Author: TSA Press

Everything’s
bigger
in
Texas,
including
the
job
opportunities
for
lawyers
who
are
looking
to
work
in
the
region’s
thriving
energy
and
financial
markets.
Saddle
up,
cowpokes,
because
if
you
want
to
ride
in
this
rodeo,
you’ll
need
to
know
which
firms
are
considered
the
best
in
the
Lone
Star
State.

Thanks
to
Vault’s
recently
released regional
rankings,
we
now
know
which
Biglaw
firms
are
dominating
the
legal
scene
in
Texas.
This
ranking
is
based
on
votes
tabulated
from
associates
who
were
asked
to
rate
firms
on
a
1
to
10
scale
based
on
their
prestige
within
the
region.

Here
are
the
top
10
most
prestigious
firms
in
Texas
(you
can
see
the
full
list
from
Vault
by
clicking here):

1. Vinson
   &
   Elkins
2. Kirkland
   &
   Ellis
3. Latham
   &
   Watkins
4. Gibson
   Dunn
5. Baker
   Botts
6. Sidley
   Austin
7. Skadden
8. Norton
   Rose
   Fulbright
9. Haynes
   and
   Boone
10. Akin
    Gump

Congrats
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
Vault’s
Texas
rankings.
How
did
your
firm
do
this
time? Email
us,
text
us
at (646)
820-8477,
or
tweet
us @atlblog to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.

2027
Best
Law
Firms
in
Texas [Vault]

---

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-house
legal
teams
are
facing
a
mathematical
impossibility.
As
businesses
accelerate,
contract
volumes
scale
exponentially,
driven
by
more
vendors,
more
partners,
and
more
complex
customer
demands. 

Yet
legal
headcount
remains
largely
flat.
The
traditional
solution
(work
harder)
has
hit
a
wall. 

When
legal
teams
try
to
scale
manually,
the 
system
doesn’t
just
slow
down;
it
starts
to
break
in
specific,
high-risk
ways.

In
this
guide,
Filevine
explores
this
looming
crisis
for
in-house
legal
teams.

Download
it
today
to
explore:

>The
hidden
cost
of
manual
scaling
>The
specific
ways
contract
review
may
be
slowing
down
your
team
>Why
augmentation
with
AI
represents
a
sound
path
forward

Sign
up
to
receive
your
free
copy!

  

There
comes
a
point
in
every
Biglaw
partner’s
career
when
they
look
off
the
porch
of
their
summer
villa,
allow
their
mind
to
wander
to
the
army
of
junior
associates
they’ve
kept
at
the
office
until
2
a.m.
all
week
papering
up
deals,
and
ask
themselves
if
there’s
a
less
exploitative
industry
where
they
can
work.
Then,
they
tamp
that
notion
down,
sip
their
Louis
XIII
cognac,
and
fire
off
some
emails
about
the
“expectations”
for
the
weekend.

But,
Skadden
partner
David
Eisman
came
to
a
different
conclusion.
After
two
decades
at
the
firm,
where
he
led
the
firm’s
media
and
entertainment
group,
Eisman
is
decamping
to
become

general
counsel
at
OnlyFans.

Eisman
on
his
first
day:

What
could
be
a
better
fit
for
a
website
built
on
skimming
profit
off
young
women’s
talent
than
the
architect
of
Shamrock
Capital’s
purchase
of
Taylor
Swift’s
first
six
masters?

Eisman
steps
into
a
hectic
environment.
The
site’s
owner,
Leonid
Radvinsky,
unexpectedly
died
in
March,
leaving
a
leadership
vacuum
right
as
OnlyFans
is
in
advanced
talks
to
sell
a
minority
stake
in
a
deal
that
values
the
company
at
more
than
$3
billion.
According
to
Bloomberg
News,
“OnlyFans
declined
to
comment
on
a
potential
sale
or
any
connection
to
the
hiring
of
Eisman,
who
it
said
will
start
in
the
coming
weeks.”

I
assume
they
mean
“in
the
next
few
weeks.”

