We’ve
now
confirmed
that
Paul
Hastings
—
which
reported
$2,235,739,000
in
gross
revenue
and
profits
per
equity
partner
of
$6,715,000
in
2024
according
to
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
has
chosen
to
use
the
Cravath
scale
for
its
year-end
bonuses:
Class
of
2024
–
$20,000
Class
of
2023
–
$30,000
Class
of
2022
–
$57,500
Class
of
2021
–
$75,000
Class
of
2020
–
$90,000
Class
of
2019
–
$105,000
Class
of
2018+
–
$115,000
Paul
Hastings
is
also
matching
the
Milbank
special
bonus
scale,
and
this
is
what
they
will
look
like
at
the
firm:
Class
of
2024
–
$6,000
Class
of
2023
–
$10,000
Class
of
2022
–
$15,000
Class
of
2021
–
$20,000
Class
of
2020
–
$25,000
Class
of
2019
–
$25,000
Class
of
2018+
–
$25,000
Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Paul
Hastings!
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.
Break
out
the
stretchy
pants
and
gratitude
journals,
because
McKool
Smith,
the
Texas-based
complex
trial
firm
that’s
been
handing
out
money
to
associates
hand
over
fist
for
years,
just
dropped
a
little
holiday
surprise
on
its
associates:
special
Thanksgiving
bonuses,
ranging
from
$2,500
to
$10,000
depending
on
seniority.
Yes,
in
addition
to
year-end
bonuses.
It’s
not
quite
Milbank’s
summer
“please
love
us,
please
stay,
please
bill”
bonus
extravaganza,
but
McKool’s
offering
is
nothing
to
sneeze
at.
Is
it
life-changing?
No.
Is
it
enough
to
buy
a
plane
ticket
home,
a
decent
bottle
of
bourbon,
and
the
emotional
buffer
required
to
survive
a
full
Thanksgiving
weekend
with
extended
family?
Absolutely.
And
this
is
the
kind
of
gesture
that
keeps
morale
high
—
or
at
least
above
the
level
where
associates
start
doom-scrolling
job
boards
during
lunch.
So
congratulations,
McKool
associates.
Enjoy
the
bonus,
enjoy
the
validation,
and
enjoy
the
brief
moment
of
hope
before
December’s
year-end
chaos
begins.
Happy
Thanksgiving
—
and
happy
bonus
season.
Read
the
full
announcement
below.
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!
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].
The
American
Bar
Association
has
come
under
fire
for
requiring
schools
to
put
some
effort
into
making
sure
that
their
student
bodies
don’t
look
like
the
start
of
a
small
ethnostate.
Schools
had
to
show
some
attempt
at
encouraging
diversity
in
recruitment,
admissions,
and
programming.
This
was
a
hard
pill
to
swallow,
especially
for
the
Trump
administration.
After
some
light
pushback,
the
ABA
has
put
a
moratorium
on
the
standard,
citing
the
difficulty
for
schools
to
follow
the
guidelines
without
running
into
legal
trouble
after
SFFA
v.
Harvard.
Given
the
challenges,
the
ABA
has
been
reconsidering
its
standards.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
American
Bar
Association
will
undertake
a
sweeping
review
of
its
standards
for
law
schools
as
states
weigh
dropping
the
organization
as
an
accreditor
and
critics
blame
its
regulations
for
driving
up
student
costs.
While
there’s
nothing
factually
incorrect
about
the
sentence
above,
the
word
“states”
is
carrying
a
lot
of
weight
here.
It
would
be
one
thing
if
half
of
the
country
was
thinking
about
dropping
the
ABA,
but
it’s
just
Florida
and
Texas.
And
you
know
what
they
say
about
Texas:
Texas
and
Florida
may
be
of
a
mind
to
drop
the
ABA
but
the
problem
is,
again,
the
rest
of
the
country.
The
remaining
48
states
won’t
cede
out
just
because
they
do
—
and
that’ll
make
it
a
lot
harder
for
freshly
minted
Texan
and
Floridian
JDs
to
get
jobs
from
employers
looking
to
hire
accredited
graduates.
Even
if
other
states
are
thinking
about
dropping
the
ABA,
they’d
have
to
come
up
with
their
own
accreditation
process
to
replace
the
job
the
ABA
has
been
doing
well
enough
for
decades
now.
