Boutiques
Are
Sharing
The
Wealth:
Perry
Law,
Pallas
Partners,
and
Ross
Aronstam
&
Moritz!
As
Are
Biglaw
Firms!:
Freshfields
and
Sullivan
&
Cromwell!
Latham
Gets
Honored
As
A
Pro
Bono
Innovator:
They
somehow
forgot
to
mention
the
pro
bono
payola.
Lawsuit
Aims
To
Know
What
Work
The
Trump-Cowering
Firms
Are
Up
To:
American
Oversight
wants
answers.
Mind
The
Deadline!:
Apply
for
the
Startup
Alley
Competition
at
ABA
Techshow!
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
the
newly
released
the
2026
Citi
Hildebrandt
Client
Advisory
on
the
legal
industry,
which
city
is
considered
the
most
important
market
for
law
firm
expansion?
Hint:
Contrast
this
city’s
legal
industry
outlook
with
the
Chinese
market,
which
the
report
says
remains
“challenging.”
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
The
AI
Summit
kicked
off
on
December
the
10th
with
some
fireside
chats
with
various
business
leaders
about
how
they
view
AI.
Their
conclusions?
Be
flexible.
Look
at
AI
and
what
it
can
do
holistically.
Deal
with
not
knowing
the
future
by
admitting
that
you
don’t.
The
contrast
with
AI
legal
thinking
could
not
have
been
more
striking.
Legal
still
sees
AI
as
just
something
to
add
on
here
and
there
instead
of
a
potential
new
reality.
It’s
like
driving
pell-mell
into
the
future
while
looking
at
the
rear-view
mirror.
But
first
let’s
get
to
the
fireside
chats.
The
Players
Here
were
the
players
in
yesterday
morning’s
fireside
chats:
Three
different
businesses.
Remarkably
consistent
viewpoints.
A
Mindset
for
the
Future
Here
is
what
permeated
their
comments
first
with
respect
to
how
to
deal
with
the
exponential
change
AI
may
bring.
Leaders
need
to
make
themselves
vulnerable
when
it
comes
to
AI.
As
Rajan
observed,
there
is
power
in
saying
I
don’t
know.
Of
admitting
that
I
don’t
know
what
the
future
will
hold
or
what
the
best
AI
use
cases
will
be.
That’s
a
hard
pill
for
most
lawyers
to
swallow
and
for
managing
partners
of
a
firm
full
of
aggressive
lawyers
to
admit.
It’s
probably
not
the
best
way
to
remain
managing
partner.
Leaders
also
need
to
be
open
to
the
possibility
that
the
future
is
going
to
be
different,
not
just
a
minor
iteration
in
what
it
is
now.
It’s
less
about
having
a
crystal
ball
and
more
about
being
nimble
and
flexible.
Each
panelist
kept
coming
back
to
the
idea
of
journey:
the
tech
that
we
all
bet
on
two
years
ago
is
not
what
we
have
today.
Understanding
that
it’s
a
journey
and
not
a
destination
is
key.
And
recognizing
the
value
of
experimentation
and
research
and
development.
AI
Is
Not
Just
a
Bolt-On
The
group
emphasized
it’s
essential
for
organizations
to
think
about
AI
not
as
an
add-on
tool
but
as
an
end-to-end
workflow
transformation.
Rather
than
taking
legacy
processes
and
trying
to
squeeze
AI
into
them,
the
focus
should
be
on
reimagining
the
entire
workflow.
Rather
than
a
bolt-on,
AI
is
the
foundation.
The
goal
is
rethinking
processes
entirely,
not
just
solving
individual
pain
points.
AI
is
not
“whack-a-mole.”
Seeking
10%
improvements
in
various
tasks
with
AI
tools
is
a
trap.
It
creates
tech
debt,
choosing
quick
technical
fixes
over
robust
solutions,
leading
to
increased
work
and
hidden
costs
down
the
road.
