surveys
  of
  grantee
  technology
  practices
  to
  highlight
  priorities
  and
  opportunities.
• Integrating
  comprehensive
  technology
  assessments
  into
  LSC’s
  oversight
  visits.
• Providing
  training
  on
  using
  dashboards
  and
  data
  visualization
  for
  strategic
  planning,
  operational
  decision-making
  and
  service
  delivery.

2. 
   Streamline
   Access
   to
   Resources

The
second
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
create
user-friendly,
centralized
resources
to
help
grantees
meet
and
exceed
the
LSC
Technology
Baselines
–
a
guide
to
the
key
technologies
LOSs
should
have
in
place
–
while
also
fostering
innovation,
including
facilitating
replication
and
scaling
of
successful
technology
projects.

The
report
acknowledges
that
while
LSC,
LSNTAP
(Legal
Services
National
Technology
Assistance
Project),
and
others
provide
various
resources,
grantees
need
“curated
information
and
guidance”
to
cut
through
what
one
participant
called
the
“firehose”
of
technology
developments.

To
that
end,
the
report
recommends
that
LSC:

• Develop
  a
  centralized,
  user-friendly
  hub
  for
  technology
  resources,
  case
  studies
  and
  promising
  practices.
• Coordinate
  with
  LSNTAP
  and
  stakeholders
  to
  ensure
  consistent
  messaging
  and
  reduce
  duplication.
• Share
  information
  about
  commonly
  used
  technology
  products.
• Promote
  replicable
  projects
  through
  webinars,
  case
  studies
  and
  shared
  toolkits.
• Create
  clear
  guidance
  on
  data
  collection
  and
  evaluation
  expectations.

3. 
   Explore
   New
   Funding
   Approaches

The
report’s
third
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
explore
alternative
funding
models
for
technology
projects
to
better
match
the
pace
of
technological
change
and
grantees’
evolving
needs.

The
current
TIG
process
–
from
application
to
grant
approval
to
beginning
work
–
can
take
10
months
to
a
year.
“Sometimes
there’s
a
sense
that
you
are
designing
a
tech
project
and
then
you
have
to
twiddle
your
thumbs
to
fill
time,”
said
Eli
Mattern
of
Community
Legal
Services
in
Orlando.

The
report
recommends
several
activities
LSC
can
pursue
to
explore
new
funding
approaches
and
ensure
that
the
TIG
program
remains
a
key
driver
of
technology
innovation.
Among
them:

• Implement
  rolling
  application
  deadlines
  throughout
  the
  year.
• Fast-track
  planning
  grants
  or
  “proof-of-concept”
  grants
  for
  initial
  research.
• Allow
  flexible
  implementation
  periods
  for
  grantees
  to
  adjust
  strategies.
• Create
  “sandbox
  environments”
  for
  collaborative
  experimentation
  on
  common
  challenges.
• Fund
  cohorts
  of
  grantees
  working
  on
  similar
  challenges
  to
  promote
  collaborative
  innovation.
• Prioritize
  projects
  with
  high
  replication
  and
  scalability
  potential.

4. 
   Promote
   Data-Driven
   Decision-Making

Fourth
of
the
recommendations
is
that
LSC
should
invest
in
tools,
guidance
and
infrastructure
that
enable
grantees
to
maximize
their
available
data
for
strategic
planning,
operational
decisions
and
service
delivery,
the
report
recommends.

The
report
highlights
success
stories
such
as
Legal
Aid
Society
of
Cleveland’s
discovery
through
website
analytics
that
driver’s
license
suspensions
related
to
unpaid
fines
was
a
major
concern,
leading
to
research
and
a
report
that
helped
change
state
policy.

However,
the
report
says
that
summit
participants
identified
an
array
of 
barriers
that
keep
them
from
making
data-informed
practices
more
central
to
their
work.
These
include:

• Resource
  constraints
  and
  cultural
  resistance
  among
  lawyers.
• Lack
  of
  standard
  measures
  across
  organizations.
• Data
  quality
  issues
  and
  confidentiality
  concerns.
• Difficulty
  accessing
  and
  using
  court
  data.

To
address
these
issues
and
encourage
more
data-driven
decision
making,
the
report
says
that
LSC
should:

• Fund
  TIG
  projects
  that
  advance
  data-informed
  practices
  (dashboards,
  automated
  data
  collection,
  performance
  analytics).
• Modify
  reporting
  requirements
  to
  support
  streamlined,
  automated
  data
  collection.
• Provide
  technical
  assistance
  on
  interpreting
  and
  applying
  data.
• Identify
  and
  share
  effective
  data
  use
  examples. 

