Author: TSA Press

The
buzz
this
year
at

CES
isn’t
just
agentic
AI.
It’s
also
wearables
and
their
coming
power
and
use.
And
as
with
agentic
AI,
these
wearables
could
have
significant
implications
and
pose
challenges
for
legal.

The
Rise
of
Wearables

When
we
talk
about
wearables,
we
are
talking
about
things
like
glasses,
watches,
and
necklaces
that
are
not
only
fashion
pieces,
but
which
can
actually
do
things.
While
the
notion
of
wearing
something
like
a
smart
watch
that
can
do
things
like
show
your
emails,
enable
your
smart
devices
to
do
things,
or
track
your
heart
rate
has
been
around
for
a
while,
the
difference
now
is
that
these
wearables
can
combine
with
AI,
agentic
AI,
virtual
reality,
and
augmented
reality
to
do
much
more.

A
simple
such
wearable
is
the

Meta
glasses.
These
glasses
can
read
your
text
messages
and
allow
you
to
take
a
video
or
picture
with
a
touch
of
the
temple.
But
you
can
also
verbally
ask
the
glasses
questions
like
“what
am
I
looking
at?”
or
“tell
me
about
this
painting
I
am
seeing
in
the
museum.”
By
combining
with
AI,
the
glasses
can
whisper
an
answer
in
your
ear
which
no
one
else
can
hear.

And
that’s
just
the
beginning.
I
attended
a
panel
discussion
in
which

Resh
Sidhu,
the
Senior
Director
of
Innovation
of

Snap
Inc.,
talked
about
what
her
company
is
developing.
Snap
is
the
company
behind
the
social
media
tool

Snapchat.
Snapchat
introduced
the
first
glasses
wearable
back
in
2016
and
has
been
working
on
them
ever
since.
Sidhu
showed
a
short
video
of
how
future
versions
of
Snapchat
glasses
could
combine
with
AR,
VR,
and
AI
to
do
amazing
things,
like
line
her
up
for
a
perfect
3
pointer
in
a
pickup
basketball
game.
Or
be
her
companion
on
a
trip
to
Paris
like
an
experienced
tour
guide.

At
the

Lenovo
keynote,
the
presenters
talked
about
a
wearable
necklace
that
could
do
similar
things.
It’s
still
a
proof
in
concept
but
the
direction
is
clear.
Several
presenters
in
several
contexts
talked
about
AI
wearables
that
“see
what
you
see
and
hear
what
you
hear”
and
can
respond
to
your
needs.

The
advantage,
of
course,
is
that
these
wearables
allow
the
wearer
to
“do
things
in
the
moment
without
reaching
out
to
a
screen
that
pulls
us
away,”
according
to
Sidhu.

These
wearables
have
tremendous
potential.
They
can
increase
safety.
They
can
be
training
guides.
They
can
provide
useful
information
and
understanding
of
complex
issues.
They
can
always
be
on
awaiting
you
to
say
“hey
Meta,”
or
whatever
the
command
should
be
(don’t
worry,
“hey
Siri”
still
won’t
get
you
very
far).

Advantages
for
Lawyers

For
lawyers,
it’s
easy
to
see
some
advantages.
Think
about
taking
a
deposition
where
your
glasses
suggest
questions
and
follow
up
while
you
are
looking
at
the
witness
for
body
language
instead
of
your
screen.

Or
one
of
things
that
used
to
bedevil
me
as
a
young
lawyer
in
a
courtroom:
your
glasses
can
tell
you,
“Hey,
object,
hearsay.”
And
tell
you
why.
Or
supply
you
information
to
answer
your
client’s
questions
in
an
in-person
meeting.
Or
combine
with
other
tools
to
explain
what
your
opponent
is
doing
when
he
makes
certain
arguments
to
a
judge
or
takes
a
position.
Or
help
you
deal
with
and
understand
what
a
mediator
is
doing
in
a
mediation.

Lots
of
benefits.
But
also,
some
real
issues
and
therein
lies
the
challenges
to
legal.

Legal
Issues

These
high-powered
wearables
raise
some
interesting
issues.
I

wrote
recently
about
an
AI
proctor
that
detects
if
a
witness
is
using
AI
in
a
remote
interview
in
large
part
by
determining
if
the
person
is
looking
at
a
screen.
Good
idea.
But
what
happens
if
the
person
doesn’t
need
a
screen
to
get
the
AI
answer?
It’s
provided
through
the
witness’s
glasses.
 

Suppose
a
witness
takes
the
stand
to
testify
wearing
glasses.
How
do
we
know
that
they
aren’t
being
fed
the
answers
by
a
bot?
 Do
we
demand
that
the
glasses
be
examined?
I’m
not
sure
our
courts
are
ready
for
that.

