Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
In
what
movie
does
James
Stewart
play
defense
attorney
Paul
Biegler?
Hint:
The
book
the
screenplay
was
based
on
was
written
by
Robert
Traver
—
the
pen
name
of
Michigan
Supreme
Court
Justice
John
D.
Voelker.
See the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Federal
judges
are
not
known
for
flying
off
the
handle.
Which
is
why,
when
a
federal
judge
announces
that
his
patience
is
at
an
end,
everyone
should
probably
sit
up
straight.
Enter
Judge
Patrick
Schiltz,
Chief
of
the
District
of
Minnesota,
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee
who
has
apparently
reached
the
“I
am
absolutely
done
with
this”
stage
of
dealing
with
the
Trump
administration’s
approach
to
immigration
enforcement.
In
a
sharply
worded
order,
Schiltz
took
the
“extraordinary
step”
of
ordering
the
Todd
Lyons,
acting
director
of
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement,
to
personally
appear
in
court
to
explain
why
he
should
not
be
held
in
contempt.
See,
it
turns
out
judges
don’t
love
litigants
ignoring
court
orders.
The
order
stems
from
ICE’s
arrest
of
a
man
earlier
this
month
and
placed
in
immigration
detention.
On
January
14,
Judge
Schiltz
ordered
the
government
to
provide
the
detainee
with
a
bond
hearing
within
seven
days.
He
was
very
clear
about
the
stakes.
If
the
government
failed
to
comply,
the
man
was
to
be
immediately
released.
But
the
government
went
and
pulled
a
Bartleby
the
Scrivener
and
preferring
not
to
do…
anything
about
the
court’s
order.
Schiltz
did
not
mince
words
about
what
this
represents.
He
noted
that
the
administration
has
developed
an
“unfortunate
habit”
of
ignoring
court
orders
literally
dozens
of
times
in
immigration
cases
during
the
course
of
ICE’s
occupation
of
Minnesota.
Time
and
again
courts
have
issued
directives
and
the
government
has
just
shrugged.
All
of
which
is
why
Schiltz
wrote,
“The
Court’s
patience
is
at
an
end.”
Hauling
the
head
of
a
federal
agency
into
court
is
not
something
judges
do
lightly.
But,
as
Schiltz
put
it,
“the
extent
of
ICE’s
violation
of
court
orders
is
likewise
extraordinary,
and
lesser
measures
have
been
tried
and
failed.”
What
makes
this
moment
especially
striking
is
who
Schiltz
is
not.
He
is
not
a
Democratic
appointee
itching
for
a
fight.
He
is
not
a
new
judge
trying
to
make
a
name.
He
is
a
two-time
Antonin
Scalia
clerk
and
a
George
W.
Bush-era
conservative
jurist
who
appears
to
have
had
just
about
enough
of
an
executive
branch
that
treats
court
orders
as
optional
suggestions.
Schiltz
did
offer
the
administration
an
off-ramp.
Lyons
can
avoid
this
entire
mess
if
the
government
simply
complies
with
the
original
order
and
releases
the
detainee.
TL;
DR
version:
respect
the
authority
of
the
court
and
this
all
goes
away.
And
ICE
blinked.
According
to
reports,
the
government
has
released
the
detained
man.
Wonder
if
this
newfound
conciliatory
tack
will
extend
to
the
“dozens”
of
other
orders
the
government
is
flouting.
Read
the
full
order
below.
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
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Richard
Epstein
is
back
and
as
opinionated
as
ever.
Or
maybe,
more
accurately,
“as
willing
to
share
his
opinion
as
ever
regardless
of
expertise.”
The
NYU
Law
professor
who
famously
predicted
that
only
500
Americans
would
die
of
COVID-19
and
then
adjusted
his
estimate
to
5000
when
that
didn’t
pan
out
and
then
just
shrugged
and
stopped
talking
about
it
when
his
amateurish
dabbling
in
public
health
theory
ended
up
being
off
by
hundreds
of
thousands
more.
The
intellectual
gadfly
just
flitted
on
to
another
subject
rather
than
grapple
with
being
profoundly
and
embarrassingly
wrong.
Tragically,
the
White
House
reportedly
took
Epstein’s
baseless
ramblings
at
face
value,
delaying
a
proper
response
to
COVID
on
the
pseudoscientific
ramblings
of
a
neophyte.
A
few
years
later,
Epstein
enthusiastically
applauded
the
death
of
Chevron,
allowing
judges
to
use
their
law
school
degrees
to
second-guess
scientists
and
engineers.
Truly
inspiring
to
see
how
much
someone
can
achieve
without
a
sense
of
irony.
Or
shame
as
the
case
may
be.
In
any
event,
he’s
back
with
a
Supreme
Court
amicus
brief
backing
up
one
of
Donald
Trump’s
pet
constitutional
law
theories:
that
the
guarantee
of
birthright
citizenship
enshrined
in
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
doesn’t
really
say
that.
To
be
clear,
Epstein’s
not
an
expert
in
this
field,
but
he
views
his
own
law
degree
as
a
sort
of
academic
“stayed
at
a
Holiday
Inn
Express
last
night”
allowing
him
to
weigh
in
and
enjoy
presumptive
credibility
without
any
of
the
heavy
lifting
involved
in
going
out
and
engaging
with
experts.
The
birthright
citizenship
fight
bears
a
lot
of
similarities
to
Trump’s
effort
to
seize
Greenland.
Both
are
topics
that
absolutely
no
one
was
talking
about
until
Trump
took
them
up,
but
now
generate
a
whole
industry
of
sycophantic
support.
For
roughly
a
century-and-a-half,
everyone
agreed
that
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
clearly
meant
what
it
said
about
birthright
citizenship.
