Associates Are Leaving Faster Than Ever – But Let’s Be Honest, Biglaw Designed It That Way – Above the Law

Every
year,
the
NALP
Foundation
drops
its
annual Update
on
Associate
Attrition
,
and
every
year,
it
feels
like
law
firms
should
be
desperately
wringing
their
hands
over
all
those
associates
walking
out
the
door

especially
as
the
departures
hit
record
levels.
But
before
we
get
into
the
2025
numbers,
let’s
remember:
for
a
significant
portion
of
Biglaw,
associate
attrition
isn’t
a
bug.
It’s
a
feature.

Biglaw
firms
make
enormous
amounts
of
money
off
junior
and
midlevel
associates
billing
at
rates
that
have
little
to
do
with
their
actual
compensation.
Better,
from
a
pure
profit
standpoint,
to
have
a
constant
stream
of
fresh
first-
and
second-years
hungry
to
prove
themselves
than
to
accumulate
too
many
expensive
senior
associates
who
might
start
asking
uncomfortable
questions
about
the
partnership
track.
The
up-or-out
model
didn’t
become
the
industry
standard
by
accident.

The
splashy
number
this
year
is
that
a
record-breaking
83%
of
associates
who
departed
in
2025
did
so
within
five
years
of
being
hired,
up
from
2024’s
80%.
The
NALP
Foundation’s
own
Fiona
Trevelyan
calls
this
a
“talent
management
imperative”
worth
close
attention.
Which,
sure.
But
it’s
worth
asking
which
firms
are
actually
alarmed
by
that
figure
and
which
accept
it
as
business
as
usual.

The
overall
attrition
rate
landed
at
19%,
down
a
hair
from
last
year’s
20%.
The
smallest
firms
(100
or
fewer
attorneys)
still
showed
a
much
higher
rate
at
24%,
while
the
larger
cohorts
came
in
between
16%
and
18%.
The
gap
between
small
and
large
isn’t
mysterious

smaller
firms
can’t
readily
match
the
compensation
or
platform
of
their
bigger
competitors

but
it’s
also
worth
noting
that
for
a
firm
printing
money
on
associate
billing,
16–18%
annual
attrition
is
a
perfectly
calibrated
churn
rate.
Not
so
fast
it
creates
chaos,
not
so
slow
that
expensive
senior
associates
start
clogging
the
pyramid.

Here’s
the
data
point
that
actually
deserves
scrutiny:
firms
classified
47%
of
2025
associate
departures
as
“unwanted”

meaning
they
genuinely
didn’t
want
those
people
to
leave.
That’s
less
than
half.
A
substantial
27%
were
flagged
as
“desired”
departures.
In
plain
English:
more
than
one
in
four
associate
departures
in
2025
was
a
firm
quietly,
or
not
so
quietly,
showing
someone
the
door
or
at
minimum
being
perfectly
fine
watching
them
walk
out.

And
the
report
notes
that
firms
more
often
designated
lateral
associates,
male
associates,
and
associates
of
color
as
“desired”
departures
compared
to
their
entry-level,
female,
and
white
peers.
Make
of
that
what
you
will.

Associates
of
color
departed
at
a
25%
rate
versus
16%
for
White
associates

a
gap
that
has
persisted
stubbornly
across
multiple
years
of
this
report.
Associates
of
color
also
made
up
just
33%
of
2025
hires,
down
from
36%
in
2024.
So
they’re
being
hired
at
lower
rates and leaving
faster.
This
is
the
definition
of
a
leaky
pipeline,
and
no
amount
of
affinity
group
programming
is
patching
it.

On
the
hiring
side,
lateral
hires
(3,296)
outpaced
entry-level
hires
(3,039)
in
2025,
reversing
last
year’s
trend.
Firms
are
buying
experience
off
the
shelf
rather
than
growing
it,
which
makes
sense
if
your
junior
associate
factory
is
producing
people
who
leave
before
year
five
anyway.
Lateral
hires
cost
more
upfront,
especially
given
that
headhunters
and
search
firms
remain
the
top
source
for
them
at
39%,
but
firms
can
better
control
quality
and
the
practice
areas
they
grow
with
laterals.

The
boomerang
associate
trend

firms
rehiring
their
own
former
people

cooled
significantly.
In
2024,
former
associates
made
up
11%
of
all
hires.
In
2025,
just
6%.
The
share
of
firms
reporting
at
least
one
rehire
dropped
from
49%
to
44%.
Whether
that’s
fewer
former
associates
wanting
back
in,
or
fewer
firms
willing
to
take
them,
is
an
interesting
question.

For
the
first
time,
this
year’s
survey
asked
whether
a
desire
for
AI
training
or
support
influenced
associates’
decisions
to
leave
their
firms.
That’s
smart
future-proofing
on
NALP
Foundation’s
part,
because
this
is
only
going
to
become
a
bigger
factor.
Associates
who
feel
their
firms
are
dragging
their
feet
on
AI
tools
and
training
while
simultaneously
using
AI
to
justify
staffing
fewer
associates
will
not
quietly
accept
that
bargain.

The
2025
attrition
data
shows
firms
hiring
more,
losing
more,
and
doing
so
at
a
pace
their
business
model
was
more
or
less
designed
to
sustain.
The
record
early-departure
rate
is
worth
watching.
The
diversity
gap
is
inexcusable
and
persistent.
And
the
next
time
a
firm’s
managing
partner
tells
you
associate
retention
is
a
top
priority,
you
might
want
to
ask
them
what
percentage
of
their
departures
they
flagged
as
“desired.” 




Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter @Kathryn1 or
Bluesky @Kathryn1

Trump DOJ Indicts Civil Rights Group For Working To Take Down Hate Groups – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Evelyn
Hockstein/For
The
Washington
Post
via
Getty
Images)

Running
a
confidential
informant
program
inside
hate
groups
is
expensive
and
dangerous
work.
For
about
four
decades,
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
has
done
it
anyway.
Its
work
contributed
to
the
dismantling
of
the
Ku
Klux
Klan
as
a
political
force.
The
SPLC’s
work
is
so
important
that
it

routinely
shared
what
it
learned
with
the
FBI
.
On
Tuesday,
the
Trump
Justice
Department

indicted
them
for
it
.

