Author: TSA Press

Biglaw
isn’t
just
talking
about
getting
lawyers
back
to
the
office
—
firms
are
leasing
space
like
they
mean
it.

Law
firms
took
nearly
800,000
square
feet
of
New
York
City
office
space
in
Q4
2025,
according
to
data
provided
to

Law.com,
with
firms
including
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
Goodwin
Procter,
and
McGuireWoods
expanding
their
Manhattan
footprints.
Gibson
Dunn
and
Baker
Hostetler
renewed
in
place,
underscoring
that
firms
are
holding
onto
—
and
adding
to
—
their
office
space,
not
shedding
it.

Kirkland
and
Goodwin,
already
among
the
year’s
biggest
New
York
lessees,
added
tens
of
thousands
of
square
feet
in
the
fourth
quarter
alone.
The
expansions
come
as
more
firms
move
to
four-day-a-week
in-office
requirements,
a
trend
that
has
picked
up
steam
across
the
Am
Law
50.

Commercial
real
estate
executives
say
the
link
between
space
and
attendance
is
no
accident.

“Law
firms,
especially
the
high-quality
firms,
are
leading
the
market
in
growth
in
large
measure
because
they
all
came
to
the
realization,
at
about
the
same
time,
that
when
they
are
physically
together,
they
are
far
more
productive
and
creative,”
[Cushman
&
Wakefield
executive
vice
chair
Mark]
Weiss
said.
“Their
recent
growth
reflects
this
sudden
reversal
in
their
attitudes
towards
the
workplace.”

After
years
of
hybrid
hedging,
Biglaw’s
real
estate
strategy
is
sending
a
clear
message:
if
firms
are
requiring
lawyers
to
show
up,
they’re
going
to
make
sure
there’s
room
for
them.

Law
Firms
in
‘Space
Race’
for
NYC
Office
Leases
[Law.com]

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.

In
the
1960s,
an
onslaught
of
rock
bands
from
the
UK
found
their
way
into
America’s
jukeboxes.
So
many
artists
crossed
the
Pond
that
the
media
playfully
dubbed
it
the
“British
Invasion.”
While
a
vocal
subset
of
old
people
would
rant
that
the
country
would
lapse
into
moral
peril
because
Ringo’s
hair
was
too
long,
the
moniker
was
just
a
headline-friendly
way
to
talk
about
an
unfolding
cultural
phenomenon.

According
to
the
Trump
administration,
the
term
“British
Invasion”
is
all
a
president
needed
to
hear
to
justify
throwing
Paul
McCartney
into
a
foreign
gulag.

A
couple
years
ago,
that
sentence
would
—
rightly
—
be
dismissed
as
unfair
hyperbole.
In
2026,
it’s
a
routine
Thursday
for
the
Department
of
Justice.

To
set
the
stage,
the
Trump
administration
persists
in
its
assertion
of
broad
power
under
the

Alien
Enemies
Act
of
1798.
The
18th
century
law
grants
the
executive
branch
authority
to
expel
foreign
nationals
during
an
invasion.
That’s
not
in
dispute.
The
Trump
DOJ’s
new,
deliciously
ahistorical
twist
contends
that
presidents
have
exclusive,
unquestioned
power
to
define
whatever
they
want
as
an
“invasion.”
If
a
dementia-addled
president
decides
that
foreign-born
members
of
a
street
gang
are
an
“invasion,”
he
can
round
up
and
expel
anyone
they
claim
has
ties
to
that
group.

And
no
judicial
process
can
question
them.