Indeed,
Richard
Epstein
never
thought
anything
about
the
subject
either
—
having
never
written
anything
even
hinting
at
it
throughout
his
career.
But
since
Trump
embraced
the
subject,
Epstein’s
written
a
whole
book
on
it!
Because
when
you’ve
been
catastrophically
wrong
about
epidemiology,
why
not
try
your
hand
at
constitutional
history?
The
brief
itself
argues
that
“subject
to
the
jurisdiction
thereof”
in
the
Citizenship
Clause
should
be
read
to
exclude
children
of
immigrants
because
naturalization
laws
historically
required
people
to
renounce
foreign
allegiances.
Because
the
children
of
naturalized
citizens
got
to
be
citizens,
he
takes
the
leap
that
children
must
not
be
citizens
unless
their
parents
are
fully
naturalized.
Georgia
State
law
professor
Anthony
Michael
Kreis,
an
actual
constitutional
history
scholar,
explains
how
English
common
law
—
beyond
reading
the
Cliff’s
Notes
of
Blackstone’s
Commentaries
—
does
not
support
this
conclusion:
Children
born
in
the
king’s
realm
were
generally
subjects,
no
matter
the
parents’
identity.
Had
Epstein
dug
back
into
the
common
law
*before*
Blackstone,
there
are
some
good
examples
of
this
being
explained.
Instead,
he
treats
parents’
status
as
somehow
inherited
by
the
children.
He
suggests
that
Blackstone’s
articulation
tends
to
accord
with
the
brief’s
argument
that
“children
of
illegal
aliens”
are
“subject
to
a
foreign
power.”
That’s
entirely
unsupported
rubbish.
Kreis,
along
with
professors
Evan
Bernick
and
Paul
Gowder,
anticipated
and
eviscerated
precisely
this
style
of
argument
in
a
Cornell
Law
Review
piece.
Their
assessment
of
academics
who
suddenly
discovered
anti-birthright
citizenship
arguments
is
appropriately
brutal:
Under
the
guise
of
“originalism,”
[these
scholars]
propose
an
ahistorical,
revisionist
interpretation
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
Citizenship
Clause…
Their
efforts
to
radically
redefine
the
historical
understanding
of
citizenship
are
methodologically
flawed
and
undermine
core
principles
of
constitutional
law.
More
directly:
the
arguments
are
“wildly
inconsistent
with
constitutional
text,
history,
precedent,
and
unbroken
tradition.”
Epstein’s
brief
argues
that
Wong
Kim
Ark
—
the
1898
Supreme
Court
case
that
explicitly
held
the
Citizenship
Clause
grants
birthright
citizenship
—
was
“wrongly
decided,”
citing
Chief
Justice
Roberts’s
lament
that
gay
people
can
get
married
now
for
good
measure.
Until
a
few
years
ago,
even
the
most
die-hard
conservative
legal
movement
voices
would
acknowledge
it
as
both
settled
and
obvious.
Before
Trump’s
rise,
the
political
debate
over
birthright
citizenship
revolved
around
repealing
parts
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment…
now
it’s
about
pretending
the
Amendment
doesn’t
really
exist
at
all.
The
Kreis,
Bernick,
Gowder
article
addresses
why
this
whole
“allegiance”
theory
peddled
by
Epstein
wouldn’t
even
accomplish
the
fundamental
purpose
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
here
—
namely,
nullifying
Dred
Scott:
Nullifying
Dred
Scott
thus
required
a
theory
of
citizenship
that
did
not
depend
upon
any
initial
consent
on
the
part
of
enslaved
people
to
obey
U.S.
law…
Enslaved
people
were
kidnapped
and
forced
into
the
United
States;
their
consent
was
neither
sought
nor
given.
In
other
words,
the
consent-based
citizenship
theory
Epstein
champions
would
struggle
to
explain
how
the
very
people
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
was
designed
to
protect
became
citizens
at
all.
This
kind
of
fly-by-night
constitutional
theorizing
springs
from
a
troubling
historical
precedent:
the
Dunning
School
of
Reconstruction
historiography.
And
while
all
conservative,
originalist
“history”
draws
from
the
Dunning-Kruger
School,
this
Dunning
is
unrelated.
The
Dunning
School
addressed
here
involves
the
work
of
an
early
20th
century
historian
named
William
Archibald
Dunning,
who
churned
out
a
series
of
racist
interpretations
of
post-Civil
War
history
that
got
picked
up
at
the
convenience
of
bad
faith
actors
hoping
to
wish
away
Reconstruction.
At
least
that
Dunning
was
trying
to
be
a
historian,
and
not
a
tourist
crashing
the
discipline
hoping
to
rewrite
history
with
a
law
degree.
Whenever
called
upon
to
speak
about
artificial
intelligence,
I
cite
Christine
Lemmer-Webber’s
description
of
LLMs
as
“mansplaining
as
a
service.”
It’s
going
to
give
the
user
answers,
and
if
they’re
wrong…
they’re
going
to
be
very
confidently
wrong.
Maybe
we
can
expand
that
phrase
to
cover
Epstein’s
public
work.
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.
Federal
judges
are
not
known
for
flying
off
the
handle.
Which
is
why,
when
a
federal
judge
announces
that
his
patience
is
at
an
end,
everyone
should
probably
sit
up
straight.
Enter
Judge
Patrick
Schiltz,
Chief
of
the
District
of
Minnesota,
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee
who
has
apparently
reached
the
“I
am
absolutely
done
with
this”
stage
of
dealing
with
the
Trump
administration’s
approach
to
immigration
enforcement.
In
a
sharply
worded
order,
Schiltz
took
the
“extraordinary
step”
of
ordering
the
Todd
Lyons,
acting
director
of
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement,
to
personally
appear
in
court
to
explain
why
he
should
not
be
held
in
contempt.