The
Bot
is
Lying

And
what
happens
if
the
advice
the
bot
gives
is
wrong
and
someone
acts
on
it.
Most
of
us
know
that
LLMs
make
mistakes
and
hallucinate
regularly.
It’s
one
thing
when
it
provides
the
output
on
a
screen,
it’s
another
when
it
provides
the
output
in
the
moment,
in
your
ear.
We
have
enough
problems
with
people
acting
in
the
spur
of
the
moment
with
screen
output;
the
temptation
to
run
with
an
output
whispered
in
your
ear
is
far
more.

Privacy
Issues

There
are
privacy
issues
as
well.
All
these
devices
are
creating
data.
Where
does
it
go?
Who
has
access?
Will
it
be
discoverable?
Imagine
your
client
getting
a
discovery
demand
for
everything
their
glasses
created
and
kept.
We
have
enough
trouble
with
clients
creating
evidentiary
trails
when
they
type
in
inputs
—
wearables
will
increase
the
problems
multifold.

And
it’s
not
just
your
privacy
that’s
at
stake.
I
have
a
pair
of
first-generation
Meta
glasses.
I
can
take
a
picture
or
video
that
those
around
me
would
scarcely
detect,
violating
their
privacy.

The
Impact
on
Dispute
Resolution

Certainly,
that
kind
of
world
would
eliminate
a
lot
of
“he
said,
she
said”
disputes
if
there
is
data
someplace
that
would
clarify
it,
much
like
police
body
cams
often
tell
the
real
story,
provided
they
are
turned
on.
These
kinds
of
disputes
are
often
difficult
to
litigate
since
they
often
turn
on
who
the
fact
finder
finds
more
credible
and
that
can
hinge
on
a
variety
of
the
unpredictable
factors.

But
even
in
those
kinds
of
disputes,
our
litigation
system
is
designed
to
make
determinations
about
who
is
telling
the
truth
based
on
a
totality
of
facts
and
testimony
about
interactions
between
people.
But
AI
wearables
could
easily
turn
the
totality
of
facts
that
explain
behavior
into
a
sound
bite.

And
what
would
that
kind
of
world
be
where
you
have
to
think
about
everything
you
say
or
do?
Can
you
imagine
the
posturing
and
games
that
would
be
played?
Set
ups,
where
one
party
employs
an
orchestrating
letter
or
statement
designed
to
provoke
a
reaction
are
already
pretty
common.
It’s
a
gamesmanship
tactic
I’ve
seen
used
over
and
over
again
by
both
lawyers
and
clients.
Wearables
increase
the
opportunity
and
temptation
to
do
just
that.

A
Lack
of
Guardrails

Right
now,
there
are
few
rules
or
guardrails
in
place
except
for
those
the
vendors
may
provide
out
of
the
goodness
of
their
hearts.
The
only
law
is
the
notion
that
there
must
be
consent
for
a
conversation
to
be
recorded.
While
a
few
states
require
both
parties’
consent,
most
states
only
require
that
one
person
consent,
rendering
the
rule
moot
to
begin
with.

Do
we
need
to
require
those
with
AI
wearables
to
disclose
that
fact
when
interacting
with
others?
Isn’t
there
an
inherent
disadvantage
in
substantive
interactions
where
one
person
has
access
to
AI
and
can
create
a
record
and
the
other
doesn’t?

And
don’t
forget,
there
is
still
the
issue
of
deepfakes.
Outputs
from
AI
wearables
could
easily
be
manipulated
to
make
what
happened
look
a
lot
different
than
what
really
did.

Our
Responsibility

It’s
often
said
to
whom
much
is
given,
much
is
expected.
The
concept
applies
here.
Wearables
offer
tremendous
potential
benefits
across
a
broad
spectrum
of
life.
But
with
those
benefits
comes
our
responsibility
as
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
think
hard
about
the
issues
and
risks
these
wearables
bring
to
the
legal
process
and
to
dispute
resolutions.

We
have
already
seen
the
result
of
a
lack
of
planning
and
thinking
about
the
risks
of
evidence
manipulation
that
deepfakes
have
brought.
Courts
and
litigants
unprepared
to
deal
with
those
scenarios
and
questions.
A
lack
of
rules
and
guidance.
A
threat
to
our
system.

Without
planning
and
forethought,
we
could
end
up
in
the
same
place
with
wearable
issues.
Legal
has
not
only
been
slow
to
embrace
technology,
it’s
also
been
slow
to
understand
the
risks
technology
brings
to
things
like
the
rule
of
law
and
fundamental
fairness.

It’s
been
said
that
insanity
is
doing
the
same
thing
over
and
over
and
expecting
different
results.
The
time
is
now
to
think
about
how
to
manage
the
risks
to
legal
while
appreciating
the
benefits
and
use
of
these
tools
by
society.
Otherwise,
we
will
be
facing
the
same
crisis
with
wearables
as
we
are
with
deepfakes:
scrambling
to
deal
with
technology
we
don’t
understand.

---

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.