Despite
getting

a
back
of
the
hand
from
the
Supreme
Court,
the
government
continues
to
take
this
stance.
During
yesterday’s
Fifth
Circuit

en
banc
hearing,
Chief
Judge
Jennifer
Walker
Elrod
asked
if
the
administration
took
the
position
that
a
president
could
decide
the
“British
Invasion”
was
an
“invasion”
under
the
Alien
Enemies
Act
and
start
deporting
the
Beatles.
She
described
the
hypothetical
as
“fanciful,”
but
a
better
description
is
“the
ultimate
softball.”
When
a
sympathetic
judge
—
say,
a
deeply
conservative
George
W.
Bush
appointee
—
lays
out
a
facially
absurd
scenario,
it’s
an
invitation
to
articulate
limits.
“No,
what
the
silly
liberals
don’t
understand
is
that

of
course
the
president
couldn’t
deport
a
music
group
just
because
parents
don’t
like
their
music,
but
here’s
why
this
vicious
gang
is
different….”
It’s
a
disingenuous
straw
argument
being
hand-delivered
by
a
judge.

Assistant
Attorney
General
Drew
Ensign

rejected
this
gift:

“These
sort
of
questions
of
foreign
affairs
and
the
security
of
the
nation
are
specifically
political
issues,”
said
Drew
Ensign,
an
assistant
attorney
general
who
was
arguing
the
administration’s
case
before
the
full
5th
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.

In
other
words:

yeah,
we
could
throw
John
Lennon
into
CECOT
and
fuck
you
for
daring
to
question
us.
They’ve
got
a
military
command
structure
under
this
“Sgt.
Pepper”
and
our
intelligence
suggests
that
the
may
already
have
access
to
a
yellow
submarine.

Is
Ensign
secretly
attempting
to
undermine
the
administration
from
within?
Because,
as
an
act
of
sabotage,
it
could
be
brilliant.
As
an
act
of
straightforward
appellate
advocacy,
it’s
comically
inept.
Then
again,
his
hands
might
be
tied.
The
powers-that-be
within
this
administration
appear
committed
to
taking
maximalist
positions
on
every
question
of
executive
power.
You
can’t
build
an
authoritarian
regime
on
sensible
takes.

The
Alien
Enemies
Act
has
only
been
invoked
three
times
before.
Twice
during
world
wars
—
including
the
internment
of
Japanese
Americans
in
a
shameful
episode
that
everyone
to
the
left
of
the
skinheads
agree
was
a
horrific
policy
—
and
once
during
the
War
of
1812…
when
the
U.S.
was

actually
invaded.
Attempting
to
use
the
statute
against
a
criminal
gang
—
even
when
clinging
to
a
fig
leaf
assertion
that
gang
members
were
intentionally
sent
here
by
a
Venezuelan
regime
running
a
drug
cartel
that

the
DOJ
has
already
acknowledged
doesn’t
really
exist
—
already
stretched
the
text
to
the
preposterous.
Taking
the
position
that
it
could
extend
to
musical
groups
crosses
into
the
surreal.

ACLU
attorney
Lee
Gelernt
pointed
out:

Tren
de
Aragua
is
committing
ordinary
crimes
that
are
being
dealt
with
by
law
enforcement.
The
Alien
Enemies
Act
is
about
wartime
and
it’s
about
the
military.

That
should
be
obvious
to
anyone
who’s
read
the
statute.
But
this
is
2026,
and
“obvious”
left
the
building
a
while
ago.

However
the
Fifth
Circuit
rules,
this
matter
rests
on
a
collision
course
with
the
Supreme
Court.
In
another
midnight
special
from
the
shadow
docket
factory,
the
Supreme
Court
already
rejected
the
idea
that
the
administration
can
use
this
law
to
deport
people
without
any
due
process.
That
said,
the
majority
limited
the
rights
of
deportees
to
challenge
their
foreign
imprisonment
through
the

habeas
process.
It
was
another
gift
to
the
administration
from
conservative
judges,
giving
the
government
freedom
to
engage
in
its
most
egregious
actions
as
long
as
it
conceded
to
minimal
—
if
not
functionally
non-existent
—
legal
safeguards.
But
there
is
no
legal
bar
too
low
that
this
DOJ
won’t
demand
that
courts
push
lower.

And
so,
it
would
seem,
the
administration
is
uninterested
in
accepting
that
gift
too.