A
federal
grand
jury
in
the
Middle
District
of
Alabama
returned

an
11-count
indictment

charging
the
SPLC
with
six
counts
of
wire
fraud,
four
counts
of
false
statements
to
a
federally
insured
bank,
and
one
count
of
conspiracy
to
commit
concealment
money
laundering.
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche,
taking
a
break
from

shielding
Epstein’s
sex
trafficking
network
from
public
scrutiny
,
announced
the
charges
alongside
FBI
Director
Kash
Patel,
whose

flimsy
defamation
lawsuit
against

The
Atlantic

has
earned
him
the
online
nickname
of
“J.
Edgar
Boozer.”

“The
SPLC
is
manufacturing
racism
to
justify
its
existence,”
Blanche
told
the
cameras.
“Using
donor
money
to
allegedly
profit
off
Klansmen
cannot
go
unchecked.”
Of
note,
the
federal
government,
through
the
DOJ
and
FBI
specifically,
have
also
paid
confidential
informants
inside
hate
groups.
Does
the
Trump
administration
manufacture
racism
to
justify
its
existence?

OK,
well,
yeah.
But
they
don’t
do
it

by
investigating
hate
groups
.
Indeed,
under
Harmeet
Dhillon’s
leadership
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Rights
Division,
its
unclear
whether
the
DOJ
even
keeps
passing
tabs
on
hate
groups
at
this
point.

Ah.
Yes.
Grand
juries
famously
go
out
and
draft
their
own
legal
theories
from
scratch
as
opposed
to
ratify
charges
that
the
DOJ
drafts.
Blanche
is
so
allergic
to
responsibility
he
won’t
even
take
credit
for
a
prosecution
he’s
holding
a
grandstanding
press
conference
to
tout.

Contrary
to
Blanche’s
thesis,
the
Ku
Klux
Klan,
the
National
Socialist
Movement,
the
National
Alliance,
or
the
Aryan
Nations-affiliated
Sadistic
Souls
Motorcycle
Club

all
groups
named
in
the
indictment

all
got
into
the
white
supremacist
business
with
zero
help
from
a
civil
rights
nonprofit.
It’s
a
beloved
reactionary
fairy
tale
that
all
these
hate
groups
wouldn’t
exist
if
it
weren’t
for
lefty
agitators
like
the
SPLC
propping
them
up
to
keep
the
donations
flowing.
It’s
a
convenient
story
for
conservatives,
because
it
allows
them
to
pawn
off
responsibility
for
the
right-wing
domestic
terrorists
living
comfortably
under
the
Republican
Party
platform
(and
collecting
the
Trump
administration’s

pardons

and

conviction
purges
).

When
it
comes
to
the
SPLC,
the
conservative
movement
wants
to
have
its
cake
and
eat
it
too.
The
civil
rights
group
is
supposedly
the

real

mastermind
behind
universally
reviled
hate
groups
like
the
Klan,
but
when
the
SPLC
flags
hate
groups
like
the
Alliance
Defending
Freedom,
the
organization
is
just
“attacking”
innocent
conservatives.
The
group,
we’re
intended
to
believe,
is
simultaneously
nefarious
and
clueless.
But
therein
lies
the
real
motive
behind
this
broadside
against
the
SPLC.
There
was
a
day
when
the
Republican
Party
tried
to
keep
the
most
radical
of
right-wing
bigots
at
arms
length.
Over
the
years,
and
accelerated
by
the
Trump
MAGA
approach,
the
GOP
has
embraced
support
from
more
radical
collections
of
bigots.
Groups
like
the
ADF
don’t
appreciate
the
well-known
“SPLC
designated
hate
group”
brand,
and
the
administration
wants
to
make
the
SPLC
pay
for
it.

The
wire
fraud
statute

a
law
with
enough
malleability
to
shame
Reed
Richards

is
being
invoked
to
claim
the
SPLC’s
donors
were
defrauded
because
they
gave
money
for
general
civil-rights-y
representations,

but

the
SPLC
spent
some
of
it
on
paid
informants
embedded
in
violent
extremist
groups.
The
DOJ
argues
that
the
SPLC
kept
those
payments
off
the
books,
routed
through
shell
companies,
to
keep
donors
in
the
dark,
as
opposed
to,
for
example,
KEEPING
THOSE
SOURCES
ALIVE.


Grand
Wizard:
Hey,
Cletus,
what’s
that
check
you’ve
got
there?
Cletus:
Oh,
um,
this
one…
it’s
nothing.
Grand
Wizard:
Why
does
it
say
“Southern
Poverty
Law
Center?”

Understanding
why
this
would
be
a
poor
strategy
is
beyond
Kash
Patel’s
crackerjack
sleuthing
skills.

If
you
donated
money
to
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center
and
did
not
think
that
it
supported
gathering
inside
intelligence
on
hate
groups,
then
you
are
a
special
kind
of
naive.
The
SPLC’s
dossiers
on
these
groups
establish
that
they’ve
got
more
information
on
these
secretive
groups
than
a
Wikipedia
search
turns
up.
This
“undisclosed
to
donors”
framing
only
works
if
you
assume
a
reasonable
person
donating
to
an
organization
known
for
infiltrating
hate
groups
expects
a
line-item
disclosure
of
how
much
it
spends
every
year
on
confidential
informants
in
each
specific
organization.

Patel
was
pointedly
asked
at
the
presser
about
the
SPLC
sharing
information
with
law
enforcement.
He
shrugged
that
he
was
“not
surprised”
the
SPLC
“never
told
anybody
that
they
were
paying
off
the
Ku
Klux
Klan.”
This
is
not
an
answer
the
actual
question
posed,
and
that
was
almost
certainly
by
design.
Of
course,
as
SPLC’s
interim
CEO
Bryan
Fair
pointed
out,
the
organization
“frequently
shared
what
we
learned
from
informants
with
local
and
federal
law
enforcement,
including
the
FBI.”
In
bringing
this
prosecution,
the
DOJ
is
burning
a
long-standing,
successful
vector
of
actionable
intelligence
into
hate
groups
in
order
to
kneecap
a
civil
rights
organization.
It
fits
perfectly
within
Patel’s
publicly
stated
priority
to

pursue
social
media
buzz
over
terrorists
.