Cultural
Debt
Crayner
talked
about
the
notion
of
cultural
debt,
where
businesses
follow
a
“cow
path”
just
because
it’s
a
path
they
can
see.
Businesses
need
to
identify
places
and
workflows
where
things
are
done
a
certain
way
just
because
that’s
the
way
they
have
always
been
done.
Cultural
debt,
according
to
Crayner,
like
tech
debt,
is
where
changes
are
made
that
don’t
transform
the
business.
Another
point:
a
value
of
AI
is
that
by
freeing
professionals
of
busy
work,
it
makes
them
happier
employees.
And
as
Crayner
pointed
out,
there
is
direct
correlation
between
happier
employees
and
consumer
satisfaction.
The
group
did
admit
that
training
is
an
issue
yet
to
be
solved.
In
every
business,
the
younger
generation
of
future
leaders
learn
about
the
business
by
walking
around
and
just
doing
things.
Many
of
those
learning
opportunities
are
being
replaced
by
AI.
How
younger
people
will
gain
the
same
level
of
knowledge
than
those
before
them
remains
to
be
seen.
So,
how
does
this
all
square
up
with
legal
and
with
law
firms
in
which
I
spent
some
30
years
of
my
life?
And
What
Say
Legal?
One
of
the
reasons
I
like
to
come
to
conferences
like
this
is
to
hear
how
other
businesses
and
industries
think.
Yes,
there
were
a
lot
of
platitudes
thrown
out
during
the
chats
and
beyond.
Yes,
there
were
lots
of
lofty
goals
and
reality
may
be
far
different.
But
lofty
goals
and
platitudes
create
a
culture
that
can
better
deal
with
change,
particularly
exponential
change.
But
compare
the
mindset
of
most
law
firms
and
lawyers.
For
example,
I
don’t
hear
many
law
firm
leaders
say
they
don’t
know
the
answers
but
are
open
to
the
journey.
I
get
it.
But
in
times
of
robust
and
fast
change,
it
may
be
critical.
Few
law
firms
are
investing
end-of-the-year
profits
into
research
and
development
instead
of
distributions
to
the
partners.
Few
encourage
innovation
and
experimentation.
Think
how
many
legal
tech
startups
came
from
ideas
young
lawyers
had
as
associates
to
solve
some
pain
point.
Their
firms
discouraged
them
to
pursue
their
ideas
because
“hey,
you
need
to
meet
your
billable
hour
quotas.”
From
what
I
see,
AI
is
in
fact
considered
a
bolt-on
at
most
law
firms.
The
focus
is
on
how
an
AI
tool
can
address
the
problem
of
the
day.
There’s
little
thinking
about
how
AI
might
be
used
to
reimagine
work
processes.
Many
firms
view
AI
as
something
merely
to
try
to
look
innovative
to
clients.
And
law
firms
continue
pile
up
both
tech
debt
and
face
cultural
debt,
often
at
the
urging
of
vendors
who
continue
to
offer
enhancements
that
don’t
do
all
that
much.
Law
Firms’
Cultural
Debt
Most
firms
see
AI
as
a
way
to
continue
doing
things
like
they
always
have,
just
more
efficiently
(and
even
that,
given
the
billable
hour
model
is
viewed
grudgingly).
They
aren’t
looking
at
how
AI
will
disrupt
their
blind
adherence
to
the
billable
hour
model.
And
law
firms’
answer
to
the
training
challenge?
Yank
the
associates
back
into
the
office
four
or
five
days
a
week
so
they
can
absorb
water
cooler
knowledge
from
the
partners
(many
of
whom
are
working
remotely,
by
the
way).
There
is
precious
little
investment
in
robust,
equitable
training
programs
that
focus
on
ensuring
all
associates
develop
the
kind
of
knowledge
and
experiences
lawyers
need
to
form
the
critical
thinking
skills
so
necessary
to
being
a
good
lawyer.
In
fact,
other
than
lip
service,
few
firms
recognize
the
notion
that
happier
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
make
for
happier
clients.