Could
a
president
deploy
wartime
law
against
the
Beatles?
Trump
administration
says
“Yes”
[AP
via
ABC
News]

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.

The
president
and
his
lawyers
have
emerged
from
under
the
bridge
and
announced
the
target
of
the
next
shakedown
trollsuit.

JAMIE
DIMON,
COME
ON
DOWN!

Trump
announced
the
litigation
last
week
on
Truth
Social,
insisting
that
he
would
never
consider
a
loser
like
Dimon,
the
CEO
of
JP
Morgan
Chase,
to
lead
the
Fed
or
Treasury.
And
yesterday
he
actually

filed
the
thing
(h/t
Reuters)
in
local
court
in
Miami-Dade.

It’s
real,
and
it’s
spectacularly
bonkers.

The
gravamen
of
the
claim
is
that
the
bank
sent
Trump
a
letter
on
February
19,
2021,
six
weeks
after
he
sent
a
mob
to
lay
siege
to
the
seat
of
government,
giving
him
and
his
associated
businesses
60
days
to
find
someone
else
to
hold
their
money.
This
violates
Florida’s
consumer
protection
statute
…

don’t
ask
how.
And
then
JPMC
put
Trump’s
name
on
a
“blacklist”
of
customers
that
it
wouldn’t
do
business
with,
which
is
trade
libel,
despite
being
true.

“Plaintiffs
are
confident
that
JPMC’s
unilateral
decision
came
about
as
a
result
of
political
and
social
motivations,
and
JPMC’s
unsubstantiated,
‘woke’
beliefs
that
it
needed
to
distance
itself
from
President
Trump
and
his
conservative
political
views,”
he
claims.
This
is
rather
undercut
by
his
own

social
media
post
in
which
he
directly
links
the
“debanking”
to
“the
January
6th
Protest,”
not
his
“conservative
political
views.”
And
anyway,
“conservative
political
views”
is
not
a
protected
class,
a
point
the
complaint
tacitly
concedes
by
pointing
to
Trump’s
executive
order
purporting
to
make
it
one
in
August
of
2025
and
Republican
Senator
Kevin
Cramer’s
reintroduction
of
a
law
banning
it
last
year.
Florida
made
a

hamfisted
attempt
to
bar
it
in
2023
when
it
outlawed
ESG,
but
that
was
along
after
the
bank
gave
Trump
the
boot.
Also,
the
statute
provides
no
private
right
of
action,
as
Trump
helpfully
concedes
in
his
complaint.

But
Trump
is
undeterred!
He
and
his
libeltroll
lawyer
Alejandro
Brito
demand
$5
billion
for
the
embarrassment
of
having
to
move
all
that
cash
“given
that
Plaintiffs
have
always
complied
with
all
applicable
banking
rules.”
AHEM.

But
why
bother
with
the
niceties
of
pleading
an
actual
cause
of
action
when
you
have
the
entire
regulatory
apparatus
of
the
federal
government
at
your
disposal
and
you’ve
made
clear
you’re
willing
to
deploy
it
against
any
entity
that
fails
to
pay
you
tribute?
The
only
paragraph
that
matters
is
the
one
where
Trump
notes
that
JPMC
is
“under
federal
investigation
due
to
its
prior
history
of
political
debanking
and
other
viewpoint-based
debanking.”

Translation:

Get
out
your
checkbook,
or
prepare
to
be
harassed
at
every
turn
by
an
alphabet
soup
of
federal
agencies.

Time
for
another
eight-figure
donation
to
the
Trump
presidential
library.
Those
Qatari
bribe
jets
require
a
lot
of
expensive
maintenance!

Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:

Late
last
year, Biglaw
firm
Baker
McKenzie filed
a
defamation
lawsuit against
a
former
tax
associate,
Brooke
Radford,
alleging
Radford
made
repeated
allegations
on
social
media
and
Reddit
—
some
100+
of
them
—–falsely
accusing
a
partner
of
sexually
assaulting
her
and
accusing
the
firm
of
covering
it
up.
According
to
that
complaint,
Radford
said
she
was
assaulted
by
Maurice
Bellan
(also
a
plaintiff
in
the
lawsuit)
and
was
terminated
by
the
firm
when
she
turned
down
the
partner’s
advances.

According
to
the

amended
complaint,
Radford
had
a
relationship
with Bellan’s
son,
Maurice
“Reece”
Alexander
Bellan.
Reece
ended
the
two-year
relationship
shortly
before
Radford
was
fired
from
the
firm
—
Baker
McKenzie
alleges
Radford
was
fired
for
misusing
the
firm
credit
card,
among
other
issues
—
and,
according
to
the
complaint,
that
confluence
of
events
led
Radford
to
target
Bellan
Sr.
with
her
false
accusations.

But
litigation
has
a
way
of
boomeranging,
and
Radford
has
now
responded
with
a
lawsuit
of
her
own.

This
latest
complaint,
available
below,
has
a
decidedly
different
spin.
Radford
alleges
Bellan
Sr.
engaged
in
a
pattern
of
sexually
inappropriate
conduct,
including
pulling
her
onto
him
on
a
couch
and
forcefully
hugging
her
on
another
occasion.
She
also
describes
an
incident
in
which
Bellan
Sr.
allegedly
left
his
hotel
room
door
open
so
colleagues
could
find
him
naked
on
the
bed,
not
exactly
the
kind
of
team-building
exercise
HR
recommends.

Radford,
representing
herself
in
both
actions,
goes
on
to
allege
Bellan
Sr.
posted
her
home
address
online,
stalked
her,
and
sent
people
to
her
residence
and
places
she
frequented.

Radford’s
complaint
also
alleges
Baker
McKenzie
“knew
of
this
sexually
harassing
conduct
and
failed
to
take
prompt,
effective,
or
reasonable
steps
to
stop
it,
prevent
it
from
reoccurring,
or
protect”
her.
She
claims
Bellan
Sr.
made
unwanted
sexual
advances,
chastised
her
after
she
told
him
she
and
his
son
“were
not
romantically
compatible,”
and
that
her
refusal
ultimately
cost
her
her
job.

Baker
McKenzie
has
not
commented
on
the
new
lawsuit,
but
previously
said
there
is”no
merit
to
Ms.
Radford’s
allegations.”
A
spokesperson
continued,
“We’ve
attempted
to
pursue
a
dialogue
to
try
to
address
her
purported
concerns,
but
she
has
not
engaged
with
these
efforts.
The
firm
takes
all
allegations
of
harassment
very
seriously
and
is
committed
to
providing
a
safe
and
inclusive
working
environment
for
all
of
our
people.”

Radford
reiterated
a
prior
statement
when
asked
for
comment,
“My
family
and
I
are
concerned
about
our
safety
and
we
are
disgusted
by
how
far
Baker
McKenzie
is
willing
to
stoop
to
protect
a
predator.”

These
very
different
stories
and
dueling
lawsuits
ensure
one
thing:
this
fight
isn’t
staying
quiet.

Earlier:

Top
Biglaw
Firm
Files
Defamation
Lawsuit
Against
Former
Associate
After
She
Made
Sexual
Assault
Allegations

Biglaw
Lawsuit
Against
Former
Associate
Is
Actually
Messy
As
Hell

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].

Two
joke
rappers
will
go
down
in
history
for
the
way
they’ve
changed
rap
history:
Weird
Al
Yankovic
for
his
Amish-themed
reinterpretation
of
Gangsta’s
Paradise
and
Aubrey
“Drake”
Graham’s
repeated
attempts
to
crawl
out
of
the
career
hole
he
landed
himself
in
after
he


asked
a
Pulitzer
Prize-winning
rapper
to
call
him
a
pedophile
and
his
opponent
obliged.