Snickering
aside,
Eisman
is
joining
a
financial
juggernaut.
The
global
sex-adjacent
industry
is
booming.
OnlyFans
is
a
content-licensing-and-payments
business
that
throws
off
enormous
cash,
has
4
million
creators
and
377
million
users
on
its
books,
and
—
per

The
Economist’s
recent
breakdown
of
the
global
sex
economy
—
sits
inside
a
category
that
includes
a
$100
billion
porn
industry
and
an
entire
emerging
“virtual
companionship”
subsector
that
nobody
has
figured
out
how
to
value
yet.
That’s
before
considering
the
implications
of
hyperrealistic
AI
—
and
the
corresponding
legal
risks
from
deepfakes
—
and
from
a
chief
legal
officer
perspective,
it
is
hard
to
think
of
a
more
interesting
in-house
seat
in
media.

Speaking
of
AI,
Jane
Genova,
an
executive
coach
who
tracks
the
legal
industry,

flagged
the
Eisman
move
alongside
The
Economist’s
reporting
and
made
the
blunt
observation
that
the
sex
economy
is
a
growth
sector
at
the
exact
moment
that
traditional
knowledge-worker
pipelines
are
getting
hollowed
out
by
AI.
She
also
noted,
with
what
I
can
only
describe
as
professional
understatement,
that
“the
majority
of
my
forced-out
white-collar
clients
regret
their
blind
faith
in
traditional
career
paths.”

It’s
hard
to
go
less
traditional
than
amateur-porn-site-that-assures-us-it’s-more-than-an-amateur-porn-site.
But,
from
Eisman’s
perspective,
he
departs
Skadden,
a
firm
that

cut
a
$100
million
deal
with
the
Trump
administration,
to
work
with
people
who
do
less
degrading
stuff
for
money.

Nor
is
this
the
first
time
OnlyFans
looked
to
Biglaw
for
talent.
Management
talent
that
is.
Current
CEO
Keily
Blair
came
from
Orrick,
a
firm
that
has
advised
the
company

on
privacy
issues
in
the
past.
“David
is
a
seasoned
professional,
respected
across
the
tech,
media
and
entertainment
sector,”
Blair
told
Bloomberg
in
a
statement.
“He
will
be
a
great
addition
to
the
OnlyFans
team
as
we
look
to
grow
and
enhance
our
business
offering
and
footprint.”

Congratulations
to
their
press
team
for
making
sure
the
CEO
talks
brought
up
foot
stuff
in
an
official
statement.

OnlyFans
looking
to
Biglaw
for
leadership
is
intriguing
when
you
compare
business
models,
where
OnlyFans
operates
as
a
mirror
image
of
Biglaw.
The
site
takes
20
percent
of
creator
earnings
and
lets
the
talent
run
the
business.
Skadden
reported
$2.3
million
revenue
per
lawyer
last
year,
meaning
when
you
plug
in
the
current
salary
and
bonus
scale,
associates
take
home
around
10-20
percent
of
what
they’re
bringing
in.
Just
flip
the
pyramid
and
OnlyFans
leaves
80
percent
to
the
masses
doing
all
the
work,
while
Biglaw
funnels
80
percent
away
from
the
masses
at
the
bottom.

And
OnlyFans
models

actually
get
to
work
from
home.

---

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.

When
governments
host
global
events,
they
tend
to
make
the
same
promise:
the
world
will
come,
and
the
economics
will
work.

FIFA
World
Cup
26
is
testing
that
assumption
in
real
time.

In
New
Jersey,
a
dispute
is
unfolding
over
a
proposed
set
of
tax
increases
tied
to
the
matches
at
MetLife
Stadium.
The
plan
would
raise
the
sales
tax
in
the
Meadowlands
district
to
9.625%,
add
a
2.5%
hotel
surcharge,
and
impose
transportation-related
fees
during
a
five-week
window
surrounding
the
tournament.
State
officials
have
framed
this
as
a
targeted
tourism
measure
designed
to
offset
roughly
$300
million
in
security
and
logistical
costs.