Our
clients
speak
to
our
position
in
the
marketplace:
we’ve
advised
over
80%
of
the
Am
Law
100,
including
10
of
the
20
most
profitable
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100,
and
a
broad
range
of
other
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100
and
200,
the
Global
100,
Wall
Street
firms,
Magic
Circle
firms,
and
firms
outside
of
those
groups.

We
have
terrific
relationships
with
large
high-performing
firms,
and
most
of
them
know
us.
We
have
developed
a
sub-specialty
in
recent
years
in
advising
firms
that
are
interested
in
the
possibility
of
combining
with
similarly-sized
or
larger
firms.

— Kent
Zimmermann,
co-chair
of
Zeughauser
Group,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
concerning
his
strategic
planning
and
merger
consultancy’s
client
base.
He
continued,
saying
Zeughauser
has
gotten
to
know
firms
outside
of
the
Am
Law
100,
noting,
“We
represent
a
portfolio
of
clients
in
the
50
to
200-lawyer
size
range
that
have
high-quality
practices
in
areas
like
middle-market
M&A,
private
equity,
sophisticated
litigation
and
other
areas,
and
those
are
great
relationships.
That’s
an
expansion
of
our
breadth.
They’re
also
particularly
valuable
because
sometimes
those
firms
combine
with
larger
firms,
and
our
knowledge
of
that
landscape
is
valuable
to
our
clients.”
Zimmermann,
who
was
recently
promoted
the
co-chair
position,
has
been
an
insider
on
major
law
firm
mergers,
including
the
impending

combination
of
Cadwalader
Wickersham
&
Taft
and
Hogan
Lovells,
which
will
be
one
of
the
largest
law
firm
mergers
in
history.

---

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.

Earlier
this
month,
we
released
our

2025
Outside
Counsel
Rankings,
highlighting
the
go-to
law
firms
for
in-house
counsel.

In
addition
to
telling
us
which
firms
they
engage
for
legal
services,
in-house
lawyers
were
also
asked
to
share
some
feedback
about
these
firms:
“What
are
the
firm’s
particular
strengths
(or
weaknesses)?
Would
you
recommend
hiring
the
firm(s)
to
peers?”

In
this
brief
quiz,
we’ve
included
a
selection
of
comments
about
the
firms
featured
in
the

Top
Tier
of
the
latest
rankings.
See
if
you
can
match
the
firm
to
the
feedback.
We’ll
reveal
the
results
after
the
new
year.

Click

here
to
take
the
quiz.

A
new
report
confirms
what
M&A
associates
already
knew
in
their
bones:
the
mergers
and
acquisitions
market
wasn’t
just
hot
last
year,
it
was
record-setting.
According
to
data
released
this
week
by
the
London
Stock
Exchange
Group,
2025
featured
the
most-ever
M&A
mega-deals,
with
68
transactions
clocking
in
at
$10
billion
or
more.
Globally,
M&A
value
hit
a
staggering
$4.6
trillion,
representing
a
49%
increase
over
2024.

And
if
you’re
wondering
who
made
out
like
bandits
in
this
frenzy
of
consolidation,
well,
let’s
just
say
the
usual
suspects
didn’t
exactly
miss
the
party.

Sitting
comfortably
atop
the
rankings
once
again
is
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
which
served
as
principal
adviser
on
$829
billion
worth
of
deals.
Kirkland
was
joined
in
the
stratosphere
by
Latham
&
Watkins,
Wachtell
Lipton
Rosen
&
Katz,
and
Skadden
Arps,
each
advising
on
$600
billion
or
more
in
transactions
last
year.

Michael
Weisser,
a
private
equity
partner
at
Kirkland,
put
it
bluntly

to
Reuters,
“There’s
no
doubt
that
the
legal
market
has
sort
of
bifurcated
and
there
is
a
flight
to
the
top.”
So…
if
you’re
not
already
elite,
good
luck
getting
invited
to
the
table.

Latham’s
Alex
Kelly
echoed
the
point,
predicting
the
stratification
will
only
deepen.
As
deals
grow
“in
volume,
complexity
and
geographic
reach,”
clients
are
increasingly
relying
on
a
smaller
and
smaller
cadre
of
firms
to
get
the
job
done.

Goodwin
Procter
took
the
No.
1
spot
for
number
of
deals,
advising
on
a
whopping
945
transactions
worth
$123
billion.
Vice
chair
Stuart
Cable
told
Reuters
there’s
“no
reason
to
be
anything
other
than
highly
optimistic”
about
2026.

Meanwhile,
Wachtell’s
Adam
Emmerich
and
Jacob
Kling
suggested
that
even
this
banner
year
might
just
be
a
warm-up
act.
“We
are
neck
deep
in
ongoing
deals,
and
the
pipeline
is
bulging
as
well,”
they
said.
Which
is
probably
thrilling
news
if
you’re
a
partner…
and
a
scheduling
nightmare
if
you’re
an
associate
with
a
vacation
request
pending.

---

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].