In
reality,
Patel
is
well
aware
of
the
SPLC’s
cooperation
with
the
FBI.
He’s
even
got
a
draft
report

seen
by
CBS
News

laying
the
groundwork
to
claim

that
the
SPLC’s
intel
was
all
false
and
designed
to
hurt
“Christians”
:

In
a
draft
report
from
a
task
force
on
“anti-Christian
bias”
that
CBS
News
has
seen,
Patel
accused
the
SPLC
and
the
Anti-Defamation
League
of
providing
the
bureau
with
“false
information.”
He
said
analysts
used
that
information
to
generate
an
internal
intelligence
memo
that
raised
concerns
about
a
possible
link
between
racially
or
ethnically
motivated
violent
extremists
and
radical
Catholic
ideology.

And
yet,
the
indictment
sure
seems
to
be
based
on
information
from
the
SPLC
that
the
DOJ
considers
very
reliable!
The
document
includes
details
about
the
activities
of
several
anonymized
informants

presumably
informants
that
the
government
is
leaning
on
to
flip
against
the
SPLC

and
it
strains
credulity
to
imagine
the
DOJ
uncovered
these
people
from
anything
but
information
the
SPLC
previously
conveyed
to
the
FBI.

F-9
was
affiliated
with
the
neo-Nazi
organization,
the
National
Alliance
and
served
as
an
F
for
the
SPLC
for
more
than
20
years.
F-9’s
activities
included
fundraising
for
the
National
Alliance.
Between
2014
and
2023,
the
SPLC
secretly
paid
F-9
more
than
$1,000,000.00.
In
2014,
F-9
entered
the
headquarters
of
a
violent
extremist
group
and
stole
25
boxes
of
their
documents.
F-9
coordinated
payment
for
the
copying
of
the
materials
with
a
high-level
SPLC
employee
who
had
knowledge
the
documents
had
been
stolen.
The
original
stolen
materials
were
returned
to
the
violent
extremist
group
in
a
second
illegal
entry
by
F-9.
Thereafter,
the
high-level
SPLC
employee
utilized
the
documents,
in
part,
as
the
basis
for
a
story
published
on
the
SPLC’s
Hatewatch
website
and
authored
by
the
employee.
Another
F,
F-39,
was
blamed
for
the
theft
and
was
paid
approximately
$6,000.00
by
the
SPLC
to
falsely
take
responsibility
for
the
theft.

That
sure
reads
like,
“the
SPLC
gave
the
FBI
these
documents
and
told
us
they’d
secured
them
from
an
informant,
and
that’s
how
we
know
they
have
an
informant
within
the
National
Alliance.”

Even
with
all
the
latitude
the
government
has
under
these
statutes,
the
legal
theory
outlined
in
the
indictment
is
tenuous.
But
this
is
beside
the
point,
because
even
if
this
case
eventually
collapses,
the
DOJ
already
got
what
it
came
for.

The
indictment
explicitly
puts
a
number
of
hate
groups
on
notice
that
they
have
moles
inside
their
organizations,
allowing
them
to
begin
reverse-engineering
the
identities
of
their
leaks.
The
DOJ
materially
improved
the
ability
of
these
hate
groups
to
operate
and
put
any
existing
informants
in
grave
danger.
Any
groups
not
included
in
the
indictment
will
also
take
a
hard
look
at
their
ranks
to
see
if
they’ve
got
informants
that
the
DOJ
missed.

Moreover,
the
indictment
serves
as
a
deterrent.
Anyone
currently
considering
turning
on
their
violent
extremist
group
or
contemplating
joining
a
group
to
help
expose
it
will
now
lack
both
a
financial
incentive
and
face
as
a
serious
disincentive
the
likelihood
that
the
Justice
Department
will
expose
them.
This
chilling
effect
is
a
feature
and
not
a
bug.
The
indictment
severely
curtails
the
SPLC’s
hate-mapping
work,
removing
an
irritant
for
groups
that
the
MAGA
movement
hopes
will
be
prepared
to
run
back
January
6.

But
there
is
one
encouraging
aspect
of
the
indictment:

F-37
was
a
member
of
the
online
leadership
chat
group
that
planned
the
2017
“Unite
the
Right”
event
in
Charlottesville,
Virginia
and
attended
the
event
at
the
direction
of
the
SPLC.
F-37
made
racist
postings
under
the
supervision
of
the
SPLC
and
helped
coordinate
transportation
to
the
event
for
several
attendees.
Between
2015
and
2023,
the
SPLC
secretly
paid
F-37
more
than
$270,000.00.

Oh.
The
administration
considers
the
Unite
the
Right
rally
organizers
a
hate
group
now?
A
little
bit
of
growth
from
very
fine
people
on
both
sides
,”
I
guess!


(Indictment
on
the
next
page…)




HeadshotJoe
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
.

It’s Time To Submit Your Entries For Above The Law’s 17th Annual Law Revue Video Contest! – Above the Law

Spring
has
sprung,
and
you
know
what
that
means:
we’re
now
seeking
submissions
for
our
annual law
revue
video
contest
.
As
far
as
last
year’s
submissions
are
concerned,
some
of
them
were
funny,
some
of
them
were
“meh,”
and
some
of
them
made
us
want
to
close
our
heads
inside
of
our
laptops.
Trust
us
when
we
say
you
do
NOT
want
to
be
in
the
last
category.

If
you
think
you
can
carry
a
tune
or
tell
a
joke,
we
ask
that
you
send
us
your
very
best
law
revue
videos
so
that
we

and
the
Above
the
Law
audience

may
pass
judgment
upon
them.
Prepare
for
the
worst,
but
hope
for
the
very
best.

Those
responsible
for
the
winning
video
will
get
Above
the
Law
prizes
and
the
pleasure
of
knowing
they’re
the
envy
of
their
law
school
peers.
As
always,
there
will
be
complete
and
total
exoneration
for
the
losers.
There’s
always
next
year.