Rep.
Josh
Gottheimer
has
pushed
back,
arguing
that
the
plan
does
not
meaningfully
distinguish
between
visitors
and
residents.
A
tax
that
applies
to
purchases
at
local
stores,
restaurants,
and
everyday
businesses
does
not
operate
as
a
tourism
fee
in
practice.
It
operates
as
a
location-based
tax,
and
the
people
most
likely
to
encounter
it
are
the
ones
who
live
and
work
there.

That
disagreement
may
sound
familiar.
It
shows
up
whenever
governments
try
to
fund
large
public
obligations
through
narrowly
framed
taxes.
But
this
situation
is
different
in
one
important
respect.
New
Jersey
is
not
simply
choosing
how
to
fund
an
event.
It
is
trying
to
recover
costs
within
a
structure
that
limits
its
ability
to
tax
the
event
itself.

To
secure
World
Cup
matches,
host
jurisdictions
typically
agree
to
a
set
of
conditions
that
protect
FIFA’s
commercial
interests.
Those
conditions
often
include
restrictions
or
exemptions
tied
to
ticketing,
sponsorships,
and
other
core
revenue
streams.
The
logic
is
straightforward.
If
you
want
the
event,
you
accept
the
terms.

What
follows
is
less
straightforward.

Once
the
costs
of
hosting
become
clear,
governments
look
for
ways
to
close
the
gap.
Direct
taxation
of
the
event
is
constrained,
so
the
solution
shifts
outward.
Taxes
are
applied
to
the
surrounding
geography,
to
adjacent
industries,
to
the
broader
ecosystem
that
forms
around
the
event.
They
are
labeled
as
tourism
measures,
but
their
reach
is
wider.

That
is
what
makes
the
Meadowlands
proposal
worth
paying
attention
to
beyond
New
Jersey.
It
reflects
a
structural
tension
that
is
becoming
harder
to
ignore.
Governments
are
asked
to
commit
public
resources
upfront,
often
with
limited
control
over
the
most
lucrative
parts
of
the
event,
and
then
must
justify
how
they
recoup
those
costs
afterward.

The
current
dispute
also
highlights
a
second
layer
of
complexity:
the
allocation
of
costs
across
jurisdictions.
The
World
Cup
matches
will
be
played
in
New
Jersey,
but
they
are
being
marketed
globally
as
part
of
the
New
York
metropolitan
region.
New
York
City
stands
to
benefit
from
the
influx
of
visitors,
branding,
and
economic
activity.
New
Jersey
bears
the
direct
burden
of
hosting.

At
the
same
time,
public
officials
are
pressing
FIFA
to
absorb
a
greater
share
of
specific
expenses,
including
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
in
transportation
costs
tied
to
moving
fans
to
and
from
the
stadium.
Reports
of
sharply
increased
train
fares
have
only
intensified
that
pressure.
The
optics
are
difficult
to
ignore.
On
one
hand,
governments
are
being
told
that
the
event
will
generate
extraordinary
private
revenue.
On
the
other,
they
are
being
asked
to
underwrite
the
infrastructure
required
to
make
it
possible.

Taken
together,
these
dynamics
raise
a
broader
question
about
how
mega-events
are
financed
in
the
United
States.

If
a
tax
is
described
as
targeting
visitors
but
predictably
falls
on
residents,
is
it
still
a
tourism
tax?
If
public
entities
are
constrained
from
taxing
the
core
revenue
streams
of
a
private
organization,
what
does
that
mean
for
the
balance
of
risk
and
reward?
And
if
multiple
jurisdictions
benefit
from
an
event,
how
should
the
costs
be
distributed
among
them?

These
are
not
abstract
concerns.
They
go
directly
to
how
governments
structure
deals
with
global
organizations
and
how
those
deals
are
explained
to
the
public.

There
is
still
time
for
New
Jersey
to
refine
its
approach,
just
as
there
is
time
for
FIFA
and
regional
stakeholders
to
revisit
how
costs
are
shared.
But
the
underlying
issue
will
remain.
The
challenge
is
not
simply
funding
the
World
Cup.
It
is
designing
a
system
in
which
the
financial
responsibilities
are
aligned
with
the
economic
benefits.