Texas
and
Florida
are
special
cases
in
that
they
are
states
who
would
go
to
lengths
to
keep
the
administration
happy,
but
everyone
else
probably
doesn’t
give
enough
of
a
damn
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
The
committee’s
proposed
elimination
of
the
diversity
and
inclusion
standard
is
the
part
of
the
story
that
actually
has
teeth
to
bite
with.
At
this
point,
just
rip
the
Band-Aid
off.
It’s
been
on
life
support
since
February
and
unless
there
are
going
to
be
some
serious
changes
in
the
Executive
or
the
Judiciary
over
the
next
three
years,
it
is
going
to
be
a
constant
buzzing
in
the
ear.
The
question
of
why
diversity
matters
to
the
ABA
has
been
open
since
February
of
last
year
—
maybe
it’s
time
to
stop
pretending
it’s
an
actual
priority
they
hold
dear.
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.
Bonus
season
has
officially
begun.
Cravath,
the
firm
that’s
the
standard
bearer
for
Biglaw
associate
compensation,
has
kicked
off
the
2025
bonus
sweepstakes.
And
Cravath’s
not
here
for
restraint.
The
firm
announced
year-end
bonuses
and
a
round
of
special
bonuses
that
mirror
the
Milbank
summer
bonuses.
As
reflected
in
the
chart
below,
the
year-end
bonus
amounts
echo
last
year’s
bonus
scale.
Maybe
they’re
not
reinventing
the
bonus
wheel,
but
there’s
a
pretty
big
paycheck
headed
associates’
way.
New
York
and
D.C.
associates
will
get
their
bonuses
on
December
12th
(with
no
hours
requirement,
as
per
usual
for
the
firm),
while
London
associates
will
have
to
wait
an
extra
week
for
the
money
to
hit
their
accounts.
And
because
it’s
Cravath,
every
other
Biglaw
partner
just
felt
the
sudden
urge
to
“circle
back”
with
their
executive
committees.
Now
we
wait
for
the
inevitable
parade
of
matching
announcements.
Davis
Polk
will
follow
soon.
Paul
Weiss
will
toss
in
something
shiny.
Latham
will
eventually
make
its
move,
confident
as
always.
And
every
associate
in
Biglaw
will
spend
the
next
72
hours
refreshing
their
inbox
like
it’s
a
Taylor
Swift
ticket
queue.
But
for
now,
Cravath
has
officially
fired
the
starting
gun.
Bonus
season
is
here.
May
your
hours
be
high
and
your
disappointment
minimal.
So,
is
your
firm
matching
*both*
the
year-end
and
special
bonuses?
Let
Above
the
Law
know!
We
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
matches
(or
if
they
fail
to
do
so),
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
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
all
of
your
help!
Read
the
full
memo
below.
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].
At
this
moment,
both
firms
come
to
this
announcement
with
the
position
of
financial
strength,
great
optimism
and
confidence,
looking
to
the
future
and
a
true
combination
of
equals.
—
Bill
Malley,
managing
partner
of
Perkins
Coie,
in
comments
given
to
Law.com,
concerning
the
firm’s
recent
announcement
of
a
merger
with
Ashurst,
which
is
expected
to
be
voted
upon
by
all
partners
in
2026.
If
approved,
the
combination
will
go
live
as
soon
as
the
middle
of
next
year.
Malley
denied
that
the
tie-up
had
anything
to
do
with
the
firm’s
ongoing
battle
against
the
Trump
administration’s
executive
order
(which
a
federal
judge
has
already
ruled
unconstitutional,
though
the
decision
is
under
appeal),
saying
the
two
firms
had
been
chatting
before
the
EO
was
even
issued.
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.
Elon
Musk
gets
himself
involved
in
a
lot
of
entertaining
court
fights.
Sometimes
he
botches
these
fights
so
badly
you
wonder
if
he
really
would
fall
for
a
visit
from
the
wallet
inspector.
Other
times
he
gets
a
helping
hand
from
a
friendly
judge.
But
it’s
not
clear
that
he’s
ever
gotten
litigation
help
from
an
AI
hallucination
before.
Though
the
latest
twist
in
the
procedural
labyrinth
of
his
tussle
with
PlainSite
developer
Aaron
Greenspan
may
have
finally
crossed
that
threshold.