Before
you
start
sending
us
your
videos,
we’ve
got
some
rules.
As
future
members
of
the
legal
profession,
we
hope
you’ll
be
able
to
follow
them.

  1. Your
    video
    must
    be publicly
    available
    online
     somewhere.
    Send
    us
    the
    link
    at [email protected] with
    the
    subject
    line “Law
    Revue
    Video
    Contest
    Submission

    [School
    Name].”
     We’ll
    accept
    submissions
    of
    any
    videos
    posted
    after
    April
    25,
    2025
    (the
    deadline
    for
    our
    last
    contest).
  2. To
    avoid
    complaints
    from
    competitors
    (see,
    e.g., West
    Virginia’s
    2013
    winning
    entry
    ),
    your
    primary
    performers
    must
    come
    from
    within
    the
    law
    school
    community
    (but
    cameos
    from
    outsiders
    are
    okay).
    How
    do
    we
    define
    a
    “primary
    performer”?
    Don’t
    test
    us,
    gunners.
    We’ll
    know
    a
    violation
    when
    we
    see
    it.
  3. Send
    us
    your
    submission
    by FRIDAY,
    MAY
    1,
    at
    5:00
    P.M.
     (Eastern
    time).
    That’s
    not
    a
    soft,
    law
    school
    deadline;
    it’s
    a
    hard,
    law
    firm
    deadline.
    (NO
    EXCEPTIONS
    ,
    so
    don’t
    even
    try
    pleading
    with
    us;
    if
    you’re
    reading
    this
    post
    after
    the
    deadline,
    you
    don’t
    read
    ATL
    frequently
    enough.)
  4. Your
    editors
    here
    at
    ATL
    will
    make
    a
    list
    of
    our
    favorites,
    the
    competition
    finalists,
    and
    post
    them.
  5. We
    will NOT watch
    videos
    longer
    than 5
    minutes
    .
    Use
    editing
    tools,
    people.
  6. Please
    submit no
    more
    than
    two
    entries
    per
    school
     (one
    per
    school
    is
    even
    better).
    Try
    to
    collaborate
    with
    your
    fellow
    students
    and
    submit
    no
    more
    than
    two
    entries.
    If
    the
    leadership
    of
    Law
    Revue
    can
    come
    up
    with
    “official”
    submissions,
    that
    would
    be
    ideal.
  7. ATL
    readers
    will
    then
    vote
    to
    choose
    the
    funniest
    of
    the
    finalists.
    The
    winning
    team
    will
    receive
    ATL
    prizes
    (limit
    five
    prizes).

Here
are
some
unofficial
rules:

  • Please
    send
    funny
    videos
    only.
  • You
    have
    no
    idea
    how
    short
    our
    attention
    spans
    are.
    If
    you
    use
    the
    full
    five
    minutes,
    it
    better
    be
    absolutely
    freakin’ HILARIOUS.
  • Gratuitous
    shout-outs
    to
    Above
    the
    Law
    are
    appreciated
    and
    encouraged.
  • Video
    quality
    matters.
    A
    shaky
    clip
    shot
    on
    a
    handheld
    from
    a
    third-floor
    balcony
    is
    probably
    not
    going
    to
    make
    the
    cut.
  • Don’t
    make
    us
    hate
    you.

Send
those
videos
in.
Best
of
luck

we
have
a
feeling
the
competition
will
be
even
fiercer
than
usual,
so
you’re
going
to
need
it!!!
We
look
forward
to
judging
you.





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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Jonathan Turley Goes Full Tin Foil Hat About Viktor Orban Loss – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Bonnie
Cash-Pool/Getty
Images)

Jonathan
Turley
says
the
darnedest
things.
He
fully
embraced
the
“hot
take”
economy,
mortgaging
his
credibility
as
a
law
professor
to
parrot
whatever
half-baked
talking
points
might
earn
him
a
5-minute
hit
as
a
cable
news
talking
head
for
the
night.
Election
law
attorney
Marc
Elias
dubbed
Turley
Mike
Lindell
with
tenure
,”
which
is
funny,
but
always
seemed
a
tad
unfair.
Turley’s
takes
oscillate
between

ragebait
cynicism

and

comical
dullardry
.
Even
his
most
conspiratorial
takes

like
swallowing
hook,
line,
and
sinker
the
wingnut
theories
about
Hunter
Biden’s
laptop

carried
a
faux
intellectual
energy,
that
separated
him
from
the
frothing
conspiracy
theory
vibe
that
the
MyPillow
guy
brings
to
everything.

But
that
tenuous
grip
on
reality
seems
to
be
slipping,
as
the
professor
delivers
his
contrarian
love
letter
to
the
recently
deposed
Viktor
Orban.
Sure,
Orban
had
ties
to
Putin
and
a
reputation
for
“authoritarianism
and
corruption,”
Turley
concedes,
but
the
Hungarian
prime
minister
formed
the

last
firewall
against
“global
governance,”

a
term
Turley
invokes
with
all
the
tin
foil,
black
helicopter
baggage
you’d
expect
from
Alex
Jones,
not
a
GW
Law
professor.

Maybe
he
really
is
as
cooked
as
Lindell.

The
defeat
of
Viktor
Orban
in
Hungary
last
weekend
was
celebrated
by
many
who
saw
the
former
president
as
establishing
single-party
rule
in
his
central
European
nation.
The
irony
is
that
this
claimed
victory
for
democracy
may
fuel
the
establishment
of
a
global
governance
system
that
is
neither
democratic
nor
accountable
to
citizens.

Orban
was
the
prime
minister,
not
the
president.

Turley
is
no
stranger
to
publishing
articles
with
basic
factual
errors.
He
once
penned
a
New
York
Post
article

accusing
Joe
Biden
of
abusing
his
office
as
Vice
President…
in
2018
.
But
kudos
to
Turley
for
properly
setting
the
audience’s
expectations
for
the
intellectual
rigor
to
follow.

However,
the
unintended
consequence
of
this
election
could
be
the removal
of
a
single
autocrat
in
favor
of
a
global
bureaucracy.

Now
by
“global,”
Turley
means
the
European
Union.
If
you’re
a
student
of
the
English
language,
you’ve
probably
clocked
that
Europe
is
not
“the
globe,”
and
a
regional
intergovernmental
body
regulating
member
nations
in
Europe
is
very
specifically

not

a
global
bureaucracy.