Drake,
known
mostly
for
a
phenomenal
2009
mixtape,
hijacking
DRAM’s
Cha-Cha
to

morphing
it
into
hurtboy
anthem
Hotline
Bling
and
getting

charged
with
RICO
over
gambling
and
the
play
counts
of
his
songs,
wants
the
case
to
be
revisited
because
he
believes
that
the
outcome
prevents
rap
lyrics
from
ever
being
used
in
court.

Stereogum
has
coverage:

According
to
his
legal
team’s
60-page
document,
Kendrick’s
lyrics
state
as
an
“unambiguous
matter
of
fact”
that
Drake
is
a
“certified
pedophile,”
and
Universal
“relentlessly”
promoted
the
song,
causing
Drake
significant
harm.
“The
court
effectively
created
an
unprecedented
and
overbroad
categorical
rule
that
statements
in
rap
diss
tracks
can
never
constitute
statements
of
fact,”
his
attorney
writes.
UMG’s
response
to
the
brief
is
due
March
27.

Imagine
doing
all
of
this
legal
work
to
get
a
ruling
that’s
something
like
“Yeah,
it
probably
is
a
little
broad
to
suggest
that
rap
lyrics
can
never
be
used
in
court.
That
said,
you
still
weren’t
defamed
and

that
video
of
you
openly
lusting
over
and
kissing
a
girl
you


knew
was
17
on
stage
when
you
were
24
is
still
cringe
as
hell.”
I’m
sure
there’s
a
more
judicious
way
to
state
this,
like
when
Judge
Jeannette
Vargas

described
the
allegedly
defamatory
statements
as
being
“nonactionable
opinion”
instead
of
the
far
less
judge-like
assessment
that
“The
Boy”
got
his
feelings
hurt
in
a
poem
competition
where
determining
that
a
thing
rhymes
is
more
important
than
determining
if
a
thing
is
true.
For
the
sake
of
argument,
imagine
the
legal
hellscape
the
rap
community
would
be
in
if
a
case
held
that
the
lyrics
were
presumed
truthful?
Each
and
every
artist
would
have
to
put
out
a

Lil
Tecca-styled
Verified
to
confirm
that
they
were
actually
just
joshing.
Mention
your
Audemars
one
too
many
times?
The
IRS
might
come
a-knocking.
Is
that
world
really
preferable
to
admitting
you
lost,
Drake?

Not
sure
which
is
the
crazier
gamble:
whatever
he’s
doing
with

Anita
Max
Win
or
his
repeated
double
or
nothing
bet
on
this
lawsuit.

Drake
Appeals
Dismissal
Of
Not
Like
Us
Lawsuit
[Stereogum]

Earlier:

Kendrick
Really
Is
What
The
Culture
Feeling:
Drake
Lost
The
Rap
Battle
AND
The
Court
Battle

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.

I
give
a
speech
every
semester
to
my
1Ls,
and
I
know
other
professors
do
as
well.
 You
are
not
your
grades.  I
inform
my
students
that
they
do
not
need
to
pass
by me in
the
hall and
hang
their
head
in
shame
if
they
did
not
get
an
A.
They
are
more
than
their
grade.
 They
are
a
whole
person,
and
that
grade,
based
upon
one
data
point,
does
not
draw
a
unique
picture
of
who
that
student
is
as
a
human
being.
 I’ve
written
many
letters
of
recommendation to the
point.

Chances
are,
I
don’t
know my
students’ grades.
 Unless
the
students
come
to
review
their
exams
with
me,
I
choose
not
to
look.
 If
they
do
review
their
exams,
I
focus
on
what
is
important:
 Not
the
grade
itself.
 Rather,
what
were
the
weaknesses
of
the
exam,
what
can
be
done
to
improve,
and
the
student
knowing
that
this
is
a
single
data
point,
not
their
whole
existence.
 