5. 
   Modernize
   TIG’s
   Evaluation
   Approach

The
next
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
modernize
its
evaluation
approach
for
the
TIG
grant
program
by
developing
a
flexible,
adaptive
evaluation
framework
that
supports
innovation,
measures
impact
and
informs
future
investment,
the
report
says.

Current
evaluation
requirements
can
feel
like
“rote
compliance”
exercises.
The
report
calls
for
evaluation
formats
that
better
match
project
scope
and
complexity.
These
might
include:

• Iterative/rapid
  assessments
  for
  short-term
  grants
  and
  pilot
  projects.
• Rolling
  report
  models
  capturing
  midcourse
  learning.
• Developmental
  evaluations
  for
  projects
  with
  evolving
  goals.
• Longitudinal
  or
  post-grant
  evaluations
  of
  selected
  projects.

In
addition,
the
report
recommends
that
LSC: 

• Ensure
  TIG
  awards
  include
  adequate
  evaluation
  funding.
• Create
  a
  repository
  of
  proven
  evaluation
  techniques
  and
  templates.
• Incorporate
  findings
  into
  grantmaking
  decisions
  and
  technical
  assistance.
• Fund
  projects
  exploring
  new
  technology
  methods
  for
  data
  collection.

6. 
   Lead
   Responsible
   AI
   Innovation

The
sixth
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
coordinate
responsible
AI
innovation
and
broader
technology
adoption
by
promoting
experimentation,
collaboration
and
development
of
shared
tools,
policies
and
practices
across
the
access-to-justice
community.

This
is
perhaps
the
report’s
most
forward-looking
recommendation.
While
acknowledging
concerns
about
AI
accuracy,
ethics
and
privacy,
summit
participants
expressed
strong
support
for
LSC
helping
legal
services
organizations
identify
the
best
current
AI
uses
while
exploring
safety
and
security
issues.

The
report
cites
survey
data
from
LSC’s
AI
Peer
Learning
Labs
(which
had
enrolled
570
legal
aid
providers
as
of
summer
2025)
showing
significant
openness
to
this.
Eighty-five
percent
of
participants
rated
their
organizations
as
moderately
to
very
open
to
working
with
AI,
although
70%
cited
“lack
of
knowledge
about
AI
and
how
to
use
it”
as
a
barrier.

To
advance
the
responsible
use
of
AI
in
legal
services,
the
report
says,
LSC
should:

• Leverage
  its
  convening
  power
  through
  regular
  collaboration
  among
  providers,
  technologists
  and
  courts.
• Establish
  a
  centralized
  repository
  of
  AI
  case
  studies,
  trusted
  platforms
  and
  implementation
  guidance.
• Create
  model
  data
  privacy
  and
  governance
  policies.
• Share
  and
  promote
  commonly
  used
  AI
  platforms
  with
  safety
  guidance.
• Invest
  in
  standardized,
  trusted
  technology
  projects
  implementable
  across
  jurisdictions.
• Establish
  sandbox
  environments
  for
  safe
  experimentation.

The
report
highlights
several
promising
LSC-funded
AI
projects,
including:

• Lone
  Star
  Legal
  Aid’s
  development
  of
  a
  suite
  of
  customized
  AI-powered
  chatbots
  providing
  24/7
  legal
  information.
• Southeast
  Louisiana
  Legal
  Services’
  AI-driven
  legal
  needs
  screening
  integrated
  with
  the
  Louisiana
  211
  network.
• Legal
  Aid
  of
  North
  Carolina’s
  Justice
  Hub
  with
  AI-enabled
  mobile-friendly
  intake.

7. 
   Strengthen
   Self-Help
   Tools

The
report’s
final
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
support
development
and
modernization
of
high-quality
self-help
tools
that
leverage
emerging
technologies
to
improve
access
for
self-represented
litigants.

The
report
quotes
David
Bonebrake,
deputy
director
of
LSC’s
Office
of
Program
Performance,
who
said
that,
with
LSOs
turning
away
half
of
all
help
requests,
low-income
people
are
not
just

facing
an
access-to-justice
gap.
“There’s
also
a
self-help
gap
where
people
lack
high-quality,

usable
tools
to
navigate
the
legal
process
themselves.”