For
now,
the
debate
in
the
Meadowlands
offers
a
clear
window
into
what
happens
when
that
alignment
is
missing.

---

Michael
J.
Epstein,
a
Harvard
Law
School
graduate,
is
a
trial
lawyer
and
managing
partner
of The
Epstein
Law
Firm,
P.A., a
law
firm
based
in
New
Jersey.

Sometimes
more
can
be
less
when
it
comes
to
conferences.
There’s
definitely
a
place
for
smaller,
more
intimate
conferences
with
focused
content
and
less
hard
sales.
Focusing
on
content
like
cybersecurity
risks
in
the
age
of
AI,
adopting
GenAI
in
legal
institutions,
and
perhaps
most
importantly,
leadership
in
times
of
change
and
disruption.
The
ILTA
EVOLVE
conferences
have
historically
been
focused
and
low
key.
This
year’s
conference
looks
to
do
the
same
while
adding
a
leadership
focus.

The

ILTA
EVOLVE
conference
kicks
off
today
at
the
Gaylord
Resort
in
Denver.
It’s
ILTA’s
smaller
conference
that
is
being
held
for
the
third
straight
year.
I’ve
been
to
each
one
and
quite
frankly,
I
really
like
it
because
it’s
small.
Attendance
is
capped
at
a
limited
number
and,
in
the
past,
exhibitors
and
sponsors
have
been
placed
in
small
uniform
spaces
in
hallways
outside
the
session.

The
result:
lower
key,
more
time
to
talk
and
interact,
less
hurly-burly
and
running
from
place
to
place.
As
I
have

said
before:
“The
result
is
a
smaller,
less
formal,
and
less
overwhelming
conference.
It’s
a
good
idea.
Sometimes
less
is
indeed
more.”

The
program
will
include
two
really
good
keynote
speakers
and
over
20
educational
speakers.
But
here
is
the
key
to
its
success:
the
session
is
limited
to
only
three
topics.
In
the
past,
it’s
been
two
topics:
cybersecurity
and
GenAI.
This
year
it’s
expanded
to
a
third:
“Leadership
in
Legal
Tech.”

I
know
what
you
are
thinking,
almost
every
legal
tech
conference
these
days
is
“limited”
to
GenAI.
But
ILTA
is
pretty
good
at
keeping
the
sessions
focused.
And
adding
the
third
point
on
leadership
this
year
is
critical.
Law
firms
are
going
through
a
potentially
significant
period
of
disruption
both
because
of
the
advent
of
GenAI
but
also
because
that
very
tool
increases
cybersecurity
risks,
as
I
have
written
before.
So
focusing
on
leadership
during
this
period
of
change
is
pretty
insightful.

The
opening
keynote
will
be
from

Zach
Abramowitz.
Abramowitz
spoke
last
year
and
gave
a
thoughtful
presentation
on
the
impact
of
GenAI
that
kept
us
spellbound
for
two
hours
and
which

I
discussed.
This
year,
the
description
suggests
he
will
talk
about
something
all
too
many
firms
are
struggling
with:
how
to
apply
GenAI
in
meaningful
ways
instead
of
just
reacting
out
of
FOMO.
I
know
from
experience
how
hard
it
is
to
find
a
keynote
who
knows
the
legal
tech
field
and
yet
can
do
a
good
job
as
a
keynoter.
I’m
looking
forward
to
again
hearing
what
he
has
to
say.

The
second
and
closing
keynote
goes
outside
the
legal
box
and
will
be
offered
by

Dr.
Kevin
Fong.
Fong
is
well
known
as
an
emergency
physician,
space
medicine
expert,
broadcaster,
and
author.
I’ve
never
heard
Fong
and
will
be
interested
to
see
how
his
expertise
and
experience
applies
to
law
leadership.
The
title
of
his
talk
is

Leading
Through
Uncertainty,
which
ties
into
the
EVOLVE
theme.
And
we
are
certainly
in
uncertain
times.