Is
this
an
AI
hallucination
working
its
way
into
a
court
order?
Maybe
not.
It
could
be
the
result
of
a
human
judge
(or
clerk)
dropping
the
ball.
So,
perhaps,
we
should
hope
it’s
an
AI
hallucination,
for
the
sake
of
the
humans
involved.
The
latest
order
grants
a
motion
to
strike
brought
by
Musk
and
his
co-defendants
under
California’s
anti-SLAPP
statute.
Greenspan
argued
that
the
motion
wasn’t
timely
filed
and
the
judge
deemed
that,
pursuant
to
the
statute,
the
court
has
discretion
to
entertain
the
motion
at
any
time
and
would
do
so
here.
Whether
the
court
was
right
to
exercise
that
discretion
here
is
for
the
parties
to
battle
out.
For
those
of
us
scouring
filings
for
questionable
AI
screw-ups
though,
we
now
zoom
to
a
handwritten
insert
included
with
the
order,
justifying
the
decision
to
allow
the
motion
even
if
it
technically
missed
a
deadline
based
on
Jones
v.
Goodman,
57
Cal.App.5th
521,
where
the
court
writes,
that
an
amended
motion
should
relate
back
to
the
initial
motion
“as
long
as
the
initial
motion
was
in
‘substantial
compliance’
with
the
governing
rule.”
Except
that’s
not
what
Jones
actually
says.
The
defendants
in
Jones
had
themselves
argued
—
and
we
quote
—
that
“substantial
compliance
with
the
rule
is
all
that
is
required;
and
the
amended
motion
should
be
deemed
to
‘relate
back’
to
the
initial
motion,
just
as
an
amended
pleading
might
relate
back
to
the
filing
of
the
original
pleading.”
This
would
be
an
odd
rule
to
adopt
since
it
would
dispose
of
any
meaningful
deadline
throughout
a
litigation
if
every
issue
could
be
preserved
by
vomiting
up
a
half-assed
brief
and
then
“amending”
it
well
after
the
deadline.
Which
is
why
the
Jones
court
went
on
to
explicitly
reject
this
argument.
In
the
next
paragraph,
the
Jones
court
describes
the
defendants’
arguments
there
as
“not
well
taken,”
clarifying
that
“A
motion
is
not
a
complaint,
or
any
other
type
of
pleading….
Defendants
provide
no
authority
for
the
proposition
that
the
relation-back
doctrine
applies
to
anything
other
than
pleadings.”
So
then
how
did
this
case
end
up
in
a
court
order
for
the
proposition
that
an
amended
motion
“should
be
deemed
to
‘relate
back’
to
the
initial
motion
‘as
long
as
the
initial
motion
was
in
‘substantial
compliance’
with
the
governing
rule”?
And
it
probably
goes
without
saying,
but
this
quote
isn’t
in
Jones.
At
least
not
in
this
form.
Again,
this
could
be
a
human
flub,
but
this
bears
some
of
the
key
signs
of
a
hallucinating
bot.
Consider
this,
from
Greenspan’s
latest
brief
on
the
docket:
This
is
the
opposite
of
what
Jones
stands
for.
The
paragraph
and
sentence
quoted
by
the
Court
for
the
phrase
“substantial
compliance”
begins
with
the
words
“Defendants
contend…”
indicating
that
the
Jones
court
was
merely
providing
context
before
issuing
its
actual
ruling
on
those
arguments
later
in
the
opinion.
Which
certainly
tracks
the
actual
text
of
Jones.
But
mixing
up
the
judge
laying
out
one
side’s
argument
for
an
actual
holding
is
exactly
the
sort
of
error
AI
makes.
At
an
AI
legal
research
briefing
I
attended
a
couple
years
ago,
one
of
the
product
team
leaders
suggested
“hallucinations,”
as
we
commonly
understood
them,
would
be
solved
soon.
The
technology
would
soon
stop
making
up
cases
from
thin
air,
but
AI
still
posed
tremendous
risk
in
misinterpreting
the
text
itself.
For
instance,
grabbing
dicta
and
treating
it
as
precedent
—
which
might
be
the
Supreme
Court’s
new
default
setting,
but
historically
isn’t
how
any
of
this
is
supposed
to
work.