Remember
when
FCC
Chair
Brendan
Carr
started
publicly
fronting
that
he’d
use
his
authority
to
punish
Disney
and
ABC
because
Donald
Trump

didn’t
like
Jimmy
Kimmel
making
fun
of
him?
The
Campaign
for
Accountability
does
and
filed
an

ethics
complaint
against
Carr
in
both
D.C.
and
Maryland
back
in
September,
alleging
that
his
mob-like
threats
against
ABC
and
its
affiliates
over
Jimmy
Kimmel’s
commentary
violated
multiple
rules
of
professional
conduct.

In
response,
Maryland
sent
a
polite
letter
explaining
that
they’re
declining
to
look
into
it
because
the
complaint
was
based
on
—
checks
notes
—
publicly
available
information.

We
have
reviewed
your
complaint.
It
appears
that
the
information
you
have
provided
is
based
on
public
websites,
news
reports,
and
social
media
posts.
Maryland
Rule
19-711(b)(2)
states,
“Bar
Counsel
.
.
.
may
decline
a
complaint
submitted
by
an
individual
who
provides
information
about
an
attorney
derived
from
published
news
reports
or
third
party
sources
where
the
complainant
appears
to
have
no
personal
knowledge
of
the
information
being
submitted.”

Folks…
your
professional
gatekeepers
in
2026!

Last
month,
the
Virginia
State
Bar
decided
to
pass
on
an
ethics
complaint
against
phony
U.S.
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan.
Manifesting
Professional
Responsibility
Bartleby,
Virginia
looked
at
the
ethics
charges
and
replied
“I
prefer
not
to.”
Virginia
claimed
it
couldn’t
enforce
the
standards
of
our
profession
because
it
needed
to
defer
to
the
courts.
In
their
defense,
the
courts
do
seem
to
be

actively
building
a
record
of
Halligan’s
deeds.
Maryland’s
going
one
better
by
claiming
it
won’t
consider
ethical
violation
if
they’re
too
obviously
verifiable.

“The
Maryland
Bar
Rules
do
not
limit
bar
complaints
only
to
those
personally
impacted
by
a
lawyer’s
misconduct,”
Campaign
for
Accountability
Executive
Director
Michelle
Kuppersmith said.
“Although
their
rules
say
they
‘may’
dismiss
a
complaint
that
draws
on
public
accounts,
it
is
fully
within
their
discretion
to
choose
otherwise.
Clearly,
the
Bar
was
looking
for
whatever
excuse
it
could
find
to
duck
its
responsibility
to
hold
its
members
accountable
for
misconduct.”

Carr’s
alleged
misconduct
wasn’t
some
private
negotiation
gone
wrong
or
an
under-the-table
ethical
breach.
The
statements
were
made

on
a
podcast.
He
told
to
the
world
that
ABC
and
its
affiliates
could
“do
this
the
easy
way
or
the
hard
way”
and
that
there
would
be
“additional
work
for
the
FCC”
if
the
network
didn’t
take
action
against
Kimmel.
Even
Ted
Cruz
—

Ted
Cruz!
—
recognized
these
comments
for
what
they
were,

calling
them
“right
out
of
‘Goodfellas’”
and
“dangerous
as
hell.”

Maryland
authorities
could

themselves
have
“personal
knowledge
of
the
information
being
submitted”
if
they
would
just
open
up
their
Spotify.
The
complaint
alleged
violations
of
multiple
rules,
including
D.C.
Rule
8.4(d)
(conduct
that
seriously
interferes
with
the
administration
of
justice),
Rule
8.4(e)
(implying
an
ability
to
improperly
influence
a
government
agency),
and
Rule
4.4(a)
(using
means
that
serve
no
substantial
purpose
other
than
to
embarrass
or
burden
a
third
person).

Just
because
disciplinary
officials

can
decline
to
take
the
case,
that
doesn’t
mean
they

should.
A
rule
allowing
bar
counsel
to
decline
complaints
based
on
news
reports
might
make
sense
in
some
contexts.
No
one
wants
the
disciplinary
authorities
launching
investigations
every
time
someone
reads
a
misleading
headline
about
a
lawyer.
But
the
alleged
misconduct
here

is
the
public
statement
itself.
There
is
no
other
avenue
to
acquire
knowledge
of
these
alleged
violations
than
listening
to
the
public
statement.

For
what
it’s
worth,
Carr
has
raised

other
ethics
questions
related
to
allegations
that
he
used
the
FCC
to
extort
concessions
for
the
White
House
as
part
of
the
Paramount/Skydance
merger.
That’s
the
dangerous
signal
of
a
rule
like
the
one
Maryland
drapes
itself
in
here:
refusing
to
investigate
based
on
public
statements
and
actions
is
a
tailor-made
excuse
to
alleviate
public
officials
from
all
of
their
professional
obligations.