In
“Rage
and
the
Republic,”
I
discuss
the
dangers
posed
to
the
American
republic
this
century
by
the
rise
of
global
governance
systems
like
the
EU.
The
book
explores
how
globalists
planned
to
gradually
get
nations
to
yield
their
authority
to
the
EU

destroying
national
identity
and
sovereignty
in
favor
of
an
EU
bureaucracy
in
Brussels.

He’s
citing
his
book
about
America’s
founding
without
a
hint
of
irony.
The
path
the
United
States
took
to
becoming
a
world
superpower
was
charted
by
“destroying
state
identity
and
sovereignty
in
favor
of
a
federal
bureaucracy
in
Washington.”
The
EU
isn’t
a
globalist
government,
it’s
an
attempt
to
turn
the
historically
fractured
continent
into
a
modern
economic
power
by
borrowing
the
same
federalist
principles
that
made
America
successful.

As
the
EU
moves
to
kill
off
national
sovereignty,
EU
commissioners
are
calling
for
a
single
European
military
command,
completing
a
longstanding
globalist
goal.

Like
the
Holy
Roman
Empire,
this
is
neither
longstanding,
nor
globalist,
nor
a
goal.
To
the
extent
Europe
is
flirting
with
military
coordination,
it’s
a
recent
development
brought
on
by
the
Dementia-Patient-in-Chief
that
Turley
has

spent
the
last
decade
fluffling
.
That’s
the
guy
who
publicly
threatens
to
cut
off
Europe’s
military
support,
abandon
the
continent
to
Russian
imperialism,
and

and,
this
is
a
real
sentence
one
has
to
type
in
the
year
2026

invade
Greenland.
Europe
never
needed
a
single
military
command
because
NATO
worked.
Cause,
meet
effect.

The
250th
anniversary
of
our
republic
is
occurring
as
we
face
an
unprecedented
EU
threat.
Our
revolution
was
fought
against
a
foreign
empire.
It
now
faces
an
even
greater
threat
from
a
global
government
asserting
the
right
to
compel
American
companies
to
censor
Americans
and
comply
with
environmental,
social
and
governance
or
ESG
policies.

ESG
policies
pose
“an
even
greater
threat”
to
America
than
the
British
Empire.
This
is
not
a
serious
person.

Newsflash
about
this
terrifying
“global”
threat:
American
companies
don’t
have
to
do
business
in
Europe!
If
Meta
and
X
or
any
of
the
other
persecuted
trillion-dollar
companies
don’t
want
to
comply
with
European
rules
while
operating
inside
Europe,
they
are
free
to
not
operate
inside
Europe.
That
is
how
sovereignty

the
thing
Turley
claims
he’s
worried
about

actually
works.
You
can’t
simultaneously
argue
that
sovereign
nations
shouldn’t
have
to
follow
EU
rules
and
that
sovereign
European
nations
shouldn’t
be
allowed
to
make
rules
for
the
companies
doing
business
within
their
borders.
Pick
a
lane,
bro.

The
EU
has
worked
very
hard
to
dismantle
national
sovereignty
and
identity
in
its
member
states.
Historically,
such
collapses
have
been
followed
by
different
forms
of
tyranny.

Well,
we’re
at
250
years
and
running.

Turley’s
thirsty
quest
for
attention
has
long
centered
on
the
Fox
News,
NY
Post,
and
The
Hill
axis
of
conservative
politics,
where
he
postures
as
a
“Democrat”
who
happens
to
validate
Republican
talking
points
by
wholly
agreeing
with
them.
It’s
a
right-wing
audience,
but
not
really
a
QAnon
audience.
But
this
“global
governance”
kick

he
uses
some
version
of
“global”
10
times
in
this
piece

is
chemtrails
and
one-world
government
stuff.
So
the
question
is:
has
Turley
gone
full
loon
or
has
the
Fox
audience
become
so
indistinguishable
from
Infowars
(pre-Onion)
that
Turley
has
just
accepted
that
this
is
now
price
he
has
to
pay
to
keep
in
that
spotlight?


Post-Orban,
the
EU
poses
an
even
greater
threat
to
US
sovereignty

[The
Hill]




HeadshotJoe
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
.

Policy Expert Believes CMS is Taking “Adversial Posture” to Medicare Advantage – MedCity News

At
the
annual

Medicarians

conference
in
Las
Vegas
on
Monday,
an
analyst
on
Medicare
Advantage
policy
research
sounded
the
alarm
about
how
there’s
a
fundamental
shift
in
attitude
towards
MA
at
the
federal
level.
It’s
a
combination
of
several
factors:
deep
concerns
over
overpayment
and
fraud,
resulting
in
legislative
and
political
scrutiny
on
insurers;

3
million
seniors
losing
their
MA
coverage

in
2026
because
health
insurers
pulled
out
of
their
counties;
and
large
and
small
public
insurance
companies
faring
badly
at
the
stock
market.

Especially
at
the
Centers
for
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Services,
overpayments
have
become
a
sticking
point.

“CMS
has
begun
shifting
to,
I
think
a
more
adversarial
posture
when
it
comes
to
how
they
view
Medicare
Advantage,”
said
Tom
Kornfield,
founder
and
CEO
of
MAST
Health
Policy
Solutions.
“And
that’s
before
we
even
get
into
what
happens
under
an
election
season,
which
is
when
the
rhetoric
gets
turned
up
to
11,
to
quote
Spinal
Tap.”

The

Medicarians
conference

brings
together
healthcare
and
life
insurance
brokers,
agents,
owners
of
brokerages
as
well
as
independent
marketing
organizations
and
field
marketing
organizations
that
serve
as
a
liaison
between
an
insurance
carrier
and
an
agent.
The
attendees
are
united
by
the
single
goal
of
understanding
the
needs
of
seniors
and
fulfilling
those
needs
by
selling
insurance
products

whether
health
or
financial

to
them.
The
conference
also
draws
agents
and
companies
involved
in
the
Affordable
Care
Act
marketplace.