Here,
a
quote
makes
it
into
a
judge’s
opinion
that
explicitly
began
its
life
as
a
straw
argument,
laying
out
one
of
the
party’s
positions
before
dismissing
it
with
withering
contempt.
“Defendants’
arguments
are
not
well
taken,”
is
the
sort
of
line
in
an
opinion
that
makes
most
lawyers
wish
to
simply
curl
into
a
ball
and
die.
But
this
is
exactly
where
AI
remains
an
easy
mark,
capable
of
casually
bumbling
into
a
straw
argument
and
elevating
it
to
a
citation-worthy
conclusion.
Adding
in
the
quote
that
begins
“as
long
as
the
initial
motion…”
—
which
is
nowhere
to
be
found
in
the
opinion
—
to
double
down
on
the
initial
error
introduces
another
known
AI
flaw.
Everyone
knows
about
the
made-up
cases,
but
AI’s
most
insidious
mistakes
will
be
in
subtle
mischaracterizations
of
real
cases.
The
lowest
bar
of
cite
checking
isn’t
going
to
catch
that
since
it’s
a
real
case.
Even
a
superficial
glance
at
the
text
might
not
notice
the
error
without
panning
out
to
consider
the
context
of
the
original
Jones
opinion.
And
then
what
happens
if
this
isn’t
promptly
caught?
The
next
court
sees
this
opinion
and
decides
the
law
supports
a
new
“relate
back”
process
for
mere
motions.
Then
that
opinion
gets
on
the
books
and
the
next
thing
you
know,
we’re
all
echoing
a
hallucination.
Inaccuracies
can
compound
themselves.
Whether
Greenspan
ends
up
prevailing
or
not,
hopefully
Greenspan’s
motion
to
reconsider
gets
the
record
cleaned
up
and
gives
everyone
a
renewed
sense
of
attention
to
detail.
Even
if
this
is
a
human
error,
we’re
going
to
need
the
record
set
straight.
And
if
this
is
an
AI-induced
screw-up…
I
wonder
if
the
court
used
Grok?
Ed.
note:
This
article
is
part
of
Parental
Leave
&
The
Legal
Profession,
a
special
series
for
Above
the
Law
that
explores
the
realities
of
parental
leave
and
return-to-work
in
law
firms.
From
planning
leave
to
reintegration,
from
the
role
of
managers
to
the
mental
load
of
Biglaw
parents,
these
articles
bring
research,
clinical
insight,
and
practical
strategies
to
help
lawyers
and
the
firms
that
employ
them
navigate
one
of
the
most
critical
transitions
of
their
careers.
In
previous
articles
in
this
series,
we
covered
the
interplay
of
policy
and
culture
related
to
parental
leave
in
the
legal
profession
and
step-by-step
guidance
for
those
taking
leave.
The
key
to
a
successful
leave
is
not
in
the
hands
of
an
individual
attorney,
however.
It’s
dependent
on
the
approach
of
superiors
and
colleagues.
With
that
in
mind,
this
month
we
shift
our
lens
to
managers,
providing
insights
and
strategies
to
ensure
that
leave
periods
are
handled
with
ease
and
skill.
Managers
make
or
break
parental
leave
experiences,
supporting
employees
for
long-term
success
or,
conversely,
setting
them
up
for
stress
and
lower
productivity.
We
refer
to
individual
managers
for
ease
of
discussion,
but
it
may
be
that
the
person
works
for
multiple
partners,
in
which
case
coordination
among
managers
may
be
necessary.
According
to
a
recent
study
of
women
executives
undertaken
by
Phoebe,
98
percent
of
women
want
to
continue
employment
full
time
post-pregnancy
and
only
15
percent
of
participants
noted
any
decreased
interest
in
work.
Yet
a
2023
ABA
study
found
that
61
percent
of
mothers
have
experienced
demeaning
comments
about
being
a
working
parent
(versus
only
26
percent
of
fathers).
Women’s
commitment
is
steady,
but
perceptions
about
them
change
as
a
result
of
parenthood.
Unfortunately,
this
bias
contributes
to
women
leaving
firms
when
they
otherwise
would
not.
Leaders
do,
however,
have
the
power
to
establish
a
productive
environment
and
even
disrupt
long-standing
norms.