To
address
this,
the
report
recommends
that
LSC:

• Fund
  emerging
  technologies
  such
  as
  AI-driven
  chatbots,
  intelligent
  document
  assembly
  and
  triage
  systems).
• Encourage
  user-centered
  design
  with
  self-represented
  litigants
  involved
  in
  tool
  development.
• Facilitate
  collaboration
  and
  knowledge-sharing
  on
  successful
  self-help
  models.
• Encourage
  integration
  among
  self-help
  platforms
  and
  other
  systems,
  such
  as
  courts,
  libraries
  and
  referral
  networks.
• Provide
  guidance
  on
  improving
  usability,
  accessibility
  and
  equity.
• Support
  multilingual
  resources
  and
  accessibility
  features.
• Explore
  how
  self-help
  tools
  can
  support
  community
  justice
  workers
  and
  other
  non-lawyers.

Technology
Spotlights

Throughout
the
report,
LSC
highlights
successful
TIG-funded
projects
demonstrating
the
potential
of
these
recommendations.
They
include:

• 
  Bay
  Area
  Legal
  Services
  (Florida)
  integrated
  document
  automation
  and
  case
  management
  firm-wide,
  training
  more
  than
  100
  staff
  in
  business
  process
  improvements
  and
  automating
  29
  commonly
  used
  documents.
• 
  Kansas
  Legal
  Services
  enhanced
  the
  statewide
  DLAW
  platform
  and
  legal
  information
  website
  with
  mobile-friendly
  design,
  better
  navigation,
  and
  a
  chatbot
  –
  improvements
  benefiting
  legal
  aid
  organizations
  in
  other
  states
  using
  the
  same
  open-source
  platform.
• 
  Community
  Legal
  Services
  of
  Mid-Florida
  developed
  a
  guided
  navigation
  chatbot
  that
  had
  more
  than
  11,500
  unique
  visitors
  and
  more
  than
  3,000
  conversations
  in
  just
  three
  months.
• 
  Legal
  Aid
  of
  North
  Carolina
  is
  creating
  an
  AI-enabled
  Justice
  Hub
  as
  a
  mobile-friendly
  online
  intake
  and
  client
  portal
  to
  serve
  3
  million
  eligible
  residents.
• 
  Lone
  Star
  Legal
  Aid
  (Texas)
  has
  emerged
  as
  a
  national
  leader
  with
  guided
  online
  interviews
  that
  have
  helped
  over
  100,000
  individuals,
  a
  Legal
  Aid
  Content
  Intelligence
  platform
  that
  automatically
  monitors
  legal
  changes,
  and
  a
  suite
  of
  AI-powered
  chatbots.

 Comparing
the
Summit
Reports

While
both
the
2013
and
2025
summit
reports
share
the
goal
of
transforming
legal
services
delivery
through
technology,
they
reflect
dramatically
different
technological
landscapes.

The
2013
report
focused
on
then-emerging
technologies
such
as
mobile
access,
cloud
computing
and
statewide
legal
information
websites.
It
proposed
ambitious
visions
for
document
assembly,
triage
systems
and
data
integration,
many
of
which
have
since
been
implemented.

The
2025
report
builds
on
that
foundation
but
reflects
the
AI
revolution.
Where
the
2013
report
discussed
basic
automation
and
information
access,
the
2025
report
grapples
with
generative
AI,
chatbots
capable
of
real-time
legal
guidance,
and
intelligent
systems
that
can
draft
documents
and
analyze
case
patterns.

The
new
report
also
places
much
greater
emphasis
on:

• Data-driven
  decision-making
  and
  evaluation
  (receiving
  dedicated
  recommendations).
• User
  experience
  and
  design
  thinking.
• Replication
  and
  scaling
  of
  successful
  projects.
• Cultural
  change
  within
  organizations
  around
  technology
  adoption.
• Responsible
  innovation
  given
  AI’s
  risks
  and
  uncertainties.

Perhaps
most
significantly,
the
2025
report
is
more
action-oriented
and
specific.
Where
the
2013
report
was
more
a
visionary
blueprint,
this
latest
report
is
more
an
operational
roadmap.
Rather
than
painting
a
broad
vision,
it
provides
detailed,
implementable
recommendations
with
concrete
suggested
actions
for
LSC.