Kornfield
said
that
CMS’s
scrutiny
is
also
falling
on
Chronic
Care
Special
Needs
Plans.

“The
concern
about
them
from
CMS
is
that
they
are
bypassing
some
of
the
requirements
for
the
Dual
Eligible
Special
Needs
Plan,”
he
declared.
“So
I
think
we
could
see
some
activity
on
that
front.”

He
added
that,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
the
midterms

especially
if
Democrats
win

he
expects
to
see
a
lot
of
activity
in
terms
of
regulation
and
legislative
changes
affecting
MA.

While
more
seniors
are
enrolled
in
MA
plans
today
compared
with
traditional
Medicare,
enrollment
in
MA
plans
is
slowing
across
the
board,

except
in
Special
Needs
Plans
or
SNPs
.
In
2021,
MA
enrollment
was
at
11%;
in
2026
it
was
3%.

Whether
CMS
and
other
federal
agencies
are
zeroing
in
on
fraud
or
controlling
overpayment,
a
lot
of
the
negative
headlines
about
MA
stem
from
the
fact
that
year
after
year,
costs
keep
going
up.
The
latest

MedPAC

report
shows
that
MA
payments
were
$76
billion
above
what
spending
would
have
been
if
those
same
seniors
were
enrolled
in
traditional
Medicare
instead.

And
that
is
especially
hard
to
stomach
given
that
when
Medicare
Advantage
was
conceived
legislatively,
it
was
not
only
to
provide
more
choice
to
seniors
but
also
to
hold
down
healthcare
costs
that
are
funded
by
taxpayer
dollars.

But
the
scrutiny
is
not
only
about
the
cost
of
MA.

“So
there
are
the
MedPAC
numbers
that
I
mentioned,
and
there’s
also
been
increased
scrutiny
by
the
administration
of
what
they
think
is
waste
going
on
within
the
Medicare
Advantage
plans
or
fraud
even
with
risk
adjustment,
data
validation
audits,
which
is
where
they
go
in,
review
medical
records,
see
if
that
diagnosis
is
supported
by
the
medical
record,”
Kornfield
pointed
out.

Other
than
ballooning
costs,
the
national
souring
on
MA
also
has
to
do
with
activity
of
health
insurance
marketing
organizations,
even
though
Kornfield
was
careful
not
to
castigate
his
audience
members,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
whom
were
agents
and
brokers.

“During
Covid,
unfortunately,
not
trying
to
assign
blame,
but
because
of
the
probably
call
center-related
[issues],
there
were
plenty
of
complaints
about
marketing
and
that
got
the
attention
of
people
on
the
Hill
and
that’s
a
real
problem.,”
he
said.
“And
that
may
not
be
as
big
of
a
problem
now,
but
I
think
there’s
still
a
hangover
from
that.”

All
in
all,
the
MA
market
is
in
the
middle
of
a
fundamental
shift.

“Medicare
Advantage
is
really
at
an
inflection
point,”
Kornfield
declared.
“So
this
isn’t
really
a
rough
patch.
It’s
not
a
cycle.
It’s
really
a
reset.”

Will
this
dynamic
shift
depend
on
the
outcome
of
midterms?
Will
it
be
better
for
brokers,
insurers
and
the
MA
industry
if
Democrats
sweep
the
midterms
or
Republicans
are
able
to
hold
the
line?

“I
would
think
that
the
Democratic
Congress
would
be
much
more
active
in
bringing
the
health
plans
up
there,”
Kornfield
said.
“There
is
concern
about
the
size
of
these
large-scale
companies,
these
insurers,
UnitedHealthcare.
There’s
been
a
lot
of
negative
publicity
about
the
health
insurers.”

But
the
host
of
the
compliance
track
where
Kornfield
was
speaking
saw
it
differently.
He
saw
equal
concern
from
both
sides
of
the
aisle.

“They
want
to
see
the
cost
to
the
taxpayer
of
Medicare
Advantage
as
a
program
go
down,
and
this
is
Democrats
and
Republicans,
guys
don’t
get
confused,”
Steve
Kaplan,
chief
legal,
compliance,
and
privacy
officer,
at
HealthPlanOne,
told
the
audience.
“And
so
they’re
like,
‘How
can
agents
and
brokers
help?’”


Source:
sesame,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket: 04.22.26 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
announces
that
it
has
secured
an
indictment
of
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center,
alleging
the
organization
supported
hate
groups
by
using
funds
to
pay
people
to
infiltrate
those
hate
groups

which,
ironically,
is
something
the
DOJ
historically
does.
[AP
News

*
Fifth
Circuit
rules
that
states
can
force
public
schools
to
hang
the
Ten
Commandments.
When
asked
about
the
ample
historical
record
that
Americans
at
the
time
the
First
Amendment
was
ratified
would
have
rejected
this
result,
the
originalists
on
the
court
declared
that
“original”
is
not
a
matter
of
“fact”
but
a
judge’s
individual
legal
assessment.
[Reuters]

*
Do
the
leaked
Supreme
Court
memos
really
show
Roberts
at
his
worst?
Because

Shelby
County

exists.
[Slate]

*
Have
advances
in
AI
threatened
the
legacy
legal
research
companies?
[Legaltech
News
]

*
Another
law
school
ranking
is
right
around
the
corner.
[Law.com]

*
Roblox
settles
with
the
West
Virginia
AG’s
office
for
$11.5
million.
The
state
wants
more
child
safety
protections
in
the
video
game.
Last
year
West
Virginia
loosened
its
child
labor
laws.
Yearning
for
the
real
mines
is
good,
building
them
on
the
computer
is
bad.
[Law360]

*
Judge
who
handcuffed
child
in
Texas
has
charges
dropped
provided
she
never
attempts
to
judge
again.
[ABA
Journal
]

You Don’t Always Get What You Pay For – See Also – Above the Law

Multibillion-Dollar
Firm
Caught
Up
On
AI
Hallucinations:
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
needs
to
up
their
editing
process.
Who
Exactly
Wrote
Kash’s
Complaint?:
The
$250M
lawsuit
looks
like
it
has
AI
ink
all
over
it.
Racing
To
Employment:
Law
school
shifts
academic
program
to
the
fall
to
account
for
Biglaw
hiring
schedules.
No
Longer
Optional:
Mississippi
School
of
Law
now
requires
that
students
learn
to
use
AI.
The
T10
Of
Design:
These
schools
have
some
of
the
best
law
school
buildings!