What
are
top
strategies
for
managers?
First,
check
your
mindset.
Thoughts
such
as
“Here
we
go
again;”
“We’re
all
carrying
this
weight,”
“I
don’t
have
time
for
this,”
and
“I
always
wondered
if
she/he
was
really
committed,”
draw
on
societal
biases
about
gender
and
parenting.
They
reflect
a
scarcity
perspective
that
short-term
absences
and
external
commitments
are
a
net
loss
for
an
organization,
and
they
lead
to
isolation
of
individuals
and
negative
impacts
on
team-wide
morale
and
collaboration.
Alternatively,
treating
parenthood
as
not
uncommon,
yet
still
momentous,
has
tangible
benefits:
The
employee
is
engaged
and
committed
to
make
the
off-boarding
process
as
easy
as
possible
for
colleagues;
Communication
is
smoother;
Clients
are
more
likely
to
be
supported
with
the
transition
plan
and
therefore
more
satisfied
with
the
firm;
Professional
development
opportunities
for
more
junior
staff
members
can
be
identified;
Good
morale
among
team
members
has
a
ripple
effect,
translating
to
greater
longevity.
Firms
are
stronger
when
younger
team
members
can
see
themselves
at
the
firm
for
the
long
term,
including
their
potential
transition
to
parenthood
or
other
outside
endeavors
down
the
road;
Finally,
the
employee
themselves
will
be
going
through
a
transformational
experience,
and
as
one
of
us
has
explored
elsewhere,
the
leadership
skills
of
parenthood
are
a
boon
to
the
workplace.
Second,
engage
in
a
planning
process.
While
HR
folks
are
key
to
the
compliance
side
of
planning
and
policy,
managers
need
to
be
involved
in
how
work
is
delegated,
including
active
conversations
with
the
employee.
How
can
you
initiate
a
robust
process
for
a
successful
transition,
given
the
time
constraints
of
legal
practice?
A
handful
of
well
organized
meetings
and
a
few
planning
documents
go
a
long
way.
Keep
in
mind
that
the
ROI
on
a
well-planned
leave
is
exponential,
saving
time
and
headaches
that
accompany
impromptu
or
unorganized
absences.
Leave
the
HR
talk
to
the
HR
experts
and
focus
on
case
logistics,
work
allocation
during
the
employee’s
absence,
client
communication
plans,
and
off-boarding
and
re-onboarding.
Take
time
to
check
in
with
your
employee.
Remind
them
that
they
are
a
valued
member
of
the
team
and
that
you
are
going
to
work
together
to
ensure
a
smooth
transition
leading
to
leave
and
upon
their
return.
Establish
a
framework
for
planning
and
team-wide
communication.
Most
often
the
employee
will
draw
up
a
list
of
cases
and
activities
and
identify
a
delegation
plan
(who,
what,
and
when).
You
can
ensure
that
there
is
a
clear
timeline
and
system
in
place
for
discussions,
status
updates,
and
collaborations
among
team
members.
Importantly,
the
plan
should
envision
warm
handoffs
to
clients
when
relevant.
Rather
than
a
leave
period
seeming
to
leave
clients
in
limbo,
it
can
provide
an
opportunity
for
them
to
appreciate
the
breadth
of
attorneys
in
the
firm.
Agree
on
a
communication
plan
for
the
period
of
leave.
Establishing
boundaries
about
leave
will
improve
peace
of
mind
for
all
involved
(who,
when,
through
what
channels,
and
about
what
matters?).
Quite
often
new
parents
do
want
to
be
informed
of
significant
developments
in
cases;
they
may
not,
however,
want
to
be
drawn
into
depths
of
work.
Your
support
around
the
communication
plan
is
vital.
Develop
a
re-onboarding
plan.
A
smooth
return
starts
with
planning
for
it
before
leave.
Set
out
expectations
for
internal
and
external
meetings
after
the
employee
returns
to
work,
the
pace
of
work
during
the
initial
weeks,
and
projects
and
other
activities.
The
plan
may
change
as
cases
develop,
but
it
is
always
valuable
to
anticipate
the
matters
the
employee
will
re-engage
with
on
their
return
and
levels
of
priority.
This
coordination
is
useful
for
team
members
and
clients
and
is
often
surprisingly
informative,
engaging
and
aligning
the
employee’s
professional
goals
and
those
of
the
firm.