So,
let’s
review
some
basics
of
grading
and
what
I
mean
(I
presume
not
to
speak
for
others)
when
I say “you
are
not
your
grades.”  TLDR:
Your
grade
is
a
temporary
marker
of
the
information
you
conveyed
from
your
brain
to
the
exam.
 That
conveyance
isn’t
necessarily
what
is
in
your
head.
 And
what
is
in
your
head
at
the
time
of
exam
may
increase
over
time
as
you
continue
to
learn. 

Your
grade
is
one
data
point.
 Nothing
more.  One
of
my
coauthors
(may
he
rest
in
peace)
expressed
it
as
follows:
“An
exam
is
an
indication
of
how
you
did
that
day.”
 There
is
much
noise
to
an
exam
that
has nothing
to
do
with
your
knowledge
as
to
a
body
of
law.
 Did
you
have
a
fight
with
your
romantic
partner?
 Was
someone
you
care
about
in
the
hospital?
 Did
you
have
indigestion?
 Did
you
lack
sleep?
 Were
you
having
a
panic
attack
for
the
first
hour
of
the
exam?
 Were
you
worried
about
money
or
how
to
pay
rent?
 Were
you
able
to
afford
to
eat
before
the
exam?
 Are
you
a
slow
typist?
 There
are
many
factors
that
go
into
exam
writing
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
knowledge.
 

Even
under
perfect
conditions,
what
you
know
may
not
transfer
to
the
paper.
 You
may
have
absorbed
all
that
knowledge
but
are
unable
to
convey
it
in
an
efficient
manner
under
time
constraints.
 That
is
an
additional
step
in
learning
that
sometimes
comes
too
late
for
the
exam.
 

Your
grade
does
not
reflect
your
future
career
trajectory.
 I
often
tell
the
stories
of
students
who
did
not
excel
in
law
school
who
turned
out
to
be
excellent
attorneys.
 I
have
referred
people
who
I
care
about
to
those
attorneys.
 They
work
hard.
 They
have
empathy.
 In
many
cases,
the
lack
of
a
good
grade
was
an
impetus
to
be
better.
 

I’m
not
saying
that
students
with
great
grades
are
bad
lawyers.
They
can
be,
just
as
those
with
bad
grades
can
be
bad
lawyers.
 I’m
suggesting
that
the
correlation
between
great
grades
and
great
lawyering
isn’t
clear
cut.

Your
grade
does
not
reflect
the purpose
of
the
exam.   The
goal
of
any
exam
worth
its
salt,
in
my
opinion, is
to
continue
the learning process.
 What has
the
student learned,
and
can the
professor
make
the
student extend
it in
an
exam
format?
 An
exam
is
teaching
and
learning.

For
that
reason,
I
encourage
students
to
meet
with
their
professors
about
their
exams,
regardless
of
whether
they
got
an
“A”
or
a
“D+.”
 
The
exam
is
a
basis
to
learn
and
build
strengths
from
where
you
were
weak.
 Meeting
with
your
professors
and
finding
consistent
themes
of
weaknesses
means
remedying
a
problem
going
forward.

Sure,
some professors
actively
discourage
students
from
meeting
with
them
about
exams.
They
hide.
They
reschedule
appointments.
They say “look
at
the
sample
answer
and
figure
it
out.”
Those
are
guaranteed
ways
to
do
great
disservice
when
an
opportunity
exists
to
teach.  As
you
pay
the
overhead
for
the
place,
it’s
important
to
acquire
the
knowledge
from
the
exam
experience
you
deserve.

Your
professor
potentially
didn’t
experience
grades
like
you do.  It’s
easy
to
say
“you
are
not
your
grades”
if
you’ve
never
actually
received
any.
 For
example,
Yale
offers
the
following grading
system.
 Honors
and
Pass
are
the
most
common.
 In
most
law
schools,
grades
create
invidious
distinctions
based
upon
mandatory
grade
curves
and
caps.
 The
difference
between
an
A
and
an
A-
gets
accentuated.
 Perhaps
Yale
is
right
and
we
give
too
many
grades,
and
that
creates
fetishism
about
the
difference
between
an
A
and
an
A- and
distorts
the
purpose
of
learning.