See,
it
turns
out
judges
don’t
love
litigants
ignoring
court
orders.
The
order
stems
from
ICE’s
arrest
of
a
man
earlier
this
month
and
placed
in
immigration
detention.
On
January
14,
Judge
Schiltz
ordered
the
government
to
provide
the
detainee
with
a
bond
hearing
within
seven
days.
He
was
very
clear
about
the
stakes.
If
the
government
failed
to
comply,
the
man
was
to
be
immediately
released.
But
the
government
went
and
pulled
a
Bartleby
the
Scrivener
and
preferring
not
to
do…
anything
about
the
court’s
order.
Schiltz
did
not
mince
words
about
what
this
represents.
He
noted
that
the
administration
has
developed
an
“unfortunate
habit”
of
ignoring
court
orders
literally
dozens
of
times
in
immigration
cases
during
the
course
of
ICE’s
occupation
of
Minnesota.
Time
and
again
courts
have
issued
directives
and
the
government
has
just
shrugged.
All
of
which
is
why
Schiltz
wrote,
“The
Court’s
patience
is
at
an
end.”
Hauling
the
head
of
a
federal
agency
into
court
is
not
something
judges
do
lightly.
But,
as
Schiltz
put
it,
“the
extent
of
ICE’s
violation
of
court
orders
is
likewise
extraordinary,
and
lesser
measures
have
been
tried
and
failed.”
What
makes
this
moment
especially
striking
is
who
Schiltz
is
not.
He
is
not
a
Democratic
appointee
itching
for
a
fight.
He
is
not
a
new
judge
trying
to
make
a
name.
He
is
a
two-time
Antonin
Scalia
clerk
and
a
George
W.
Bush-era
conservative
jurist
who
appears
to
have
had
just
about
enough
of
an
executive
branch
that
treats
court
orders
as
optional
suggestions.
Schiltz
did
offer
the
administration
an
off-ramp.
Lyons
can
avoid
this
entire
mess
if
the
government
simply
complies
with
the
original
order
and
releases
the
detainee.
TL;
DR
version:
respect
the
authority
of
the
court
and
this
all
goes
away.
And
ICE
blinked.
According
to
reports,
the
government
has
released
the
detained
man.
Wonder
if
this
newfound
conciliatory
tack
will
extend
to
the
“dozens”
of
other
orders
the
government
is
flouting.
Read
the
full
order
below.
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
Mastodon
@[email protected].
The
other
day,
my
son
started
his
second
semester
of
college.
If
I
am
being
honest,
I
was
not
sure
he
was
going
to
make
it
through
the
first
one.
There
was
some
unsettling
phone
calls
about
missed
classes,
a
blown
midterm,
questionable
sleep
habits,
and
a
moment
where
he
miscalculated
something
as
basic
as
a
bibliography.
It
was
not
trending
well.
Then
something
shifted.
He
regrouped,
owned
the
mistakes,
adjusted
how
he
prepared,
and
quietly
pulled
his
grades
up
to
mostly
As
and
Bs.
He
saved
the
semester.
No
drama.
No
excuses.
Just
effort,
accountability,
and
better
habits.
Around
our
house,
we
call
him
the
comeback
kid.
That
story
matters
because
many
lawyers
feel
the
same
way
about
the
past
year.
Maybe
2025
did
not
go
the
way
you
planned.
Maybe
you
did
solid
work
but
did
not
originate
what
you
wanted.
Maybe
business
development
slipped
while
client
work
took
over.
The
key
point
is
this,
none
of
that
disqualifies
you
from
having
a
breakout
year
ahead.
There
is
a
fresh
calendar
sitting
in
front
of
you,
and
2026
can
absolutely
be
your
comeback
year.
Here
are
three
solid
ways
to
make
this
a
reality
not
just
another
year
of
hoping.
Mindset
Is
Not
Motivation,
It
Is
Behavior
When
lawyers
hear
“mindset,”
they
often
think
it
means
attitude
or
confidence.
Those
matter,
but
they
are
not
where
real
change
starts.
What
I
have
seen
after
working
with
thousands
of
attorneys
is
that
mindset
follows
behavior,
not
the
other
way
around.
When
you
start
doing
positive
business
development
actions
consistently,
your
mindset
improves.
When
you
send
a
few
thoughtful
emails,
post
something
useful
on
LinkedIn,
or
schedule
a
lunch
with
a
strategic
partner,
your
attitude
toward
business
development
changes.
Momentum
builds.
Confidence
follows
action.
Consistency
is
what
separates
a
temporary
push
from
a
permanent
shift.
Anyone
can
have
a
good
week.
Rainmakers
build
habits
they
can
repeat,
even
when
they
are
busy.
Recommit,
Put
It
on
the
Calendar,
Write
It
Down
Recommitting
to
business
development
does
not
require
a
massive
overhaul.
It
requires
structure.
Start
with
your
calendar.
Schedule
time
with
yourself
and
treat
it
like
a
meeting
you
would
never
cancel
with
a
client.
Consider
a
time
in
the
day,
before
client
emergencies
and
wildfires
can
hijack
your
day
away.
Thirty
minutes
a
week
is
enough
to
start.
An
hour
is
even
better.
Use
that
time
to
do
the
things
you
already
know
matter,
follow
ups,
relationship
building,
visibility,
and
staying
top
of
mind.
When
lawyers
cancel
meetings
with
themselves,
it
quietly
chips
away
at
confidence.
You
may
not
notice
it
immediately,
but
over
time
it
erodes
belief
and
trust
in
your
own
commitments.
The
calendar
is
not
just
a
scheduling
tool;
it
is
a
confidence
tool.
Next,
write
a
simple
plan.
One
or
two
pages
is
plenty.