A
Hidden
Danger
There’s
another
danger
that
the
prevailing
law
firm
mindset
poses.
Melissa
Rogozinski
and
I
have
recently
written
about
the
over
reliance
on
AI,
the
infrastructure
challenges,
and
the
cost
of
verification.
All
real
dangers.
But
the
whack-a-mole
approach
and
not
keeping
an
open
mindset
leads
right
into
the
overreliance
danger.
It’s
an
inability
to
consider
both
the
benefits
and
potential
risks
because
you’re
myopically
focused
on
the
10%
or
less
perceived
incremental
gains.
It’s
the
piling
up
of
the
tech
debt
by
not
thinking
about
whether
verification
costs
more
than
the
savings,
leading
to
overall
increased
costs.
The
Challenge
There
is
lots
of
AI
cheering
going
on
at
this
conference.
Lots
of
selling
and
AI
giddiness.
But
the
fireside
chat
participants
convinced
me
that
a
healthy
mindset
brings
some
realistic
thinking
about
where
we
may
be
headed.
Certainly,
there
are
law
firms
that
think
like
these
panelists.
That
are
looking
at
the
big
picture.
That
aren’t
afraid
to
say
they
don’t
know.
That’s
not
the
prevailing
mindset.
But
that’s
what
law
firm
leaders
better
start
doing
—
before
AI,
tech
debt,
and
cultural
debt
eat
them
alive.
The
survivors
will
be
the
ones
that
think
not
like
lawyers
but
like
the
businesspeople
who
see
the
big
picture,
not
small
ones.
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:
This
is
the
latest
in
the
article
series, Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches, by
our
friends
at Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.
Cyber
incidents
are
no
longer
rare,
hypothetical
events
reserved
for
global
corporations
and
household-name
brands.
Today,
law
firms
of
every
size
are
squarely
in
the
crosshairs.
Ransomware
groups,
credential
thieves,
and
organized
cybercriminals
understand
exactly
what
law
firms
hold:
sensitive
data,
privileged
communications,
financial
leverage,
and
time-critical
operations.
Recent
2025
Mandiant
incident
response
research
highlights
a
reality
many
companies
still
find
hard
to
accept:
most
breaches
don’t
fail
due
to
a
lack
of
technology.
They
fail
because
organizations
are
unprepared
to
respond
under
pressure.
In
other
words,
it’s
not
just
what
you
buy.
It’s
what
you
practice.
Across
countless
real-world
incidents,
the
same
issues
keep
recurring:
outdated
response
plans,
unclear
leadership
roles,
slow
decision-making,
and
confusing
communications.
When
attackers
breach
a
network
—
often
using
stolen
credentials
rather
than
sophisticated
exploits
–organizations
waste
valuable
hours
just
trying
to
figure
out
who
is
in
charge
and
what
should
be
done
first.
In
cyber
response,
delays
compound
damage.
Data
exfiltration,
lateral
movement,
and
ransomware
deployment
don’t
wait
for
committee
meetings.
For
law
firms,
those
delays
are
especially
risky.
They
can
lead
to
loss
of
client
trust,
increased
regulatory
scrutiny,
ethical
issues,
and
potential
malpractice
claims
all
within
the
first
24
to
72
hours
after
discovery.
The
choices
made
during
that
critical
period
determine
the
entire
course
of
what
happens
next.
A
modern
incident
response
plan
is
no
longer
just
a
single
document
tucked
away
in
a
shared
folder.
It
is
a
dynamic
operational
playbook
based
on
realistic
attack
scenarios.
Strong
programs
now
focus
on:
The
key
shift
is
treating
incident
response
like
emergency
management
rather
than
treating
it
like
IT
troubleshooting.
When
a
breach
occurs,
firms
must
move
instantly
from
“business
as
usual”
into
structured
crisis
mode.
Unlike
many
businesses,
law
firms
operate
under
strict
confidentiality
and
fiduciary
obligations.