As
one
summit
participant,
Margaret
Hagan,
executive
director
of
the
Legal
Design
Lab
at
Stanford
University,
said
in
the
report:
“Now
is
the
time
to
strike.
More
and
more
people
are
open
to
using
these
technologies
as
they
hear
more
about
their
potential.

“If
our
goal
is
to
close
the
justice
gap
and
get
more
legal
services
to
more
people,”
she
continued,
“then
it’s
time
to
demonstrate
the
power
and
effectiveness
of
these
AI
tools
in
making
that
happen.”

What’s
Next

LSC
has
pledged
to
act
on
these
recommendations
“in
ways
that
support
its
grantees
in
leveraging
technology
in
civil
legal
services
to
ensure
that
more
low-income
Americans
can
find
the
legal
advice,
support
and
representation
they
need.”

But
the
organization
acknowledges
that
it
cannot
and
should
not
do
it
alone
–
funders,
courts,
law
schools,
technology
vendors
and
others
must
play
important
roles
in
a
field-wide
effort,
it
says.

For
legal
aid
organizations,
technology
vendors,
and
access-to-justice
advocates,
this
report
provides
a
thoughtful
roadmap
for
the
next
phase
of
legal
services
innovation.

Its
emphasis
on
AI,
data-driven
practices,
and
user-centered
design
reflects
the
route
we
should
all
follow
to
meaningfully
narrow
the
justice
gap.

“Technology
alone
will
not
close
the
justice
gap
in
the
U.S.
today,”
the
report
says,
“but
it
can
and
must
play
a
vital
supporting
role.”

Most
young
lawyers
don’t
lose
cases
because
they
don’t
know
the
law.

They
lose
cases
because
they
don’t

run
the
case.

They
don’t
drive
it.
They
don’t
manage
it.
They
don’t
control
it.
They
let
it
control
them.
And
then
one
day,
they
look
up
and
realize
discovery
closed
last
week,
the
client
is
asking
why
nobody
has
taken
the
key
depo,
the
adjuster
wants
a
status
report
“by
the
end
of
the
day,”
and
the
partner
is
asking
the
question
that
makes
your
stomach
drop:

“Where
are
we
on
this
file?”

If
you
want
to
run
a
case
from
beginning
to
end,
here’s
the
mindset
shift:

You
are
not
assigned
to
the
file.
The
file
is
assigned
to
you.

Own
it.

And
yes,
it’s
a
lot,
which
is
why
we’re
going
to
reduce
it
to
basics,

blocking
and
tackling,
and
turn
chaos
into
a
workflow.

Because
everything
we
do
can
be
reduced
to

workflows,
checklists,
and
decision
trees,
and
if
you
build
the
right
ones,
you
stop
reacting
and
start
running
the
show.

Here’s
the
playbook
from
intake
to
closing
letter.

1.
Start
With
The
End

Before
you
do
anything,
do
the
thing
nobody
does:

Start
with
the
end.

Not
a
trial.
Not
summary
judgment.
The
end.

What
is
the
best
realistic
outcome
for
your
client?
What
is
the
worst?
What
does
“winning”
look
like
in

this
jurisdiction,
with

this
judge,
with

this
plaintiff,
with

this
venue?

What’s
the
hill
we’re
trying
to
take?

If
you
don’t
know
the
hill,
you’ll
be
sprinting
in
random
directions
until
you
collapse.

So:
read
the
complaint.
Then
read
it
again.
Then
read
it
like
you’re
the
plaintiff’s
lawyer
trying
to
beat
you.
Identify:

• The
  legal
  elements
  that
  matter
  (not
  all
  the
  elements,
  
  the
  elements)
• The
  facts
  you
  can
  prove
  today
• The
  facts
  you
  need
  to
  prove
  later
• The
  facts
  you
  can’t
  ever
  prove
  (which
  is
  where
  your
  leverage
  lives)

Then
create
your
case
theme
in
one
sentence.
Not
a
paragraph.
One
sentence.

If
you
can’t
say
it
in
one
sentence,
you
don’t
own
the
case
yet.

2.
The
First
72
Hours:
Triage,
Don’t
Tour

New
file
comes
in.
Everyone
panics.
People
start
doing
busywork.
They
“tour
the
file.”

Don’t
tour
the
file.

Triage
it.

Like
the
ER.
Who
is
bleeding?
What
is
time-sensitive?
What
is
about
to
explode?