If
you
are
winging
it,
results
will
always
be
inconsistent.
A
written
plan
gives
direction
and
focus,
even
if
it
evolves.
Think
of
a
road
trip
with
or
without
a
GPS
in
place.
One
gets
you
there,
the
other
causes
panic
to
set
in.
I
cover
this
in
detail
in
my
first
two
books,
“Sales
Free
Selling”
and
“The
Attorney’s
Networking
Handbook.”
The
goal
is
not
perfection.
The
goal
is
clarity
and
consistent
execution.
Between
a
calendar
and
a
written
plan,
you
are
already
ahead
of
most
lawyers.
Go
After
What
Is
Already
Working
The
final
recommitment
is
the
easiest
one
to
overlook.
Go
after
the
low
hanging
fruit.
Your
best
opportunities
are
usually
right
in
front
of
you.
Existing
clients
who
love
your
work.
Strategic
partners
who
already
trust
you.
Friends
and
professional
contacts
who
know
your
value.
Invest
time
with
ten
to
twenty
of
the
right
people.
Ask
good
questions.
Be
genuinely
curious
about
what
they
are
working
on
and
who
they
are
connected
to.
Help
others
first
before
making
requests.
This
is
not
about
being
salesy.
It
is
about
being
intentional.
You
do
not
need
to
ask
for
business
directly.
Often
it
is
enough
to
say
that
you
are
focused
on
growing
this
year,
that
you
value
working
with
people
like
them,
and
that
you
are
open
to
conversations
if
they
know
others
who
might
benefit
from
what
you
do.
How
you
say
it
matters
far
more
than
what
you
say.
Rainmaking
is
relational,
not
transactional.
The
Comeback
Is
a
Choice
My
son
did
not
turn
things
around
because
he
waited
for
motivation.
And
it
certainly
wasn’t
because
Dad
said
so…
He
changed
how
he
showed
up.
Lawyers
can
do
the
same
thing.
Get
your
lawyer
brain
pointed
in
the
right
direction
by
not
overthinking
things.
Just
follow
my
direction
and
take
immediate
action.
Recommit
to
business
development
in
2026
and
make
this
your
year!
Focus
on
the
relationships
and
opportunities
that
are
already
within
reach.
You
do
not
need
to
reinvent
yourself
in
2026.
You
just
need
to
recommit.
If
you
want
additional
resources,
you
can
find
plenty
at
bethatlawyer.com
or
reach
me
directly
at
[email protected].
More
than
anything,
I
hope
you
decide
to
make
2026
the
year
you
go
from
comeback
kid
to
rainmaker.
Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.
Neil,
here.
When
I
was
a
teenager
growing
up
in
NYC,
I
frequented
a
place
called
the
Table
Tennis
Center
on
96th
Street
off
Broadway.
You
didn’t
wander
in
accidentally.
You
went
because
you
knew.
Street
level,
thick
with
smoke,
always
noisy,
it
featured
a
bunch
of
beaten-up
tables,
metal
chairs
and
a
mix
of
old-school
hustlers
playing
for
cash,
petty
criminals,
competition-level
players,
kids
like
me,
and
the
curious
who
almost
always
left
having
lost
whatever
money
they
had
on
them.
The
place
was
owned/run
by
Marty
Reisman,
a
trash-talking,
expert
player
and
hustler.
But
he
had
a
soft
spot
for
the
kids.
He
gave
us
ping-pong
lessons
and
enjoyed
showing
off
for
us
playing
what
he
referred
to
as
“pigeons”
for
money,
often
with
an
extreme
handicap
like
using
a
sneaker
or
just
his
elbow
as
a
paddle.
Every
so
often,
before
there
was
a
lot
of
action
in
the
place,
he’d
speak
with
us
about
things
other
than
ping-pong
or
money.
I
remember
distinctly
one
conversation
where
Marty
asked
me
what
I
wanted
to
do
for
a
living.
I
said
“lawyer.”
He
looked
at
me
and
smiled:
“Now,
why
would
a
smart
kid
like
you
want
to
do
that?”
It
turned
out
he
was
right.
It
came
to
mind
when,
to
my
absolute
shock,
I
read
about
a
movie
being
made
based
loosely
on
his
life
starring
the
most
bankable
young
movie
star
in
the
world,
Timothy
Chalamet.
I
would
have
sooner
believed
Martians
were
landing
on
earth.
The
movie
is
in
theatres.
One
of
the
things
we
monitor
closely
at
Ex
Judicata
is
trending
nonlegal
jobs
for
JDs.
One
that
keeps
crossing
our
screens
is
“Practice
Group
Director”
or
“Practice
Manager.”
Essentially,
this
is
someone
who
assists
the
Practice
Group
Leader
(PGL)
in
running
the
particular
practice
(litigation,
capital
markets,
IP,
etc.)
at
a
law
firm
like
a
business
unit
so
the
PGL
who
is
a
partner
can
focus
on
client
development
and
legal
work.
We
have
found
that
the
role
is
often
misunderstood.
“They’re
administrative
staff.”
They
are
not.
“They
tell
lawyers
what
to
do.”
They
do
not.
“They
are
lawyers
by
training.”
They
do
not
have
to
be.
“It’s
a
cost
center.”
Enlightened
firms
view
it
as
helping
drive
revenue.
For
clarification,
we
turned
to
Susan
Lambreth,
a
Co-Founding
Principal
at
LawVision,
a
top
legal
project
management,
practice
group
management,
and
law
firm
leadership
consulting
firm.
An
attorney
by
background,
Susan
told
us:
These
roles
are
like
“mini”
COOs
of
the
practice
group
or
department.
The
roles
have
been
around
for
30
years
and
there
are
well
over
500
people
with
these
roles
in
US
law
firms.