A
ransomware
attack
doesn’t
simply
disrupt
operations;
it
can
also
compromise
attorney-client
privilege,
court
deadlines,
escrow
accounts,
and
regulatory
compliance
across
multiple
jurisdictions
simultaneously.
Despite
this,
many
firms
still
invest
heavily
in
prevention
but
underinvest
in
response.
It
is
common
to
see
detailed
business
continuity
plans
paired
with
outdated
or
barely
tested
cyber
response
protocols.
That
gap
represents
one
of
the
most
dangerous
blind
spots
in
legal
risk
management
today.
Cyber
insurance
may
help
cover
recovery
costs,
but
it
cannot
undo
reputational
damage
or
restore
client
confidence
once
sensitive
matters
are
exposed.
Perhaps
the
most
critical
insight
from
recent
incident
response
research
is
this:
The
companies
that
recover
quickly
are
not
those
with
the
most
tools
—
they
are
the
ones
whose
executives,
partners,
IT
teams,
and
outside
counsel
have
already
practiced
their
roles
before
stress,
confusion,
and
public
pressure
arise.
Preparation
does
not
stop
breaches
from
happening.
It
limits
the
damage
when
they
do
occur.
Cyber
incidents
are
no
longer
unexpected
events.
They
are
statistically
inevitable.
The
differentiator
is
no
longer
whether
a
firm
will
experience
a
breach,
but
how
quickly
and
competently
it
responds
when
that
moment
arrives.
Every
firm
should
be
able
to
answer
this
question
without
hesitation:
If
ransomware
detonated
right
now,
who
leads
our
response
in
the
first
30
minutes?
If
the
answer
is
unclear,
the
plan
isn’t
ready.
And
in
today’s
legal
environment,
incident
response
is
no
longer
just
a
compliance
exercise
but
a
core
survival
skill.
Michael
C.
Maschke
is
the
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
Mr.
Maschke
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner
(EnCE),
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner
(ACE),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP).
He
is
a
frequent
speaker
on
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics,
and
he
has
co-authored
14
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
Sharon
D.
Nelson
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.
She
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
John
W.
Simek
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
holds
multiple
technical
certifications
and
is
a
nationally
known
digital
forensics
expert.
He
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
When
you’re
operating
in
a
modest
demand
growth
environment
overall—meanwhile,
the
cost
of
running
these
very
sophisticated
businesses
is
increasing—we
will
see
continued
consolidation
occurring.
When
you’re
in
an
industry
that
grows
demand
on
average
less
than
1%
from
one
year
to
the
next,
the
way
to
outperform
your
peers
is
to
buy
that
growth
[through
mergers
or
lateral
hiring].
The
way
to
outperform
your
peers
is
to
take
market
share
from
others.
—
Gretta
Rusanow,
managing
director
and
head
of
advisory
services
at
Citi’s
Law
Firm
Group,
in
comments
given
to
Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
the
likelihood
that
law
firm
mergers
will
continue
apace
in
2026
after
a
year
of
consequential
combinations
in
2025.
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.
We’ve
declared
2025
the
year
of
the
litigation
boutique
and
the
bonuses
they’re
showering
on
associates
is
proof
positive
the
small
but
mighty
firms
are
where
it’s
at.
The
latest
boutique
showering
associates
with
cash
is
Pallas
Partners,
the
firm
founded
by
former
Boies
Schiller
managing
partner
Natasha
Harrison
with
offices
in
London
and
New
York.
Associates
will
get
their
market
bonuses,
then
are
eligible
for
step-up
bonuses
that
could
add
as
much
as
another
80%
to
their
take-home
amount.