Start
with
three
lists:

1. 
   Deadlines
   (answer
   date,
   removal,
   responsive
   pleading,
   preservation,
   early
   disclosures)
2. 
   Evidence
   (what
   exists,
   what
   can
   disappear,
   what
   you
   need
   to
   lock
   down
   now)
3. 
   People
   (who
   matter,
   who
   know
   what,
   who
   need
   to
   be
   interviewed
   before
   memories
   rot)

Calendar
is
king.

Set
the
answer
date.
Set
every
downstream
deadline
you
can
reasonably
predict.
Set
reminders
in
the
calendar
that
prompt
you
to
act
early,
not
on
the
due
date.
The
due
date
is
a
tombstone.

And
call
your
client
early.
Not
to
recite
the
complaint.
To
establish
trust.

Clients
don’t
want
a
lawyer
who
sounds
smart.
They
want
a
lawyer
who
sounds
like
they
have
a
plan.

So
give
them
the
plan.
High
level.
Calm.
Confident.

3.
Early
Case
Evaluation:
Numbers
And
Reality

One
of
the
most
difficult
jobs
for
trial
lawyers
is
placing
a
dollar
value
on
a
case
and
making
decisions
based
on
that
valuation.

You
can’t
run
a
case
if
you
don’t
know
what
it’s
worth.

So
early
on,
do
a
disciplined
evaluation:

• Liability
  exposure
• Damages
  exposure
• Venue
  risk
• Plaintiff
  counsel
  risk
• Your
  client’s
  risk
  tolerance
• Insurance/indemnity
  landscape
• Evidence
  quality

And
here’s
a
line
that
should
live
in
your
head:

A
different
jury
may
agree
with
them.

That
sentence
keeps
you
humble
and
strategic.
It
reminds
you
that
litigation
isn’t
math.

It’s
human
beings.

So
build
a
range.
Not
one
number.
A
range.
Then
revisit
it
as
facts
develop.

Update
the
number,
or
the
number
will
update
you.

4.
Pleadings:
Don’t
Just
Answer,
Position

Pleadings
are
not
paperwork.
They’re
positioning.

Yes,
you
answer
the
complaint.
But
you’re
also
laying
tracks
for
the
train
you
want
to
run
six,
12,
18
months
from
now.

Ask
yourself:

• What
  defenses
  actually
  matter?
• What
  affirmative
  defenses
  do
  we
  need
  to
  preserve?
• Are
  there
  jurisdictional
  issues?
• Arbitration?
  Venue?
  Immunity?
  Statutes?
• Third-party
  practice?
  Crossclaims?

And
if
you’re
going
to
file
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
motion
for
more
definite
statement,
don’t
do
it
because
it’s
what
lawyers
do.

Do
it
because
it
moves
the
case.

Motion
practice
without
strategy
is
just
exercise.

5.
Discovery:
Build
The
Map
Before
You
Start
Walking

Most
associates
approach
discovery
like
a
buffet.

A
little
of
this.
A
little
of
that.
No
plan.

Start
with
the
map.

Here’s
the
workflow:

A.
Written
discovery

Your
first
set
should
be
aligned
with
your
theme
and
valuation
drivers.
Not
“standard
interrogatories”
because
someone
used
them
in
2009.

Think:

• What
  facts
  do
  I
  need
  to
  prove?
• What
  facts
  do
  I
  need
  to
  disprove?
• What
  facts
  does
  the
  plaintiff
  need
  that
  I
  can
  force
  them
  to
  commit
  to
  early?

B.
Document
strategy

Documents
are
where
cases
are
won
quietly.

Set
up
a
system
so
you
can
find
things
fast
later.
Because
“I
know
it’s
in
there
somewhere”
is
not
a
strategy.
It’s
a
cry
for
help.

If
you
can’t
find
it
in
30
seconds,
it
doesn’t
exist.

C.
The
discovery
plan

Write
it
down.
One
page.

• Key
  issues
• Key
  witnesses
• Key
  documents
• Key
  experts
• Sequence
  (what
  must
  happen
  first)

That
one
page
becomes
your
compass
when
the
file
starts
trying
to
drag
you
into
the
weeds.

6.
Depositions:
You’re
A
Human
Lie
Detector

Depositions
are
not
theatre.
They
are
intel
gathering.

In
deposition,
you
are
a
human
lie
detector.
Set
a
baseline
early
with
easy
questions
and
note
changes
in
tone,
cadence,
pauses,
and
body
language
when
you
get
pointed.