The
responsibilities
vary
widely
from
firm
to
firm
but
can
include
the
day-to-day
operations
of
the
group,
financial
management,
talent
management
(like
workload
assignment),
group
business
planning,
lateral
onboarding,
partner
progression
recommendations,
and
more.The
department
chairs
and
practice
group
leaders
need
business
professionals
who
are
full-time
helping
them
so
they,
as
the
partner
leaders,
can
maintain
their
busy
legal
practice.
Much
like
Office
Managing
Partners
have
an
office
administrator
and
other
roles
supporting
them,
when
law
firms
evolved
from
geographic
management
of
the
firm
to
“business
unit”
driven
management,
they
needed
to
add
professionals
to
help
the
department
chairs
and/or
practice
group
leaders
manage
their
groups.
Practice
Group
Professionals
belongs
to
the
category
“law
adjacent”
jobs.
Essentially
positions
where
one
maintains
some
connection
to
law
without
practicing
law.
Many
former
practicing
lawyers
love
these
jobs
because
they
are
deeply
involved
in
a
firm’s
practices
–
but
helping
to
run
the
business
of
the
group
and
without
the
pressure
of
billable
hours
or
making
partner.
These
roles
are
also
sometimes
known
by
the
more
antiquated
phrase,
“JD
Advantage”
jobs.
Compliance
and
legal
recruiting
are
probably
the
two
most
common
“law
adjacent”
paths.
For
many,
there
is
comfort
in
retaining
a
connection
to
law
having
spent
three
years
of
one’s
life
in
law
school.
We
understand.
But
counsel,
do
not
be
held
back
by
the
belief
that
if
you
leave
law
your
career
still
has
to
have,
at
least,
a
tangential
connection
to
law.
It
does
not.
Follow
your
passion.
And
always
remember
that
your
JD
is
a
degree
in
complex
problem-solving,
a
skill
which
is
valued
by
pretty
much
every
career
in
the
universe.
Ex
Judicata
was
in
Paris
over
the
holidays.
We
had
the
opportunity
to
sit
down
over
dinner
with
an
assortment
of
law
firm
partners,
associates,
and
one
COO
of
an
Am
Law
20
firm.
The
place
was
L’Arret,
which
had
recently
opened.
The
chef
is
Mashama
Bailey,
who
has
had
one
other
restaurant,
The
Grey,
in
Savannah,
Georgia,
for
15
years.
Not
a
common
nexus
from
Savannah
to
Paris,
which
we
thought
was
kind
of
cool.
The
main
takeaways?
Lawyers
in
France
are
no
different
than
lawyers
in
the
US
in
the
sense
of
so
many
being
interested
in
exploring
nonlegal
careers.
The
world
of
work
has
never
been
more
transparent
in
human
history
with
sites
like
exjudicata.com
helping
to
show
the
breadth
of
opportunities
for
non-practicing
lawyers.
The
difference?
Désespoir
or
desperation.
There
wasn’t
the
same
sense
of
panic
or
hitting
the
wall
or
feeling
trapped
that
we
have
encountered
so
often
among
practicing
lawyers
on
exjudicata.com.
A
lot
of
it
we
would
chalk
up
to
lifestyle.
The
pace
is
a
lot
slower
in
Paris
than
in,
say,
New
York
City.
Even
if
one
is
working
on
global
deals.
We’d
love
to
know
what
you
think.
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.
“Never
assume
your
organization
is
fully
covered.
Cyber
insurance
policy
language
is
fraught
with
exclusions,
limitations
of
coverage,
and
conditions
that
will
void
a
policy.”
–
Delinea
2025
Cyber
Insurance
Research
Report
As
I
have
written
before,
law
firms
and
cybersecurity:
it’s
a
subject
that
often
makes
managing
partners’
eyes
glaze
over.
They
don’t
understand
it,
it’s
expensive,
and
frankly,
it’s
boring.
They
assume
cybersecurity
events
won’t
happen
to
their
firm
and
when
they
do,
the
only
question
they
ask
is
“do
we
have
insurance?”
Increasingly,
the
answer
is:
yes,
maybe,
and
sort
of.
That’s
why
a
recent
survey
by
the
cybersecurity
company
Delinea
is
significant
and
lends
credence
to
my
concerns.
At
the
very
least,
it
should
serve
as
a
wake-up
call
for
firm
leadership.
Delinea is
a
cybersecurity
consulting
company
that
focuses
on
securing
privileged
access
and
identity
security
for
organizations. Delinea
partnered
with
Censuswide
and
surveyed
more
than
750
security
leaders
about
cyber
insurance
and
claims
practices.
While
you
often
have
to
take
with
a
grain
of
salt
what
consultants
find
in
their
surveys
since
they
often
strengthen
their
case
for
being
hired,
the
Delinea
survey
reveals
some
potentially
troubling
gaps
between
what
insureds
think
they
have
and
what
their
policies
actually
cover.
Those
gaps
apply
just
as
well
to
law
firms.
It’s
a
Question
of
When,
Not
If
First
things
first,
if
a
law
firm
doesn’t
think
a
cybersecurity
event
is
going
to
happen,
think
again.
Seventy-seven
percent
of
those
surveyed
by
Delinea
revealed
they
suffered
a
cybersecurity
incident
in
the
last
year.
While
the
survey
didn’t
focus
on
law
firms,
there’s
little
reason
to
think
firms
are
any
different.
In
fact,
law
firms
may
be
more
at
risk
since
they
hold
highly
confidential
client
material
that,
frankly,
is
valuable
to
the
bad
guys.
But
all
too
often
firms
think
a
cybersecurity
event
isn’t
going
to
happen
to
them.
It’s
sort
of
the
security
through
obscurity
notion
about
which
I
have
written
before.