Third,
ensure
re-onboarding
is
smooth
and
successful.
An
employee’s
return
from
leave
is
perhaps
the
most
critical
to
long-term
success
and
productivity,
and
the
phase
can
be
handled
well
with
a
little
forethought.
The
starting
point
is
the
re-onboarding
plan
agreed
previously,
but
it
will
inevitably
require
some
modification.
Offer
a
conversation
with
your
employee
before
they
return:
What
has
changed
in
terms
of
their
plans
and
expectations,
your
priorities,
personnel
dynamics
at
the
firm,
and
activities
in
cases
and
projects?
Focus
on
what
they
need,
and
how
you
can
help
support
them.
Be
empathetic.
Parents
are
motivated
to
meet
goals
and
succeed
at
work.
A
little
grace
can
give
them
peace
of
mind,
which
ultimately
will
allow
them
to
fulfill
their
commitments
to
the
firm.
Flexibility
can
improve
the
foundation
of
a
return.
The
new
parent
may
request
a
shortened
workweek,
work-from-home
days,
or
flexible
hours
on
a
temporary
basis.
Be
prepared
with
what
options
are
available.
Is
firm
policy
fixed,
or
can
you
advocate
for
your
employee,
in
light
of
the
long-term
retention
and
advancement
benefits
of
short-term
schedule
modifications?
What
in-person
events
are
critical?
Adaptability
and
consistency
can
coexist.
Babies
and
kids
don’t
always
adhere
to
a
plan.
Consider
the
extent
to
which
the
firm
can
adapt
to
unique
circumstances
that
might
arise
impacting
the
employee’s
schedule,
while
also
aiming
for
long-term
consistency
and
equity
among
team
members.
Parental
leave
provides
an
opportunity
to
demonstrate
true
leadership
through
challenges,
and
the
way
you
show
up
for
this
employee
will
have
a
massive
impact
on
their
career.
Leading
with
empathy
and
awareness
of
the
potential
for
growth
in
this
phase
will
pay
back
many
times
over.
This
article
has
focused
on
the
role
of
partners
and
managers,
and
in
future
editions
we’ll
explore
organization-wide
efforts
to
strongly
support
working
parents.
But
first,
next
month’s
feature
takes
a
deeper
dive
into
returns
from
leave.
We’ll
look
at
how
new
parents
can
navigate
their
return
in
a
way
that
supports
their
new
parenting
role
and
ongoing
career
growth.
Marny
Requa,
JD is
an
academic,
coach,
and
consultant
with
global
experience
and
gender
equity
expertise. Dr.
Anne
Welsh is
a
clinical
psychologist,
executive
coach,
and
consultant
with
a
specialization
in
supporting
working
parents
in
law.
Both
are
certified
RETAIN
Parental
Leave
Coaches,
engaging
a
research-backed
methodology
to
support
and
retain
employees
as
they
grow
their
families.
Family
law
programs
play
a
crucial
role
in
law
school,
giving
students
the
knowledge
and
practical
skills
they
need
to
guide
clients
through
some
of
the
most
high-stakes
issues
they’ll
ever
face
—
marriage,
divorce,
family
planning,
custody,
personal
safety,
and
financial
stability.
By
educating
future
family
lawyers
in
all
avenues
relevant
to
this
practice
area,
including
its
many
emotional
and
moral
complexities,
law
schools
are
helping
to
ensure
that
the
next
generation
of
attorneys
is
prepared
to
advocate
with
competence
and
compassion.
The National
Jurist’s
preLaw
magazine recently
released
its
ranking
of
the
best
law
schools
for
family
law
on
its
Family
Law
Honor
Roll,
highlighting
schools
for
the
strength
of
their
programs.
Here’s
the
methodology
that
was
used:
preLaw
magazine
grades
law
schools
based
on
the
breadth
of
their
curricular
offerings.
The
scores
are
figured
as
follows:
30%
for
a
concentration,
24%
for
a
clinic,
12%
for
a
center,
12%
for
an
externship,
9%
for
a
journal,
8%
for
a
student
group,
5%
for
a
certificate
and
added
value
for
additional
offerings.