The
bonus
schedules
at
Pallas
are
as
follows:
|
Class Year |
2025 Base Market Bonus |
Special Bonus |
| 2024 | $20,000 | $6,000 |
| 2023 | $30,000 | $10,000 |
| 2022 | $57,500 | $15,000 |
| 2021 | $75,000 | $20,000 |
| 2020 | $90,000 | $25,000 |
| 2019 | $105,000 | $25,000 |
| 2018+ | $115,000 | $25,000 |
Full
details
of
our
step-up
thresholds
are
as
follows:
|
Class |
Base Bonus ($) |
Step #1 Bonus |
Step #2 Bonus |
Step#3 Bonus |
Step#4 Bonus |
Step #5 Bonus |
|
|
– |
15% |
30% |
50% |
60% |
80% |
|
|
2,000 |
2,100 |
2,200 |
2,350 |
2,400 |
2,500 |
|
Class I |
$20,000 | $3,000 | $6,000 | $10,000 | $12,000 | $16,000 |
|
Class II |
$30,000 | $4,500 | $9,000 | $15,000 | $18,000 | $24,000 |
|
Class III |
$57,500 | $8,625 | $17,250 | $28,750 | $34,500 | $46,000 |
|
Class IV |
$75,000 | $11,250 | $22,500 | $37,500 | $45,000 | $60,000 |
|
Class V |
$90,000 | $13,500 | $27,000 | $45,000 | $54,000 | $72,000 |
|
Class VI |
$105,000 | $15,750 | $31,500 | $52,500 | $63,000 | $84,000 |
|
Class VII |
$115,000 | $17,250 | $34,500 | $57,500 | $69,000 | $92,000 |
|
Counsel I |
$115,000 | $17,250 | $34,500 | $57,500 | $69,000 | $92,000 |
|
Counsel II |
$115,000 | $17,250 | $34,500 | $57,500 | $69,000 | $92,000 |
Congrats
to
everyone
at
Pallas!
Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.
And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!
Full
memo
available
below.
Dear
all,
I
am
pleased
to
confirm
that
we
will
be
awarding
base
market
bonuses
to
qualifying
counsel
and
associates
this
year
in
line
with
our
bonus
scale
set
forth
in
the
table
below.
In
addition,
I
am
pleased
to
let
you
know
that
this
year
we
will
also
be
paying
special
bonuses,
details
of
which
are
outlined
below.
|
Class Year |
2025 Base Market Bonus |
Special Bonus |
| 2024 | $20,000 | $6,000 |
| 2023 | $30,000 | $10,000 |
| 2022 | $57,500 | $15,000 |
| 2021 | $75,000 | $20,000 |
| 2020 | $90,000 | $25,000 |
| 2019 | $105,000 | $25,000 |
| 2018+ | $115,000 | $25,000 |
Full
details
of
our
step-up
thresholds
are
as
follows:
|
Class |
Base Bonus ($) |
Step #1 Bonus |
Step #2 Bonus |
Step#3 Bonus |
Step#4 Bonus |
Step #5 Bonus |
|
|
– |
15% |
30% |
50% |
60% |
80% |
|
|
2,000 |
2,100 |
2,200 |
2,350 |
2,400 |
2,500 |
|
Class I |
$20,000 | $3,000 | $6,000 | $10,000 | $12,000 | $16,000 |
|
Class II |
$30,000 | $4,500 | $9,000 | $15,000 | $18,000 | $24,000 |
|
Class III |
$57,500 | $8,625 | $17,250 | $28,750 | $34,500 | $46,000 |
|
Class IV |
$75,000 | $11,250 | $22,500 | $37,500 | $45,000 | $60,000 |
|
Class V |
$90,000 | $13,500 | $27,000 | $45,000 | $54,000 | $72,000 |
|
Class VI |
$105,000 | $15,750 | $31,500 | $52,500 | $63,000 | $84,000 |
|
Class VII |
$115,000 | $17,250 | $34,500 | $57,500 | $69,000 | $92,000 |
|
Counsel I |
$115,000 | $17,250 | $34,500 | $57,500 | $69,000 | $92,000 |
|
Counsel II |
$115,000 | $17,250 | $34,500 | $57,500 | $69,000 | $92,000 |
Bonuses
will
be
paid
to
those
qualifying*
counsel
and
associates
who
have
met
the
Firm’s
hours
target.