Cyber
Insurance:
It
May
Not
Be
What
You
Think
According
to
the
Delinea
report,
often
cyber
insurance
policies
don’t
cover
what
you
expect.
Only
33%
of
policies
of
those
responding
covered
a
critical
loss
component:
lost
revenue.
Only
45%
of
the
policies
covered
ransomware
(where
a
bad
guy
demands
the
payment
of
ransom
to
return
stolen
data)
despite
the
fact
that
1
in
5
surveyed
reported
a
ransomware
incident.
That’s
an
important
limitation
since
often
management
concludes
the
payment
of
the
ransom
offers
the
quickest
return
of
needed
data
and
the
return
to
business
operations,
which
may
or
may
not
be
true.
Forty
percent
of
the
policies
don’t
cover
costs
to
recover
data.
Less
than
half
covered
incident
response
services
or
additional
remedial
security
controls.
What
all
this
means
is
that
a
firm
may
end
up
not
being
covered
for
a
significant
loss.
I
recently
wrote
about
a
company
that
sadly
had
to
go
out
of
business
because
it
did
not
have
sufficient
coverage
for
a
ransomware
claim.
Years
ago,
I
attended
a
cybersecurity
conference.
I
had
lunch
with
a
bunch
of
insurance
marketing
guys
licking
their
chops
over
the
huge
market
for
cyber
insurance.
I
asked
what
would
happen
when
the
claims
pour
in
as
they
most
certainly
would.
I
was
met
with
stone
silence.
We
now
know
what
will
happen:
as
the
report
puts
it,
“Insurance
adjusters
are
on
the
lookout
for
a
range
of
controls
lapses
that
could
get
their
companies
off
the
hook
for
paying
a
claim.”
And
it’s
not
just
coverage
issues
that
can
trip
up
a
claim.
The
lack
of
security
controls
can
do
the
same
thing.
Security
Controls
Not
taking
cybersecurity
seriously
and
having
robust
protections
in
place
not
only
means
an
increased
threat
of
an
incident,
it
also
could
mean
that
appropriate
coverage
can’t
be
obtained
or
if
it
is,
will
be
voided
once
there
is
a
claim.
Indeed,
almost
everyone
surveyed
by
Delinea
said
that
their
organization
had
to
have
some
level
of
security
controls
in
place
to
get
coverage.
Some
97%
of
those
surveyed
indicated
that
their
carriers
were
demanding
things
like
identity
security
controls,
authorization
controls,
and
better
password
management,
and
that
carriers
were
increasingly
scrutinizing
their
insureds’
security
controls.
Moreover,
increasingly,
the
policies
that
are
in
place
may
be
voided
if
sufficient
security
controls
aren’t
in
place,
a
failure
that
often
is
not
discovered
until
a
claim
is
filed.
According
to
the
Delinea
report,
45%
of
those
surveyed
said
their
policies
could
be
voided
due
to
lack
of
security
controls.
Other
reasons
for
voiding
coverage
include
human
error,
misconfiguration,
internal
bad
actors,
not
following
compliance
procedures,
failure
to
timely
report,
and
acts
of
terrorism
and
war.
It’s
a
hot
mess:
firm
management
doesn’t
take
cybersecurity
seriously,
doesn’t
spend
the
money
for
adequate
controls,
and
then
relies
on
insurance
once
a
claim
happens.
Only
to
discover
that
they
aren’t
covered.
Artificial
Intelligence
In
addition,
the
advent
of
the
GenAI
world
has
some
insurance
implications
as
well.
Here’s
a
noteworthy
finding:
42%
of
those
surveyed
said
their
policies
excluded
AI
misuse
and
liability
from
coverage.
That’s
important
because
firms
have
to
assume
that
their
lawyers
and
legal
professionals,
like
just
about
everyone
else,
are
using
GenAI
in
their
personal
and
often
in
their
work
lives.
But
if
they
don’t
use
AI
tools
properly,
the
misuse
could
result
in
liability
that
won’t
be
covered.
All
the
more
reason
to
undertake
robust
AI
training
and
create
appropriate
use
guidelines.
So,
What
To
Do?
So,
what
can
law
firm
management
do?
First,
it
may
be
stating
the
obvious,
but
management
needs
to
read
their
cyber
insurance
policies
carefully.
They
need
to
identify
the
exclusions
and
coverage
gaps.
They
need
to
do
research
into
how
the
policies
and
the
mandated
controls
are
being
interpreted.
They
can’t
assume
coverage
based
on
marketing
material,
or
what
the
carrier
has
offered
in
the
past
or
to
others.
Management
also
needs
to
carefully
review
the
security
controls
that
the
carrier
has
demanded
and
be
sure
they
are
met.
Conduct
an
annual
policy
audit
with
your
IT
director
and
insurance
broker
present.
Treat
that
review
and
everything
else
with
the
same
level
of
scrutiny
as
they
would
if
a
client
asked
them
to
review
their
own
policies.
The
report
makes
an
excellent
point
in
this
regard:
Because
the
cyber
insurance
market
is
still
maturing,
policy
language
and
coverage
options
can
vary
widely
from
insurer
to
insurer
—
and
even
policy
to
policy.
One
of
the
challenges
that
organizations
face
is
in
the
interpretation
of
policy
requirements.
While
policy
exclusions
tend
to
be
fairly
clear-cut
(i.e.,
exclusions
around
acts
of
war
or
nation-state
activity),
the
language
around
controls
requirements
can
sometimes
remain
vague.Never
assume
your
organization
is
fully
covered
Cyber
insurance
policy
language
is
fraught
with
exclusions,
limitations
of
coverage,
and
conditions
that
will
void
a
policy.
It
is
incumbent
upon
risk
leaders
to
collaborate
with
executive
management
and
the
board
to
identify
how
existing
controls
weaknesses
could
jeopardize
their
insurability
and
to
utilize
gap
analysis
for
prioritizing
investments.