Without
further
ado,
according
to
preLaw
magazine,
these
are
the
law
schools
that
earned
A+
grades
for
their
family
law
programs
(listed
in
alphabetical
order):
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.
Remember
former
Trump-appointed
District
Court
Judge
Joshua
Kindred?
The
federal
judge
who
managed
to
flame
out
of
his
lifetime
gig
in
record
speed
—
four
years
—
as
if
he’d
taken
the
bench
with
a
personal
mission
to
prove
that
vetting
is
for
suckers?
Yeah.
That
guy.
Well,
the
final
chapter
of
his
professional
unraveling
just
dropped,
and
it’s
pretty
much
exactly
what
you’d
expect:
disbarment.
Earlier
this
month,
the
Alaska
Supreme
Court
made
it
official.
In
a
November
7
order,
they
handed
down
Kindred’s
disbarment
(as
recommended
by
the
Alaska
Bar
Association’s
Disciplinary
Board)
like
a
slow-moving,
ethics-soaked
anvil.
In
yet
another
weird
twist
in
a
case
that
has
had
more
than
its
fair
share,
disciplinary
authorities
say
Kindred
never
responded
to
the
proceedings.
Not
a
filing,
not
an
appearance,
not
even
a
“new
phone
who
dis.”
Even
better,
he
allegedly
was
home
when
process
servers
attempted
service.
They
literally
saw
him
sitting
inside
his
mother’s
house
while
they
knocked.
Which
is…
honestly
art.
A
federal
judge
who
once
wielded
the
power
of
the
United
States
now
hiding
behind
his
Mom
while
the
bar
tries
to
hand
him
paperwork.
Chef’s
kiss.
You’ll
recall
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
Special
Committee
laid
out
details
ripped
from
an
HR
nightmare.
Investigators
concluded
Kindred
cultivated
a
sexualized
relationship
with
one
of
his
clerks
while
simultaneously
creating
a
hostile
work
environment
for
everyone
else
unlucky
enough
to
be
trapped
in
his
chambers.
Things
got
even
messier
when
they
detailed
his
“flirtatious
rapport”
with
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
Karen
Vandergaw,
who
sent
him
nude
photos,
photos
she
now
says
she
felt
pressured
to
send,
all
while
she
continued
appearing
before
him
in
active
cases.
Not
to
tell
the
Federalist
Society
how
to
run
its
orientation
sessions,
but
“don’t
accept
explicit
photos
from
someone
litigating
in
your
courtroom”
should
really
be
on
page
one.
Kindred’s
misconduct
and
messy
exit
didn’t
just
obliterate
his
own
career
—
they’ve
thrown
a
whole
slew
of
cases
into
chaos.
Defense
lawyers,
pointing
to
conflicts
between
Kindred
and
prosecutors
(including
the
same
AUSA
who
was
sending
him
nudes),
have
filed
motions
for
new
trials.
And
federal
judges
have
already
granted
multiple
do-overs.
Bonus
season
is
imminent,
with
the
first
announcement
expected
to
be
released
any
day
now,
and
whether
you’re
new
to
the
site
or
a
legacy
reader,
we
thought
we’d
offer
a
little
refresher
on
how
to
get
the
most
out
of Above
the
Law and
how
to
get
in
touch
with
us.
There
are
many
ways
to
access
all
of
Above
the
Law’s
offerings:
Don’t
forget,
Above
the
Law
relies
on
tips
from
readers
like
you.
Send
us
your
leads,
gossip,
leaked
documents,
embarrassing
photos,
or
anything
else
juicy.
You
can
email
us
at [email protected],
complete this
form,
or
send
an
SMS/text
message
to (646)
820-8477.
Tips
will
go
to
all
of
the
Above
the
Law
editors.
You
can
also
contact
the
ATL
editors
individually
at
their
personal
emails:
As
always,
we’ll
keep
your
name
strictly
confidential.
We’d
love
to
hear
from
you!
We
look
forward
to
bringing
readers
the
latest
developments
in
news
about
the
world
of
law
—
including
law
schools,
law
firms,
and
the
legal
profession
more
broadly
—
and
we
sincerely
hope
you’ll
join
us
as
we
continue
to
publish
serious
legal
journalism
as
no
other
website
can
do,
and
as
Above
the
Law
has
done
for
nearly
two
decades.
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.
Kathryn