Timing
of
bonus
payments
will
be
communicated
separately.
We
would
like
to
take
this
time
to
thank
you
for
your
hard
work
and
contributions
this
year.
Vicky
*
Counsel
and
associates
in
good
standing,
employed
prior
to
1
September
2025
and
who
remain
employed
by
the
Firm
on
the
date
of
the
bonus
payment.
|
Victoria Bingle Director of Human Resources |
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].
Biglaw
has
a
reputation
for
paying
their
associates
a
lot
of
money,
but
boutique
firms
are
consistently
handing
out
bonuses
with
a
little
bonus
to
them.
Perry
Law
must
have
had
a
great
year
financially
because
the
bonuses
they’re
handing
out
to
their
associates
are
definitely
above
market.
Here’s
a
look
at
Perry
Law’s
scale:
And
there’s
more
good
news
—
those
who
went
above
the
expected
hourly
threshold
can
expect
even
more
cash
to
hit
their
bank
accounts.
To
everyone
at
Perry,
enjoy
the
money!
You
should
expect
to
see
the
fruits
of
your
labor
before
the
year
is
over.
Use
the
occasion
to
treat
yourself
to
something
nice.
Buy
some
art,
commit
to
that
spa
day
you’ve
been
thinking
about,
you’ve
earned
it.
We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us
(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.
And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Salary
&
Bonus
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Biglaw’s
bonus
season
is
moving
right
on
schedule,
with
firms
steadily
matching
the
now-prevailing
scales.
Cravath
once
again
set
the
year-end
bonus
structure,
while
Milbank
set
the
bar
for
special
bonus
scales,
and
the
industry
has
wasted
no
time
following
suit.
One
by
one,
firms
are
confirming
that
this
year’s
bonus
picture
looks
very
familiar
—
and
very
lucrative
—
for
associates.
The
latest
firm
to
match
the
market
is
Freshfields,
which
brought
in $2,981,807,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
13
on
the
Global
100.
Here’s
what
the
scale
looks
like
at
the
firm:
Bonuses
will
hit
bank
accounts
on
December
30,
paving
the
way
for
a
very
happy
new
year.
Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Freshfields!
Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.
And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!
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.
One
of
the
most
important
legal
stories
of
this
year
—
hell,
probably
this
decade
—
is
the
craven
capitulation
of
nine
major
Biglaw
firms
to
Donald
Trump.
You’ll
recall,
early
in
his
second
term,
Trump
launched
a war
on
Biglaw through unconstitutional
Executive
Orders designed to
break
major
law
firms unless
they bent
the
knee. In
the face
of
financial
harm, nine
major
firms (Paul
Weiss,
Skadden,
Kirkland,
Latham,
Cadwalader,
Willkie
Farr,
Simpson
Thacher,
Milbank,
and
A&O
Shearman)
sought Trump’s
seal
of
approval,
providing
millions
in
pro
bono
payola,
that
is,
free
legal
services
on
behalf
of conservative
clients
or
approved
causes in
order
to
avoid
Trumpian
retribution. Those
deals
keep
getting
worse,
as
the
consequences
hit
home:
there’ve
been congressional
investigations, client
concerns,
and
there’ve
been
bunches
lawyers bailing on the
firms to distance
themselves from
the
craven
capitulation.
But
what
work,
exactly,
are
the
firms
doing
to
satisfy
the
terms
of
their
deals?
We’ve since
learned that
several
of
the
capitulating
firms
have
taken
on
a
role
papering
up
work
for
the
Commerce
Department in
a
questionably
legal
arrangement.
But
how
this
work
squares
with
the
deals
the
firms
signed
with
Trump
remains
unclear.
Earlier
today,
nonprofit
watchdog
American
Oversight
filed
a
lawsuit
(available
below)
seeking
compliance
with
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(FOIA)
requests
about
the
deals.