That’s
not
just
a
cool
line.
It’s
a
method.

Start
with
a
baseline.
Then
apply
pressure.

And
keep
this
in
mind:
a
deposition
is
often
less
about
the
transcript
and
more
about
the
story
you’re
building
for
trial.
You’re
collecting:

• Admissions
• Inconsistencies
• Themes
• Future
  impeachment
• “This
  witness
  is
  not
  credible”
  moments
  (subtle,
  not
  melodramatic)

Also:
use
the
phone.
The
actual
phone.

You
know
that
thing
we
hold
in
our
hands
all
day?
It
makes
phone
calls.
Call
opposing
counsel.
Call
the
court
reporter.
Call
the
witness
coordinator.
It
works
wonders.

A
lot
of
“litigation
problems”
are
actually
“nobody
talked
to
anyone”
problems.

7.
Experts:
Don’t
Wait
Until
You’re
Desperate

Experts
are
not
a
checkbox.
They’re
your
translator
to
the
jury.

Identify
early:

• Do
  you
  need
  them?
• On
  what
  issues?
• When
  do
  you
  need
  to
  retain?
• What
  documents
  must
  they
  review?

Then
budget
it
and
communicate
it
to
the
client
before
it
comes
as
a
surprise
invoice.

Here’s
the
rule:

No
surprises.
No
excuses.

8.
Mediation
And
Settlement:
Give
Them
A
Way
To
Save
Face

Settlement
is
not
a
weakness.
It’s
a
strategy.

Prepare
like
it’s
a
trial
—
because
if
you
don’t,
you’ll
negotiate
from
fear.

And
remember
the
truth
that
too
many
young
lawyers
learn
too
late:

If
you
corner
someone,
they
don’t
surrender;
they
bite.

So
give
the
other
side
a
path.
A
narrative
they
can
tell
their
client.
A
way
to
save
face.
That’s
how
deals
get
done.

Also,
don’t
walk
into
mediation
without
updating
your
evaluation.
See
above.
Update
the
number,
or
the
number
will
update
you.

9.
Pretrial:
Make
It
Boring

The
best
trial
lawyers
make
trial
prep
boring.
Not
because
the
trial
is
boring.
Because
they’ve
built
systems
that
remove
chaos.

Pretrial
is:

• Motions
  in
  limine
• Exhibit
  lists
• Witness
  lists
• Depo
  designations
• Jury
  instructions/verdict
  forms
• Theme
  refinement
• Demonstratives
• Trial
  binders
  (physical
  or
  digital,
  but
  organized)

Win
the
file
before
you
walk
into
the
courtroom.

Trial
is
often
the
final
act.
The
verdict
is
the
applause
(or
the
booing).
The
work
was
done
months
earlier.

10.
Trial:
Mission
Mindset

I
once
knew
a
trial
lawyer
who
described
himself
as
a
mercenary
dropped
into
the
jungle:
fulfill
the
mission,
seize
the
hill,
blow
up
the
target,
get
out
in
one
piece.

That’s
not
bad
framing.

At
trial,
you
need
blinders.
You
need
purpose.
You
need
to
be
calm.

And
you
need
to
remember:
jurors
don’t
care
how
hard
you
worked.
They
care
whether
your
story
makes
sense.

So
tell
a
story
they
can
repeat
at
dinner.

11.
Post-Trial
And
Closing:
Finish
Like
A
Pro

A
case
is
not
over
when
the
verdict
comes
in.

Post-trial
is:

• Judgment
  entry
• Costs
• Post-trial
  motions
• Preservation
  for
  appeal
• Client
  debrief
• File
  closing
  letter
• Lessons
  learned
  memo
  to
  yourself
  (yes,
  really)

Do
a
debrief
even
if
you
“won.”
Especially
if
you
won.

Because
the
goal
isn’t
to
win
one
case,
the
goal
is
to
become
a
lawyer
who
wins
consistently.

And
if
you’re
in
the
middle
of
it
right
now,
overwhelmed,
behind,
staring
at
a
deadline
like
it’s
a
guillotine,
here’s
what
you
do:

Start
with
one
thing.

One
call.
One
email.
One
outline.
One
calendar
entry.
One
task
completed.

Then
do
the
next
thing.

Keep
going.

You
got
this.