Disciplinary
authorities
exist
because
the
profession,
supposedly,
holds
itself
to
higher
standards
than
the
bare
minimum
of
avoiding
criminal
conduct.
They’re
supposed
to
have
a
broader
portfolio
and
address
conduct
that
may
not
end
up
in
court
but
still
presents
a
risk
to
the
public.
A
federal
official
threatening
to
use
his
regulatory
authority
to
silence
political
speech
would
seem
to
fall
squarely
within
that
wheelhouse.

Most
of
the
people
desecrating
the
moral
foundation
of
this
country
will
never
face
any
accountability.
When
Donald
Trump
exits
the
stage
—
if
he
exits
the
stage,
which
is
a
genuine
question
—
he’ll
issue
blanket
pardons
of
all
the
masked
thugs
he
sent
to
harass
and
kill
in
the
cities
that
didn’t
vote
for
him.
It’s
simply
a
redux
of
his
January
6
pardons,
only
this
time
those
same
rioters
have
badges.
He’ll
also
shield
those
who
issued
the
orders,
up
to
and
including
himself,
from
prosecution.

But
some
of
the
architects
of
this
dumpster
fire
are
attorneys.
And
our
profession
holds
its
members
to
higher
standards.
When
this
administration
ends,
those
lawyers
are
going
to
look
for
other
jobs
and,
as
a
profession
that
values
the
rule
of
law,
it’s
imperative
that
we
make
sure
to
police
our
own
here.

So
far,
we’re
doing
a
really
bad
job.

Earlier:

Virginia
State
Bar
Whistles
Past
Lindsey
Halligan
Ethics
Complaint
Claiming
It’s
Not
Their
Job

---

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.

Last
year
was,
for
better
or
worse,
a
big
year
in
legal
news.
So
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
to
see
big
names
dominating
our
list
of
finalists
for
2025
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
Thanks
to
everyone
who
responded
to
our
request
for
nominations
for
2025
Lawyer
of
the
Year.
We
narrowed
the
many
excellent
nominees
to
a
slate
of
six
(yes,
that’s
how
eventful
this
year
was)
lawyers
—
distinguished,
despicable,
or
debatable,
depending
on
your
point
of
view.

Here
are
the
nominees,
in
alphabetical
order,
with
a
brief
blurb
about
each:

Pam
Bondi:
The
former
Florida
AG
who
became
Trump’s
AG
and
turned
the
once
respected
Department
of
Justice
into
the
hottest
of
messes.
In
2025,
she
oversaw
the

mass
exodus
of
career
attorneys,
backed
several
legally
dubious
U.S.
Attorney
appointments,
and
generally
acted
like
her
office
was
the
legal
department
for
Trump’s
revenge
tour.
Bondi’s
DOJ
has
been
giving
ethics
scholars
nightmares
and
has
been
the
source
of
frequent
judicial
eye
rolls.
Thanks
to
her,

the
Justice
Department
is
now
Trump’s
personal
law
firm.

Rachel
Cohen:
In
2025,
this
former
Skadden
associate
did
what
very
few
Biglaw
associates
were
willing
to
do:
she
put
her
principles
ahead
of
her
paycheck.
She
became
a
flashpoint
in
the
legal
profession
by

challenging
her
firm
and
the
broader
Biglaw
establishment
over
their
shocking
responses
to
Trump’s
executive
orders.
She
organized
an
open
letter
signed
by
nearly
2,000
associates,
where
she

urged
firms
to
defend
the
rule
of
law.
Cohen’s
stand
drew
national
attention,
galvanizing
associates
across
the
industry
as
she
continued
advocating
for
legal
ethics
and
accountability,
and
earned
her
recognition
—
including
a

Civil
Courage
Award
—
for
her
willingness
to
sacrifice
a
lucrative
career
in
defense
of
her
principles.

Alina
Habba:
Trump’s
onetime
personal
lawyer
got
a
promotion
to
U.S.
Attorney
for
New
Jersey
in
2025…
and
then
multiple
courts
ruled
that
she
was
unlawfully
in
the
job.
Judges
said

her
appointment
wasn’t
legit,
leading
to
her
disqualification
and
eventual
resignation
from
a
role
she
wasn’t
technically
supposed
to
be
holding
in
the
first
place.
Not
to
worry,
because
shortly
after

quitting
a
job
she
never
really
had,
Habba
was
elevated
to
become
a
Senior
Advisor
to
the
Attorney
General
for
U.S.
Attorneys.
You
can
only
fail
upwards
in
the
Trump
administration!

Lindsey
Halligan:
Imagine
someone
with
more
pageant
titles
than
prosecutorial
experience
being
installed
as
a
U.S.
Attorney
so
the
president
could
chase
perceived
political
opponents
in
court.
That
was
Halligan
in
2025,
as
she
attempted
to

indict
longtime
Trump
opponents
like
James
Comey
and
Letitia
James
—
cases
that
no
other
lawyer
would
touch.
Just
like
what
happened
with
Alina
Habba,

Halligan’s
appointment
was
found
to
be
fraught
with
error,
leaving
the
process
so
ethically
and
legally
defective
that
both
cases
were
tossed.