In
between,
there
are
lots
of
interesting
sessions.
I’m
particularly
interested
in
the
leadership
sessions.
In
addition
to
the
keynotes,
there
will
be
sessions
on
building
resilience
in
legal
organizations,
building
and
maintaining
data
loss
prevention
programs,
and
finding
a
balance
between
risk
and
innovation.

On
the
cybersecurity
front,
there
will
be
a
women
in
security
breakfast:
it’s
nice
to
see
women
get
deserved
recognition
in
this
area
which
has
too
long
been
dominated
by
men.
All
too
often,
the
contributions
of
women
in
the
digital
world
are
ignored
and
pushed
aside.
Think

Joan
Clarke,

Dorothy
Vaughan,

Margaret
Hamilton,

Grace
Hopper,
to
name
a
few.

Other
cybersecurity
offerings
include
how
to
better
safeguard
data,
how
to
present
cybersecurity
metrics
in
ways
that
get
attention
(always
a
conundrum),
how
to
conduct
cyber
tabletop
exercises,
and
a
discussion
on
the
“emotional
side”
of
a
data
breach,
which
sounds
interesting.
Unfortunately,
despite
the
women
in
security
breakfast,
most
of
the
cybersecurity
presenters
are
men.

Of
course,
there
are
ample
offerings
on
GenAI
as
you
might
expect.
Things
like
its
impact
on
knowledge
management
functions,
the
need
for
robust
data
governance,
how
to
use
GenAI
responsibly
(yes,
as
evidenced
by

reportedly
over
1,300
incidents
of
lawyers
getting
caught
citing
fictitious
cases,
it
is
obviously
still
a
thing),
how
AI
can
be
used
by
neurodivergent
professionals
(I’ve
found
these
kinds
of
discussions
to
be
relevant
and
helpful
to
all
of
us,
by
the
way),
how
to
build
a
financially
defensible
AI
plan,
how
to
build
and
use
custom
AI
agents,
and
how
to
create
and
maintain
AI
governance
requirements
in
law
firms.

It
looks
to
be
a
good
balance
between
the
practical
and
broader
topics
that
impact
the
profession.
Of
course,
it’s
always
hard
to
know
going
in
what
the
conference
will
look
and
feel
like.
I’ll
also
be
interested
to
see
how
it
will
go
in
the
Gaylord.
In
the
past,
unlike
ILTA’s
main
conference,
which
has
often
been
held
in
a
mammoth
Gaylord
facility,
EVOLVE
has
been
in
smaller,
more
intimate
venues,
making
it
feel
less
formal.
I
hope
that
doesn’t
change
despite
the
move.

I’ll
be
there
for
all
three
days
and
will
let
you
know
how
it
goes.
But
looking
at
the
program,
it
looks
pretty
good.
We
will
see
if
ILTA
can
maintain
the
vibe
from
the
previous
EVOLVE
conferences.
I’m
hoping
it
can.

And
I’m
hoping
for
some
good
leadership-related
lessons.
God
knows
the
profession
needs
it
right
now.

---

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.

*
Elon
Musk
gets
into
argument
with
OpenAI’s
lawyer
during
cross.
So
things
are
going
great
over
there.
[Law360]

*
Jeopardy!
law
student
finally
leaves
show
after
hauling
in
$880K.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Emory
Law
expels
student
plaguing
classmates.
[Daily
Report]

*
The
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court
proved
they
don’t
need
to
eliminate
the
Voting
Rights
Act
to
obliterate
the
Voting
Rights
Act.
[One
First]

*
Former
Latham
partner
joined
Paramount
Skydance
and
made
more
in
three
months
than
any
other
chief
legal
officer
made
all
year.
[Corporate
Counsel]

*
Trump
administration
continues
its
quid
pro
quo
with
judges,
handing
a
federal
judicial
nomination
to
state
judge
who
ruled
in
Trump’s
favor
in
frivolous
Pulitzer
case.
[Reuters]