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

The
aftermath
will
go
on
for
months
[because
of
the
sudden
change
in
management].
How
many
people
are
going
to
be
really
ultimately
comfortable
going
through
this
major
upheaval
and
can
stand
by
new
management?
It’s
a
big
question
mark.
[This
is]
going
to
have
profound
ripples
in
the
marketplace.

— A
concerned
industry
source,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
concerning
Brad
Karp’s

sudden
resignation
as
Paul,
Weiss
chair,
in
light
of
his

presence
in
the
Epstein
files,
and
what
it
will
mean
for
the
firm
and
the
profession
going
forward.
This
source
claims
that
partners
at
the
firm
immediately
began
submitting
their
resumes
elsewhere
upon
Karp’s
unexpected
announcement.

---

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.

A
flurry
of
stories
hit
the
legal
world
all
at
once
last
week,
with
the
government
responding
to
another
ICE
killing
in
Minnesota
by…

arresting
journalists
and
dumping
Epstein
files.
And
while
the
Epstein
files
don’t
represent
the
entire
universe
—
or,
perhaps,
even
the
most
relevant
files
about
Epstein’s
dealings
—
they
have
set
off
downstream
shockwaves
in
the
legal
industry.
Meanwhile,
another
judge
learns
that

we
frown
upon
judges
arbitrarily
handcuffing
lawyers.
Finally,
it’s
time
for
the
profession
to
come
together
behind
helping
our
self-regulators

hold
Trump
administration
lawyers
accountable.
The
ethical
breaches
keep
adding
up
and
while
there’s
never
going
to
be
the
warranted
criminal
law
reckoning,
we
can
at
least
make
sure
our
profession
is
protected
by
disbarring
all
these
administration
lawyers
getting
caught
affirmatively
lying
to
courts…
and
worse.

By
now,
you’ve
all
heard
of
Charlie
Adelson,
the
man
accused
of
taking
part
in
a
conspiracy
to
kill
Florida
State
law
professor
Dan
Markel.
And
that
could
be
part
of
the
problem.
After
being
sentenced
to

life
in
prison
back
in
2023,
Adelson
has
attempted
to
get
his
time
in
prison
reduced.
Now,
he’s
moving
for
a
whole
new
trial.

WTXL
has
coverage:

Michael
Ufferman,
representing
Adelson,
along
with
Laurel
Cornell
Niles,
told
the
appellate
court
that
40%
of
potential
jurors
screened
already
had
preconceived
notions
about
his
client’s
guilt.
He
argued
this
level
of
bias
made
it
impossible
to
select
an
impartial
jury.
…
Ufferman
pointed
to
specific
instances
where
potential
jurors
allegedly
lied
about
their
knowledge
of
the
case.
He
cited
two
examples
where
jurors
denied
forming
opinions
about
guilt
or
posting
on
social
media,
despite
evidence
showing
they
had
made
posts
about
the
case.

You
can
hear
Ufferman
here:


Jury
bias
front
and
center


Here’s
appellate
attorney
Michael
Ufferman
arguing
on
behalf
of
Charlie
Adelson—making
a
pointed
case
that
pretrial
publicity
didn’t
just
exist,
it
contaminated
the
jury
pool
and
denied
Adelson
a
fair
trial.


Watch
our
full
analysis
of
today’s…

pic.twitter.com/B6UVSHTZBq

—
Surviving
The
Survivor
Podcast
(@PodcastSTS)

February
3,
2026

Assuming
he
is
right
about
the
two
jurors,
is
that
enough
to
give
Adelson
a
new
trial?
The
state
argued
that
this
doesn’t
do
enough
to
prove
that
the
entire
jury
pool
was
tainted.
That
said,
who
is
to
say
that
the
two
known
jurors
were
the
only
ones
who
formed
opinions
prior
to
seeing
the
evidence
in
court?

The
panel
of
judges
has
180
days
to
decide
whether
to
grant
the
request.
Due
process
is
a
foundational
pillar
to
the
rule
of
law;
if
it
turns
out
that
there
was
actual
bias
on
the
jury,
Charlie
Adelson
deserves
a
fail
trial
just
as
much
as
everyone
else.

Charlie
Adelson’s
Attorneys
Argue
For
New
Trial,
Citing
Jury
Bias
Concerns
[WTXL]

Earlier:

Judge
Answers
Charlie
Adelson’s
Request
For
Resentencing

9
Years
After
Law
Professor
Murdered,
Jury
Finds
Charlie
Adelson
Guilty

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.