Meet The New Prosecutor On The Brennan Case. He Already Called The Defendant A ‘Real Traitor.’ – Above the Law

John
Brennan
(Photo
by:
William
B.
Plowman/NBC/NBC
Newswire/NBCUniversal
via
Getty
Images)

Let’s
talk
about
a
pattern,
because
at
this
point
it’s
too
clear
to
ignore.

You’re
a
career
federal
prosecutor.
You’ve
been
handed
a
politically
charged
case

one
the
president
of
the
United
States
has
loudly
demanded
result
in
criminal
charges
against
a
high-profile
political
enemy.
You
review
the
evidence.
You
conclude,
professionally
and
in
good
faith,
that
the
evidence
doesn’t
support
charges.
You
tell
your
superiors.
You
get
fired.

Then
a
loyalist
comes
in
and
charges
the
target
anyway,
which
gets
unraveled
by
the
application
of
basic
legal
standards.

We
have
watched
this
happen
already.
And
now,
it
looks
like
the
Department
of
Justice
wants
to
run
it
back.


CNN
reported
Friday
 that
Maria
Medetis
Long,
the
career
national
security
prosecutor
in
Miami
who
had
been
leading
the
criminal
investigation
into
former
CIA
Director
John
Brennan,
was
removed
from
the
case.
The
reason? The
Associated
Press
confirmed
 she
had
told
her
superiors
she
didn’t
believe
there
was
sufficient
evidence
to
support
a
criminal
prosecution.

Her
successor? CNN
reported
Saturday
 that
the
DOJ
has
brought
in
Joseph
diGenova,
an
81-year-old
attorney,
longtime
Trump
surrogate,
Fox
News
and
Newsmax
regular,
and
member
of
Trump’s
2020
election-overturn
legal
team,
to
take
over
as
“counselor
to
the
attorney
general”
on
the
Brennan
investigation.
He
will
be
working
out
of
Fort
Pierce,
Florida.

If
you’re
wondering
why
Fort
Pierce
specifically…
well,
that’s
where
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
sits.
Yes, that Judge
Cannon.
The
same
judge
who
dismissed
Jack
Smith’s
classified
documents
indictment
of
Trump
on
Appointments
Clause
grounds

a
ruling
that,
as
we’ll
discuss,
has
some
uncomfortable
implications
for
the
current
situation.

The
DOJ
spokesperson,
when
asked
about
removing
a
seasoned
career
prosecutor
from
one
of
the
country’s
most
sensitive
political
cases,
described
it
as
“healthy
and
normal.”
That’s…
one
way
to
describe
swapping
out
the
lead
prosecutor
on
a
case
because
she
concluded
there
wasn’t
enough
evidence.

The
investigation
stems
from a
2023
referral
from
the
Republican-led
House
Judiciary
Committee
,
specifically,
from
Chairman
Jim
Jordan,
alleging
that
Brennan
lied
to
Congress
about
whether
the
CIA
relied
on
the
so-called
Steele
dossier
when
drafting
the
2017
Intelligence
Community
Assessment
that
found
Russia
interfered
in
the
2016
election
to
help
Trump.
Brennan
denies
it.
The
Steele
dossier,
for
the
uninitiated,
contained
salacious
and
largely
unverified
allegations
against
then-candidate
Trump,
and
conservatives
have
spent
years
arguing
it
was
the
shadowy
engine
that
drove
the
entire
Russia
investigation.
That
claim
is,
to
put
it
mildly,
disputed.

This
is
not
a
new
grievance
for
Trump

it’s
one
of
his
longest-standing
political
obsessions.
For
months,
the
DOJ
has
been
pursuing
charges
against
Brennan
with
increasing
urgency,
particularly
after Trump
fired
Pam
Bondi
as
Attorney
General
in
part
because
of
frustration

that
she
hadn’t
successfully
prosecuted
enough
political
enemies.

Running
the
department
now
is
Todd
Blanche,
Trump’s
former
personal
defense
attorney
who,
at
his
first
press
conference
as
acting
AG,
told
reporters
the
DOJ
was
not
focused
on
going
after
Trump’s
political
opponents,
while
literally
overseeing
a
sprawling
set
of
investigations
into
Trump’s
political
opponents. NBC
News
noted
 that
Blanche
has
publicly
stated
Trump
has
“the
right
to
be
involved
in
seeking
investigations
against
people
he
has
had
issues
with.”
That
framing
alone
drew
sharp
criticism
from
legal
ethics
experts.

So,
who
*is*
diGenova?
DiGenova
represented
Trump’s
campaign
in
its
efforts
to
overturn
the
2020
election
results,
and
has
spent
years
on
cable
news
calling
John
Brennan
“real
traitor”
 and
demanding
criminal
charges
against
him,
which
makes
him

a
choice

for
the
prosecutor
overseeing
the
case
against
Brennan.
He
also,
in
2020,

said
on
television

that
Christopher
Krebs

the
cybersecurity
official
who
confirmed
the
election
was
secure

should
be “drawn
and
quartered”
and
“shot.”
 He
later
apologized
after
Krebs
alleged
the
comments
inspired
death
threats
against
him.

He
has
not
worked
as
a
prosecutor
in
decades

his
last
stint
was
as
U.S.
Attorney
for
D.C.
under
Reagan
in
the
1980s,
and
he
did
a
few
counsel
investigations
in
the
90s.
His
wife,

Victoria
Toensing
,
is
also
a
prominent

pro-Trump
legal
commentator
,
which
is
very
normal
for
someone
now
heading
a
major
federal
investigation.

The
last
time
Trump
demanded
prosecutions
of
political
enemies,
installed
a
loyalist
to
bring
them,
and
bypassed
the
concerns
of
career
prosecutors,
the
results
were
catastrophic
for
the
administration’s
legal
credibility. Erik
Siebert,
the
(now
former)
U.S.
attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia,

stood
by
his
career
lawyers’
judgment

that
the
cases
against
James
Comey
and
Letitia
James
lacked
sufficient
evidence.
Trump
fired
him.
Lindsey
Halligan,
installed
as
a
loyalist
replacement,
promptly
secured
indictments
against
both.