As
the
complaint
notes,
“Though
the
scope
of
the
services
included
in
these
agreements
is
unclear,
President
Trump
has
suggested
these
law
firms
may
be
working
pro
bono
for
the
federal
government
on
issues
including
‘trade
deals,
immigration
enforcement,
and
.
.
.
defending
police
officers
who
are
under
investigation
for
misconduct.’”
As
the
complaint
says,
American
Oversight
has
filed
repeated
FOIA
requests
—
to
both
the
Commerce
Department
and
DOJ
—
related
to
the
Biglaw
deals,
and
got
bupkus
for
their
efforts.
The
FOIA
requests
seek
communications,
agreements,
ethics
waivers,
billing
records,
and
legal
analyses
concerning
the
firms’
work,
including
any
pro
bono
or
discounted
arrangements.
“When
elite
law
firms
decide
it’s
safer
to
appease
political
power
than
uphold
the
rule
of
law,
the
public
deserves
to
know
what
was
bargained
away.
Lawyers
swear
an
oath
to
serve
the
public
and
the
Constitution,
not
abandon
principle
when
it
threatens
their
bottom
line.
Yet
these
firms
capitulated,
engaging
in
anticipatory
obedience
to
secure
protection
and
profit,” said
Chioma
Chukwu,
Executive
Director
of
American
Oversight. “They
entered
sweeping,
secretive
agreements
with
the
very
administration
targeting
them,
and
their
work
now
advances
the
president’s
political
agenda
at
the
public’s
expense.
That
is
unacceptable.
These
records
must
be
released
so
the
American
people
can
see
the
terms
of
these
deals
and
hold
institutions
accountable
when
they
choose
compliance
over
principle.
And
accountability
must
follow.”
Whatever
is
turned
up
in
these
FOIA
requests
will
certainly
be
interesting
for
legal
industry
watchers,
and
pretty
much
anyone
who
is
deeply
concerned
about
the
rule
of
law
in
2025.
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].
Every
year,
Bloomberg
Law
honors
select
law
firms
as
Pro
Bono
Innovators.
This
year,
the
publication
profiled
Latham
&
Watkins
for
its
work:
Latham
&
Watkins’
key
pro
bono
matters
include
achieving
a
unanimous
US
Supreme
Court
victory
for
Ava
Tharpe,
a
student
with
severe
epilepsy,
in A.J.T.
v.
Osseo
Area
Schools.
The
ruling
established
that
children
with
disabilities
suing
for
education-related
discrimination
must
be
treated
like
all
other
plaintiffs.
Latham
also
used
its
experience
advising
on
low-carbon
energy
matters
in
a
novel
environmental
project
on
Chicago’s
South
Side.
The
firm’s
lawyers
prepared
a
renewable
natural
gas
offtake
agreement
that
allowed
Green
Era,
housed
at
a
remediated
brownfield,
to
optimize
the
creation
of
its
food
waste
recycler,
known
as
an
anaerobic
digester.
Hmmm.
It
seems
like
something
is
missing
from
this
account!
Wasn’t
there
some
other
pro
bono
story
about
Latham
this
year?
Something
big?
Something…
nine
figures
and
collapse
of
the
rule
of
law-adjacent?
That
said,
offering
the
government
$125
million
in
pro
bono
payola
to
bribe
Donald
Trump
into
ending
a
blatantly
unconstitutional
shakedown
campaign
is,
I
suppose,
a
kind
of
innovation.
It’s
certainly
not
a
pro
bono
strategy
anyone
had
heard
of
before
2025.
As
innovation
goes,
it’s
not
exactly
inventing
the
wheel.
More
like
unveiling
a
Cinnamon
Toast
flavored
Tide
Pod,
in
that
it’s
undeniably
a
new
twist,
ethical
considerations
aside.
But
also,
Latham
wasn’t
even
the
first
to
cop
a
deal
with
the
administration
—
Paul
Weiss
had
already
waved
the
white
flag
by
the
time
Latham
arrived
with
an
oversized
novelty
check
of
constitutional
complicity.
So
how
innovative
were
they
really?