Brad
Karp:
The
Biglaw
chairman
whose
most
notable
2025
legal
act
wasn’t
a
motion
or
brief
but
a
negotiated
capitulation.
Trump
targeted
his
firm
with
a
retaliatory
executive
order,
and
instead
of
fighting
it
out
in
court,
Karp
cut
a
deal
that

offered
up
$40
million
in
pro
bono
payola
aligned
with
the
administration’s
policies.
Karp’s
move
not
only
inspired
lawyers
to
cut
bait
and
leave
the
firm,
but
it
led
to
him
being

heckled
at
industry
award
events,
with
Paul,
Weiss
being

protested
in
the
streets
of
Manhattan.
The
firm’s
deal
opened
the
door
for
eight
other
firms
to
bend
a
knee
to
Trump,
leaving
an
ugly,
orange
stain
on
the
legal
profession.

Jeanine
Pirro:
Once
a
TV
judge
and
now
a

Trump-appointed
federal
prosecutor
for
D.C.,
Judge
Jeanine
spent
2025
egging
on
politically
charged
investigations,
and
wound
up
with

nothing
but
egg
on
her
face.
Much
like

driving
119
miles
per
hour
in
a
65,
her
attempts
at
“justice”
in
the
nation’s
capitol
have
been
a
little
lead
footed,
resulting
in
repeated
no
bills.

And
now,
the
moment
you’ve
all
been
waiting
for:
Who
should
be
named
Above
the
Law’s
Lawyer
of
the
Year
for
2025?
Cast
your
vote
below.
Polls
are
open
until SUNDAY,
JANUARY
11,
2026
at
11:30
p.m.
(EST).

CLICK
HERE
TO
VOTE.

---

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
this
session,
I
sat
down
with
Susan
Filan
to
explore
how
fear
influences
decisions,
momentum,
and
satisfaction
in
both
life
and
career.
Fear
is
not
a
flaw
or
weakness.
It
is
often
a
signal
that
something
meaningful
is
trying
to
surface.

For
lawyers
who
want
growth
that
feels
aligned
and
sustainable,
learning
how
to
work
with
fear
instead
of
around
it
can
unlock
real
change. 

Our
conversation
focused
on
awareness,
integrity,
and
inner
stability,
all
essential
skills
for
professionals
who
carry
responsibility,
ambition,
and
pressure
every
day. 

Susan
is
a

personal
development
coach
and
keynote
speaker,
as
well
as
a
television
legal
analyst.

Conquer
Fear:
Your
Ultimate
Guide
to
Positive
Change 

Fear
often
stands
between
where
we
are
and
where
we
want
to
be.
Susan
shared
a
simple
yet
powerful
question
that
creates
immediate
clarity:
What
would
I
do
if
I
were
not
afraid? 

That
question
opens
the
door
to
honest
reflection.
When
lawyers
consider
their
future
selves
and
what
they
want
their
lives
and
careers
to
look
like,
the
answers
are
usually
clear.
The
challenge
is
giving
themselves
permission
to
act.

We
talked
about
how
fear
often
disguises
itself
as
practicality
or
timing,
and
how
awareness
is
the
first
step
toward
intentional
change.

Find
Your
Joy:
Escaping
the
Wheel
of
Fear 

Many
professionals
live
on
autopilot,
waiting
for
external
conditions
to
change
before
allowing
themselves
to
feel
fulfilled.
Susan
and
I
discussed
how
joy
is
not
something
to
earn
or
outsource.
It
starts
with
integrity
and
self
acceptance. 

This
segment
focused
on
breaking
free
from
cycles
of
self
doubt
by
choosing
presence
over
perfection.
Lawyers
do
not
need
to
have
everything
figured
out
to
experience
joy
now.
When
happiness
becomes
an
internal
choice
rather
than
a
future
reward,
confidence
and
clarity
naturally
follow. 

Unlock
Inner
Peace
and
Manifest
Your
Dreams
Today 

True
peace
does
not
come
from
controlling
outcomes.
It
comes
from
regulating
your
inner
world.
Susan
explained
how
nervous
system
awareness,
coherence,
and
intentional
thought
patterns
create
stability
even
during
uncertainty. 

When
lawyers
learn
how
to
ground
themselves
internally,
they
make
decisions
from
clarity
rather
than
stress.
That
internal
calm
allows
creativity,
focus,
and
growth
to
expand.
Mastering
the
inner
game
does
not
remove
challenges,
but
it
changes
how
those
challenges
are
experienced
and
navigated. 

Watch
full
video
here
with
Susan
Filan.

---

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.

Whether
the
Trump
administration
likes
it
or
not,
the
right
to
a
fair
trial
still
exists.
And
even
the
person
the
government
is
now
subjecting
to
what
looks
a
whole
lot
like
a
vindictive
prosecution
is
still
a
beneficiary
of
this
right.

Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
was
deported
to
El
Salvador’s infamous
CECOT earlier
this
year
along
with
another
hundred-plus
deportees
the
country’s
dictator
agreed
to
take
off
the
United
States’
hands
in
exchange
for
a
few
million
dollars.

Garcia
kept
fighting
this
deportation,
arguing
that
it
had
violated
his
due
process
rights.
The
administration
kept
fighting
to
keep
Garcia
silent
and
locked
in
a
foreign
hellhole.
The
administration
lost.
A
court
ordered
his
return
to
the
US.
Nothing
got
much
better
once
Abrego
Garcia
returned.
The
government
whipped
up
an
extremely
questionable
criminal
case
against
him
in
order
to
keep
him
jailed.
Then
it
offered
him
the
unpalatable
option
of
pleading
guilty
to
a
bunch
of
criminal
charges
or
being
deported
to
other
countries
with similarly
miserable
histories of
human
rights
violations.

The
judge
handling
the
case finally
released
Abrego
Garcia over
the
recent
holiday
season
and
demanded
the
government
try
to
convince
it
that
it
isn’t engaged
in
purely
vindictive
prosecution of
someone
who
has
angered
it
by
successfully
evoking
his
constitutional
rights.

The
government
won’t
have
to
provide
that
answer
for
another
couple
of
weeks
yet.
In
the
meantime,
though,
it
no
longer
has
a
trial
date
to
look
forward
to.
That’s
been
set
aside
as
the
court
awaits
the
govenrment’s
explanation
for
its
actions.
The
government
has
also
been
hit
with
a
gag
order
that
is
supposed
to
prevent
government
officials
from
further
disparaging
Abrego
Garcia
with
public
comments
and
social
media
posts.

It
violated
that
gag
order
almost
immediately,
with
DHS
sub-boss
Tricia
McLaughlin reposting
a
far-right
podcaster’s
declaration that
Abrego
Garcia
was
a
“MS-13
terrorist.”
This
is
the
sort
of
thing
the
administration
has
been
doing
ever
since
it
was
forced
to
respect
Abrego
Garcia’s
rights.

The
government
definitely
shouldn’t
be
doing
this,
especially
those
involved
with
his
arrest,
deportation,
detainment,
or
otherwise
expected
to
possibly
testify
against
Abrego
Garcia
in
court.
Now, as
Politico’s
Josh
Gerstein
points
out
at
Bluesky,
Abrego
Garcia
is
seeking
sanctions
because
another
government
official
with
a
penchant
for
blatantly
ignoring
court
orders
—
Border
Patrol
Commander Gregory
Bovino —
is
doing
the
sort
of
thing this court
order [PDF]
explicitly
forbids.

Once
again,
the
government
has
responded
to
a
Court
order
with
which
it
disagrees
by
pretending
it
doesn’t
exist.
Mr.
Abrego
moved
for
sanctions
based
on
senior
DHS
official
Gregory
Bovino’s
flagrant
violation
of
this
Court’s
October
27
Order
(Dkt.
183,
the
“Order”)
governing
extrajudicial
statements
relating
to
this
case.
(Dkt.
271).
The
government’s
brief
opposing
that
motion
largely
ignores
the
Order.

[…]

Nor,
in
any
event,
can
Mr.
Bovino’s
statements
seriously
be
characterized
as
ones
“that
a
reasonable
lawyer
would
believe
[are]
required
to
protect
a
client
from
the
substantial
undue
prejudicial
effect
of
recent
publicity”
or
“limited
to
such
information
as
is
necessary
to
mitigate
the
recent
adverse
publicity.”
Far
from
being
“meek,”
as
the
government
ludicrously
characterizes
them
(Dkt.
282
at
7),
Mr.
Bovino’s
statements
include
descriptions
of
Mr.
Abrego
as
“an
MS-13
gang
member…ready
to
prey
on
Americans
yet
again,”
“a
wife-beater,”
“an
alien
smuggler,”
and
someone
who
“wants
to…leech
off
the
United
States.”
Mr.
Bovino
went
on
to
describe
the
judges
presiding
over
Mr.
Abrego’s
civil
and
criminal
cases
as
“activist”
and
“extremist.”

Abrego
Garcia’s
continue
to
press
the
case
for
sanctions
against
the
administration,
adding
to
the
mix
the
comments
DHS
Undersecretary
made
late
last
week
in
apparent
violation
of
the
still-standing
gag
order:

On
December
27,
2025,
DHS
Assistant
Secretary
for
Public
Affairs
Tricia
McLaughlin
shared
a
post
on
X
stating:
“MS-13
terrorist
Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
was
released
by
a
rogue
judge
and
is
now
making
TikToks.”
Ms.
McLaughlin
added:
“So
we,
at
@DHSgov,
are
under
gag
order
by
an
activist
judge
and
Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
is
making
TikToks.
American
justice
ceases
to
function
when
its
arbiters
silence
law
enforcement
and
give
megaphones
to
those
who
oppose
our
legal
system.”
Neither
Mr.
Bovino’s
nor
Ms.
McLaughlin’s
statements
“protect”
the
government—they
defame
Mr.
Abrego,
this
Court,
and
the
Federal
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland.