But
it
wasn’t
a
happy
ending
for
MAGAland.
A
federal
judge
went
on
to
throw
both
cases
out,
concluding
that
Halligan
had
been
unlawfully
appointed. The
result
was
worse
than
no
prosecution
at
all —
a
public
embarrassment
that
handed
critics
a
ready-made
argument
about
politicized
justice,
and
let
both
Comey
and
James
walk
away
looking
like
victims.

The
formal
legal
authority
and
office
structure
for
diGenova’s
title
have
not
been
publicly
detailed. Given
that
Judge
Cannon
herself

the
very
judge
in
whose
courthouse
this
grand
jury
sits

previously
dismissed
an
indictment
because
she
concluded
the
appointment
of
a
special
prosecutor
violated
the
Appointments
Clause,
defense
lawyers
in
the
Brennan
case
already
have
a
well-lit
roadmap
for
a
constitutional
challenge
that

could

unwind
any
indictment
diGenova
might
produce.
Of
course,
Cannon
is

more
political
hack
than
disciplined
jurist
,
should
it
come
to
it,
don’t
hold
your
breath
expecting
her
to
apply
the
made-up
standard
in
a
way
that
hurts
Trump’s
personal
priorities.

Maria
Medetis
Long
was
not
a
political
appointee.
She
was
not
a
“resistance”
figure.
She
was
a
career
national
security
prosecutor
in
Miami

someone
who
had
spent
years
working
these
cases

and
she
told
her
superiors,
professionally,
that
she
didn’t
think
there
was
enough
evidence
to
bring
charges.
That
judgment
was
not
rewarded
with
a
respectful
disagreement.
It
was
punished
with
removal.

The
message
that
sends
to
every
career
federal
prosecutor
still
at
the
Department

and
it’s
not
subtle

is
that
the
professional
standard
is
no
longer
“follow
the
evidence.”
It
is
“reach
the
conclusion
leadership
wants,
or
be
replaced
by
someone
who
will.”


Earlier:


The
Courts
Did
Their
Job.
Will
The
State
Bar
Finally
Do
Something
About
Lindsey
Halligan?


Lindsey
Halligan
Resolves
To
Embarrass
Herself
At
SCOTUS
In
2026


Botched
No
Bill
For
Tish
James
Reveals
Halligan’s
Case
Is
Bullshit


Lindsey
Halligan
Humiliated
In
Court.
Again.


Lindsey
Halligan
Manages
To
Lose
Two
Cases
At
Once,
Which
Is
Honestly
Impressive


Lindsey
Halligan’s
Day
In
Court


Lindsey
Halligan’s
Math
Ain’t
Mathin’


Comey
Files
Motions
To
Dismiss
For
MA’AM
DO
YOU
EVEN
LAW?


The
Tish
James
Indictment
Looks
Like
Country-Fried
BS


James
Comey
Taps
Small
Law
To
Defend
Him
Against
Witch
Hunt




Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her

with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1
 or
Bluesky

@Kathryn1

Why Your Story, Engagement, And Empathy Matter More Than Ever – Above the Law

In
this
session,
I
sit
down
with
Megan
Hargroder,
founder
of
Legends
Legal
Marketing,
to
unpack
what
truly
builds
trust
in
today’s
legal
marketplace.

In
an
era
where
clients
research
lawyers
long
before
making
contact,
credibility
is
no
longer
built
in
the
first
meeting.
It
is
built
online,
through
story,
presence,
and
authenticity.

The
conversation
centers
on
how
lawyers
can
create
connection,
earn
visibility,
and
position
themselves
as
trusted
advocates
before
a
client
ever
picks
up
the
phone.


Your
Why:
Connect
Through
Stories
and
Build
Trust

Megan
emphasizes
that
trust
begins
with
realness.
When
lawyers
share
their
story
and
the
reason
behind
their
work,
clients
see
themselves
reflected
in
that
narrative.

Clients
are
not
simply
hiring
legal
skill.
They
are
looking
for
alignment,
empathy,
and
shared
values.
Storytelling
bridges
that
gap.


Why
Real
Engagement
Beats
Old
SEO
Tricks

Megan
explains
that
search
visibility
has
evolved.
The
era
of
shortcuts
and
technical
manipulation
is
fading.
Search
engines
and
AI
platforms
are
increasingly
prioritizing
real
engagement.

If
people
are
visiting
your
website,
staying
on
it,
interacting
with
your
content,
and
leaving
reviews,
those
are
the
signals
that
matter.


How
Empathy
and
Authority
Drive
Client
Decisions

What
makes
a
lawyer
feel
trustworthy
before
the
first
conversation
ever
happens?
Megan
answers
directly.
It
comes
down
to
empathy
and
authority.



Watch
the
Full
Video

The
legal
profession
has
always
been
built
on
trust.
Today,
that
trust
is
earned
earlier
and
reinforced
more
publicly
than
ever
before.

Lawyers
who
clarify
their
why,
engage
authentically,
and
demonstrate
both
empathy
and
expertise
position
themselves
for
sustainable
growth
in
a
rapidly
evolving
marketplace.




Steve
Fretzin
is
a
five-time
bestselling
author,
host
of
the BE
THAT
LAWYER and Future
Rainmakers podcasts,
and
a
business
development
coach
who
works
exclusively
with
attorneys.
For
more
than
18
years,
he
has
helped
lawyers
build
strong
books
of
business
without
selling,
pitching,
or
chasing,
using
his
proven
Sales-Free
Selling™
approach.
His
clients
consistently
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
his
coaching
and
systems
for
driving
meaningful,
measurable
growth.



Steve
can
be
reached
directly
at [email protected],
or
through
his
website
at www.bethatlawyer.com.
Connect
with
him
on
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.
His
ALL
NEW BE
THAT
LAWYER
Community is
changing
how
lawyers
develop
the
skills
never
taught
in
law
school.
Learn
more
at www.bethatlawyer.com/community