Couldn’t
have
said
it
any
better.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.
If
there’s
someone
out
there
who
bills
at
a
higher
rate
than
Bill
and
me
on
hourly
cases,
please
let
us
know
so
we
may
raise
our
rates.
— Neal
Manne,
former
managing
partner
at
Susman
Godfrey,
in
comments
given
to
Reuters,
concerning
his
and
partner
Bill
Carmody’s
hourly
rates.
“The
process
by
which
Bill’s
and
my
billing
rates
are
set
each
year
is
as
mysterious
as
a
papal
conclave,”
Manne
said,
noting
that
while
their
hourly
rates
are
set
by
firm
management,
most
of
their
work
is
completed
on
a
contingency
or
fixed-fee
basis.
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.
Remember
the
first
time
you
opened
a
copy
of
the
Federal
Register
to
feast
upon
eight
pages
of
tiny
print
explaining
the
proper
size
of
a
gasket?
Did
you
ever
think,
what
if
they
replaced
all
the
highly
trained
engineers
and
scientists
describing
the
precision
crafting
required
to
keep
airplanes
from
falling
out
of
the
sky
with
hallucinating
robots?
Well,
good
news!
ProPublica dropped
the
investigative
piece this
morning,
revealing
that
the
Trump
administration
plans
to
use
Google
Gemini
to
draft
federal
transportation
regulations.
Turning
over
to
a
chatbot
the
very
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
agency
responsible
for
keeping
the
nation’s
highways
safe
may
scare
some
people,
but
really,
who
can
be
better
trusted
to
understand
the
unique
challenge
of
transportation
rulemaking
than
Road
Rules/Real
World
Challenge
champion
Sean
Duffy?
Road?
Rules?
Challenge?
It’s
all
right
there
on
his
resume!
This
isn’t
necessarily
a
bad
idea.
Assuming
the
underlying
expertise
and
science
remains
sound,
AI
tools
actually
excel
at
the
job
of
converting
technical
information
into
approachable
and
readily
comprehensible
text.
Rulemaking
has
always
involved
injecting
relative
clarity
into
complex
information,
a
mission
that’s
even
more
important
in
light
of
a
Loper
Bright
world.
Without
judges
deferring
to
agencies,
there’s
even
more
urgency
to
eradicate
ambiguities
and
deliver
rules
that
even
the
most
out-of-their-depth
judges
could
understand.
In
a
perfect
world,
regulatory
lawyers
would
use
AI
to
draft
clear
pronouncements
that
explicitly
spell
out
contingencies
that
were
once
left
to
deference.
As
a
preliminary
drafting
tool,
married
to
the
legal
acumen
of
veteran
practitioners,
AI
could
make
rulemaking
better
for
all.
It
will
shock
you
not
at
all
to
learn
that
this
is
not
the
Trump
administration’s
logic.
In
an
internal
meeting
announcing
the
new
initiative,
ProPublica
reports
that
DOT
General
Counsel
Gregory
Zerzan
expressed
enthusiasm
for
the
algorithmic
outsourcing,
noting
“We
don’t
need
the
perfect
rule
on
XYZ.
We
don’t
even
need
a
very
good
rule
on
XYZ.
We
want
good
enough.”
Do
you
feel
safer
already?
“We’re
flooding
the
zone,”
Zerzan
continued,
invoking
Steve
Bannon’s
classic
advice
for
the
MAGA
movement:
keep
doing
more
and
more
outrageous
nonsense
to
prevent
anyone
from
having
time
to
push
back.
It’s
the
same
mentality
that
might
kidnap
a
foreign
leader,
send
shock
troops
to
murder
civilians
in
Minnesota,
and
attempt
to
take
over
Greenland
so
everyone
will
forget
that
the
Epstein
files
haven’t
been
released
as
required
by
statute.
Zerzan’s
implication
is
that
the
Trump
Department
of
Transportation
wants
to
gut
federal
transportation
safety
regulations
and
they
want
to
do
it
by
bombarding
the
public
with
so
many
changes
that
it
doesn’t
have
time
to
ask
why.
If
it
results
in
some
hallucination-filled
half-assery,
the
administration
is
willing
to
live
with
that.
Mike
Horton,
DOT’s
former
acting
chief
artificial
intelligence
officer,
criticized
the
plan
to
use
Gemini
to
write
regulations,
comparing
it
to
“having
a
high
school
intern
that’s
doing
your
rulemaking.”
(He
said
the
plan
was
not
in
the
works
when
he
left
the
agency
in
August.)
Noting
the
life-or-death
stakes
of
transportation
safety
regulations,
Horton
said
the
agency’s
leaders
“want
to
go
fast
and
break
things,
but
going
fast
and
breaking
things
means
people
are
going
to
get
hurt.”
I’m
sorry,
you’re
absolutely
right!
We
needed
better
brakes
to
keep
the
train
from
careening
off
the
track
into
that
schoolhouse
and
dumping
toxic
sludge
into
that
reservoir.
Do
you
want
me
to
generate
another
rule
based
on
this
new
information?
But
can
the
administration
really
use
AI
to
deliver
the
Mad
Max-inspired
highway
hellscape
they
seek?
I’m
skeptical.
This
administration
has
already
run
afoul
of
AI
understanding
the
rule
of
law
better
than
its
cynical
Federalist
Society
approved
handlers.
The
Pentagon
installed
a
dedicated
AI
and
it
instantly
identified
war
crimes.
Arguably,
the
only
thing
more
difficult
than
keeping
AI
from
making
mistakes
is
convincing
it
to
intentionally
produce
garbage.