On
top
of
asking
for
sanctions
this
court
has
yet
to
deliver,
Abrego
Garcia
wants
to
know
who’s
handling
what
in
the
upper
echelons
of
the
administration,
since
it’s
become
apparent
that
not
even
high-ranking
officials
appear
to
be
concerned
that
they’re
violating
court
orders.

The
Court
should
grant
Mr.
Abrego’s
requests
that
the
government
be
ordered
to
disclose
(1)
whether
and
how
the
prosecution
provided
relevant
DHS
employees
with
a
copy
of
the
Order,
(2)
who
authorized
Mr.
Bovino
and
Ms.
McLaughlin
to
speak
about
Mr.
Abrego’s
case,
and
(3)
what
guidance
that
person
or
persons
gave
Mr.
Bovino
and
Ms.
McLaughlin
about
what
they
could
and
could
not
say
on
national
television
or
social
media,
as
well
as
all
communications
between
counsel
for
the
government
and
Mr.
Bovino,
Ms.
McLaughlin,
or
DHS
regarding
Mr.
Bovino’s
and
Ms.
McLaughlin’s
statements,
including
any
attempts
to
obtain
a
retraction
or
apology,
so
that
the
Court
may
determine
the
appropriate
course
of
action.

It’s
a
long
shot
and
the
government
is
sure
to
insist
that
pretty
much
everything
listed
here
is
a
privileged
communication
between
lawyers
and
government
officials.
But
there’s
a
chance
some
of
this
might
actually
make
its
way
into
open
court,
which
will
allow
the
American
public
to
see
how
this
administration
operates
when
it
clearly
feels
it
doesn’t
have
to
answer
to
anything
but
its
basest
urges.

Abrego
Garcia
Asks
For
Sanctions
As
Gov’t
Officials
Continue
To
Publicly
Attack
Him
Ahead
Of
His
Trial

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Scope
Of
Chinese
‘Salt
Typhoon’
Hack
Keeps
Getting
Worse,
As
Trump
Dismantles
U.S.
Cybersecurity
Defenses

Abolish
ICE
Before
They
Kill
Again,
Impeach
Trump
&
Noem
Before
They
Incite
More
Murder

Pam
Bondi
Dismissed
Charges
Against
Surgeon
Who
Falsified
Vaccine
Cards.
It
Emboldened
Others
With
Similar
Cases.

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.

“Supreme
Court
asked
to
block
California
law
against
outing
trans
students;
A
Catholic
legal
group
contends
the
state
law
violates
parents’
religious
rights”: Josh
Gerstein
of
Politico
has this
report.

“Here
Are
Trump’s
Options
If
the
Supreme
Court
Says
His
Tariffs
Are
Illegal”: Isabel
Gottlieb
of
Bloomberg
News
has this
report.

“The
Supreme
Court
made
a
mess
out
of
gun
laws”: Law
professor Adam
Winkler has this
essay online
at
The
Los
Angeles
Times.

“The
Supreme
Court
Was
Ripe
for
Another
Ideological
Food
Fight.
Then
Something
Else
Happened.” Robyn
Nicole
Sanders
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

“The
Supreme
Court
may
leave
alone
the
Voting
Rights
Act
just
long
enough
to
keep
the
GOP
from
House
control
in
2026;
Republicans’
hopes
that
a
Supreme
Court
redistricting
ruling
will
boost
them
in
2026
are
fading
as
election
deadlines
close
in”: Samuel
Benson
and
Andrew
Howard
of
Politico
have this
report.

“The
Growing
Power
of
the
President;
And
the
Immense
Power
of
Grand
Narratives”: Cass
Sunstein
has this
post at
his
Substack
site.

*
M&A
lawyers
see
busy
year
ahead.
[Reuters]

*
Recent
judicial
nominees
can’t
give
a
straight
answer
about
January
6.
That
said,
Trump
nominees
haven’t
been
able
to
give
a
straight
answer
to
“is
segregation
unconstitutional”
for
years.
[Balls
and
Strikes]

*
An
explainer
for
Grok’s
newfound
sexual
harassment
feature.
[Guardian]

*
The
case
for
Minnesota
prosecuting
Renee
Good’s
murderer.
[The
Nation]

*
DOJ
awards
law
license
portability
to
military
spouses
—
a
logical
reform
that
somehow
took
this
long
to
achieve.
[ABA
Journal]

*
TikTok
sues
Nebraska
AG
over
withholding
records.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
Harvey
Weinstein
enters
plea
talks
ahead
of
upcoming
trial.
[Law360]

*
Luigi
Mangione
asks
judge
to
boot
two
charges
against
him.
[NBC
News]

*
What
triggered
the
fall
of
McGlinchey?
[American
Lawyer]