Your
grade
does
not
reflect
who
you
are
as
a
human.
  There
are
many
more
components
to
being
a
member
of
this
profession
than
your
grade.
 Are you kind?
 Did
you
help
colleagues
when
they
needed
notes?
 Or
were
you
selfish?
 Were
you
hiding
resources
from
colleagues
instead
of
sharing?
 Did
you
constantly
talk
smack
about
your
colleagues
or
the
professor?
Did
you
blame
the
professor
for
your
grade?
 Were
you
more
interested
in
the
grade
than
understanding
and
learning?

The
answers
to
those
questions
say
more
about
you
than
your
grades
ever
will.

LawProfBlawg is
an
anonymous law professor.
Follow
him
on X/Twitter/whatever (@lawprofblawg).
He’s
also
on
BlueSky,
Mastodon,
and
Threads
depending
on
his
mood. Email
him
at [email protected]. 
The
views
of
this
blog
post
do
not
represent
the
views
of
his
employer,
his
employer’s
government,
his
Dean,
his
colleagues,
his
family,
or
himself. 

Law
firm
litigators
are
facing
a
pivotal
moment.
Caseloads
are
growing
in
complexity
and
volume
while
client
expectations
are
shifting.

Between
July
and
August
of
2025,
Ari
Kaplan
Advisors
interviewed
partners
and
attorneys
at
large
law
firms
across
the
United
States.

The
objective
of
the
research
was
to
understand
how
litigators
and
trial
lawyers
are
leveraging
technology
to
stay
ahead
in
a
rapidly
evolving
legal
environment.
It
focused
on
market
trends,
case
strategy
approaches,
the
impact
of
case
management
software,
and
AI
use
cases.

In

The
Emergence
of
Case
Strategy
Technology
as
a
Competitive
Advantage
in
an
Evolving
Litigation
Landscape,
our
friends
at
Opus
2
share
the
findings
of
this
research. 

Download
it
to
explore:

• How
  you
  can
  overcome
  challenges
  in
  developing
  a
  successful
  case
  strategy
• How
  AI
  is
  quickly
  changing
  case
  strategy
  development
• The
  emergence
  of
  case
  strategy
  technology
  as
  a
  catalyst
  for
  transformation 
• Other
  litigation
  and
  market
  trends

Get
the
report
here!

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“A
Year
Inside
Kash
Patel’s
F.B.I.:
Forty-five
current
and
former
employees
on
the
changes
they
say
are
undermining
the
agency
and
making
America
less
safe.” Emily
Bazelon
and
Rachel
Poser
have this
article online
at
The
New
York
Times
Magazine.

“Fifth
Circuit
split
on
Trump’s
use
of
Alien
Enemies
Act
to
remove
Venezuelans;
Judges
questioned
the
extent
to
which
courts
have
the
power
to
second-guess
the
president’s
invocation
of
the
18th-century
law”: Christina
van
Waasbergen
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.

“IRS
Told
Goldstein
to
Keep
Better
Gambling
Records,
Jury
Hears”: Holly
Barker
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report (subscription
required
for
full
access).

“‘The
Justices
Might
Actually
Have
to
Say
No,
Even
to
the
President’”: Law
professors Kate
Shaw, William
Baude,
and Stephen
I.
Vladeck have this
written
discussion online
at
The
New
York
Times.

“Race
looms
large
in
gun-rights
arguments
at
Supreme
Court;
The
justices
debated
post-Civil
War
‘Black
codes’
as
they
mulled
a
Hawaii
law
limiting
guns
in
public
places”: Josh
Gerstein
of
Politico
has this
report.

“Supreme
Court
conservatives
have
downplayed
Trump’s
conduct.
The
Fed
case
may
change
that.” Joan
Biskupic
of
CNN
has this
news
analysis.