The
Bloomberg
Law
write-up
runs
over
a
thousand
words
and
none
of
them
are
“Trump”
or
“executive
order”
or
“cowardly”
despite
each
of
these
being
essential
to
any
conversation
about
Latham’s
2025
pro
bono
campaign.
Without
even
a
whiff
about
the
firm’s
biggest
pro
bono
story
of
the
year,
the
piece
reads
like
putting
a
sticker
on
the
“Check
Engine”
light.
No
one
is
asking
Latham
to
self-flagellate.
No
one
expects
Bloomberg
to
write
diss
tracks.
But
if
you’re
going
to
throw
laurels,
at
least
acknowledge
the
head
you’re
placing
them
upon.
Maybe
sit
out
this
year’s
awards
circuit,
gang.
This
is
the
lesson
Paul
Weiss
learned
last
month
when
partner
Loretta
Lynch
collected
a
Champion
of
Justice
award
from
the
New
York
Bar
Foundation.
Protesters
gathered
outside.
A
heckler
inside
shouted
“For
Trump?”
while
Paul
Weiss
Chair
Brad
Karp
spoke
about
the
firm’s
pro
bono
accomplishments.
It
was,
shall
we
say,
not
the
dignified
evening
the
rubber
chicken
circuit
typically
provides.
It’s
not
that
Lynch
didn’t
deserve
the
award
or
that
Paul
Weiss
didn’t
perform
worthy
pro
bono
work
outside
of
their
deal.
Whether
either
firm
intended
it
that
way
or
not,
there’s
no
way
to
collect
awards
like
these
in
2025
without
it
coming
across
as
a
shameless
rehabilitation
tour.
Participating
in
a
puff
piece
for
a
trade
publication
only
makes
it
worse.
Now
is
the
time
to
keep
heads
down
and
just
do
the
work…
we’ll
let
you
know
when
you’ve
worked
your
way
back.
And
Latham
is
pursuing
good
pro
bono
projects.
The
A.J.T.
case
genuinely
matters,
delivering
for
children
with
disabilities
facing
discrimination
in
education.
Partner
Roman
Martinez
and
his
team
did
real
work
that
will
help
real
people.
Likewise,
Josh
Bledsoe’s
team
working
with
Green
Era
supported
that
group’s
initiatives
to
address
food
waste,
urban
farming,
and
renewable
energy
in
underserved
Chicago
communities.
Just
because
a
firm
capitulated
to
Trump
didn’t
mean
it
stopped
doing
good
pro
bono
work.
Or
at
least
didn’t
mean
it
necessarily
stopped
doing
good
pro
bono
work.
Because
groups
disfavored
by
the
Trump
administration,
particularly
those
working
with
immigrants,
have
found
themselves
dropped
by
longtime
Biglaw
pro
bono
partners.
The
damage
spilled
out
beyond
the
capitulators
too,
as
firms
registered
what
happened
with
the
firms
targeted
by
Trump
and
accordingly
walked
away
from
pro
bono
causes
to
avoid
ending
up
on
Trump’s
bad
side.
None
of
the
Surrender
Firms
will
admit
it,
but
when
the
most
well-resourced
firms
in
human
history
decided
that
protecting
the
rule
of
law
was
none
of
their
business,
the
rest
of
the
market
got
the
message
loud
and
clear:
keep
your
head
down
and
maybe
Trump
won’t
notice
you.
Every
firm
that
made
a
deal
with
Trump
made
life
worse
for
those
who
need
pro
bono
services.
There
should
be
no
awards
for
this.
Earlier:
Five
Top
Biglaw
Firms
Pledge
Their
Allegiance
To
Trump,
Promising
To
Provide
Legal
Services
‘Beyond’
His
Time
In
The
White
House
Heckler
Asks
‘For
Trump?’
As
Paul
Weiss
Describes
Pro
Bono
Work
At
Gala
Dinner
Biglaw’s
Trump
Deals
Have
Chilling
Effect
On
Pro
Bono
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.