The
thing
about
a
“high
school
intern,”
as
Horton
put
it,
is
that
it
can
struggle
to
act
in
bad
faith
because
it
doesn’t
know
enough
to
simulate
guile.
Lawyers
may
find
themselves
substantially
rewriting
everything
the
AI
puts
out
anyway.
And
even
if
they
do
rapidly
churn
out
rulemaking
copy,
the
protections
found
in
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
still
exist.
Between
notice
and
comment
and
judicial
review,
the
public
will
still
have
mechanisms
to
put
the
brakes
on
the
—
in
this
case
literal
—
runaway
train.
Zerzan
wants
to
flood
the
zone
but
might
only
succeed
in
spreading
himself
out.
These
rules
will
have
different
constituencies,
but
the
Department
will
be
involved
in
every
fight.
It
doesn’t
“flood
the
zone”
to
have
the
shipping
industry,
the
trucking
industry,
and
airlines
all
involved
in
fights
during
the
same
month.
From
their
perspective,
they’re
all
just
having
one
fight.
But
the
Department
is
defending
three
fights
at
once.
And,
of
course,
when
you
“go
fast
and
break
things,”
it
usually
ends
in
a
litigation
bottleneck.
The
Department
of
Transportation
already
tried
its
hand
at
rulemaking
the
old-fashioned
way.
Pumping
out
a
rule
in
six
months
in
an
effort
to
strip
licenses
from
a
couple
hundred
thousand
truck
drivers
as
part
of
the
administration’s
ongoing
nativism
performance
art,
the
Department
only
succeeded
in
getting
it
blocked
by
the
D.C.
Circuit.
This
effort
wasn’t
going
to
be
any
more
successful
if
they’d
pushed
the
rule
out
the
door
faster.
If
anything,
flooding
the
zone
will
just
clog
up
the
courts
trying
to
untangle
the
lawsuits.
Also…
have
fun
with
the
discovery
requests
seeking
every
prompt
lawyers
used
in
the
drafting
process.
According
to
ProPublica’s
sources,
as
part
of
downplaying
the
serious
repercussions
of
the
proposal,
staffers
were
told
that
a
lot
of
what
the
AI
would
be
producing
would
be
“word
salad.”
Hard
to
assert
any
sort
of
privilege
over
“word
salad.”
All
this
“flood
the
zone”
talk
is
just
posturing.
They
want
to
front
like
they’re
launching
some
nefarious
strategic
blitzkrieg
on
the
administrative
state,
but
they
just
want
AI
to
write
these
regs
for
them
because
they’re
fucking
lazy.
Remember
when
Elon
Musk
parachuted
into
the
government
promising
to
cut
a
trillion
dollars
in
spending,
destroyed
some
agencies,
definitely
killed
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people,
and
ultimately
walked
away
having
left
the
deficit
worse
than
before?
It’s
the
same
energy.
Lawyers
working
in
tandem
with
AI
technology
can
marginally
enhance
their
productivity,
but
consider
the
rhetoric
they’re
using
according
to
this
report:
“flooding
the
zone,”
“point
of
the
spear,”
“shouldn’t
take
you
more
than
20
minutes.”
Too
often
we
construe
their
contempt
for
the
work
of
government
as
a
problem
with
the
work
government
performs.
But
a
lot
of
the
animosity
is
based
on
a
contempt
of
the
idea
of
work
itself.
Of
the
mundane,
nose-to-grindstone,
detail-oriented
work
that
governments
—
and
lawyers
—
have
to
do.
Which,
in
the
end,
is
AI’s
greatest
threat
to
society.
It
enthralls
the
nation’s
laziest.
Government
by
AI?
Trump
Administration
Plans
to
Write
Regulations
Using
Artificial
Intelligence [ProPublica]
We
have
some
unfortunate
news
to
report
out
of
the
Houston,
Texas,
legal
community,
in
the
wake
of
a
tragic
plane
crash
linked
to
successful
plaintiff’s
firm
Arnold
&
Itkin.
According
to
news
reports,
the
firm’s
plane,
traveling
from
Houston
to
Paris,
stopped
in
Bangor,
Maine,
to
refuel,
but
crashed
during
an
attempted
takeoff.
According
to
the
local
police
department,
“all
on
the
flight
are
presumed
to
be
deceased.”
The
firm’s
founders,
Kurt Arnold and
Jason Itkin,
were
not
on
the plane.
Although
investigators
have
yet
to
release
the
names
of
the
victims,
sources
have
confirmed
that
Tulane
Law
graduate
Tara
Arnold,
wife
of
Kurt
Arnold, has
passed
away.
WMTW
ABC
8
has
additional
details:
“I
am
close
friends
with
Kurt
and
Tara
Arnold,”
said
Lesley
Briones,
Harris
County
Precinct
4
Commissioner.
“My
heart
hurts
for
them
and
their
children
and
their
families.
I
worked
at
Arnold
&
Itkin
for
a
time
and
so
I
know
them
well.
This
is
just
a
tragedy
and
in
particular
Tara,
she
is
just
a
phenomenal
person,
a
bold
leader
and
somebody
who
had
a
heart
of
service.”
We
here
at
Above
the
Law
would
like
to
extend
our
condolences
to
the
family,
friends,
and
colleagues
of
Tara
Arnold,
and
all
those
who
lost
their
lives
in
the
crash,
during
this
incredibly
difficult
time.
Private
Plane
Linked
to
Houston
Plaintiff
Law
Firm
Arnold
&
Itkin
Crashes
in
Maine
[Texas
Lawyer]
Texas
law
firm
attorney
believed
to
be
among
six
victims
in
Bangor
plane
crash
[WGME
ABC
7]
Wife
of
Houston
law
firm
partner
identified
as
one
victim
of
Bangor,
Maine,
plane
crash
[WMTW
ABC
8]
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