Author: TSA Press

Those
seeking
to
consolidate
power
often
make
it
a
sport
to
pick
on
a
small
group
of
people,
claiming
that
the
small
group
wields
disproportionate
power
and
is
out
to
transform
your
children
into
something
you
don’t
want
(and
probably
don’t
understand).

In
the
1950s,
the
boogeyman
was
communism.
According
to
some,
the
communist
professor
teaching
your
“child”
(because
18-year-olds
are
not
adults
apparently,
except
for
military
service)
was
out
to
demonstrate
that
capitalism
was
bad
and
prep
your
child
for
the
revolution. Literature,
such
as
the
American
Legion
cover

shown
here,
flourished. 

In
his
famous
memo,

Justice
Powell
lamented
that
teachers
seeking
to
groom
students
for
communism
were
a
minority,
but
somehow
more
powerful
than
the
majority: “Such
faculty
members
need
not
be
in
a
majority.
They
are
often
personally
attractive
and
magnetic;
they
are
stimulating
teachers
and
their
controversy
attracts
student
following;
they
are
prolific
writers
and
lecturers:
they
author
many
of
the
textbooks;
and
they
exert
enormous
influence
—
far
out
of
proportion
to
their
numbers
—
on
their
colleagues
and
in
the
academic
world.” 

Sorry,
rest
of
the
faculty,
you
are
apparently
NONE
of
those
things.   

Then
the
boogeyman
became
Critical
Race
Theory
and
DEI. Critical
Race
Theory
does
have
a

description
and
definition
that
exists
in
the
legal
academy. But
that
isn’t
the
boogeyman. Instead,
as
Texas
Lt.
Gov.
Dan
Patrick
proclaims,
“Last
session,
we
banned
CRT
in
kindergarten
through
12th
grade
because
no
child
should
be
taught
that
they
are
inferior
to
others
due
to
their
race,
sex,
or
ethnicity.
In
2023,
this
should
be
common
sense
but
the
radical
left’s
drive
to
divide
our
society
is
relentless.” In
other
words,
CRT,
taught
in
some
law
schools,
became
code
for
any
instance
of
taught
history
in
which
white
people
acted
badly. Teaching
about
slavery,
massacres
of
native
tribes,
the
Voting
Rights
Act,
and
the
like
were
now
“CRT.” Teaching
it
is
“woke,”
as
opposed
to
historically
accurate. Again,
Dan
Patrick
with
the
agenda:
“This
session,
there
was
no
question
that
we
would
ban
the
teaching
of
CRT
in
Texas
universities.
Liberal
professors,
determined
to
indoctrinate
our
students
with
their
woke
brand
of
revisionist
history,
have
gone
too
far.”  

Now,
the
boogeyman
is
a
particularly
small
group
of
people
lacking
power: The
transgender
community. The
UCLA
School
of
Law’s

Williams
Institute
estimates
that
0.8%
of
the
population
identifies
as
trans,
while
approximately
3%
of
the
population
aged
13
to
17
do
so. As
a
total,
1%
of
the
population
identifies
as
transgender. Easy
target
for
hateful
legislation.

But
the
overblown
controversies
and
reporting
make
their
population
seem
larger
and
more
politically
powerful. You
can’t
have
a
weak
boogeyman,
after
all. YouGov’s
poll
suggested
that
the
average
American’s
uneducated
guess
was
that
the
transgender
population
hovers
around
21%. This
is
no
accident: Studies
show
that
a
group’s

perceived
size
creates
what
is
in
essence
a
bias
that
increases
fear.  

This
is
nothing
new. The
media
is
quick
to
latch
on
to
the
unfounded
political
rhetoric
to
help
foster
a
bogeyman
and
feed
it
like
a
virus
to
an
undiscerning
population.

It
therefore
comes
as
no
surprise
that
transgender
people
have
come
under
attack
for
the
most
ridiculous
reasons. What
about
bathrooms? What
about
women’s
sports? 
I
would
imagine
surveys
show
that
people
think
transgender
people
only
play
sports
and
live
in
bathrooms. Sigh.

According
to

Translegislation.com,
125
pieces
of
legislation
targeting
the
trans
community
have
passed,
with
over
a
1,000
proposed. Just
for
comparison
(in
terms
of
targeting
innocent
groups
of
people
who
have
done
nothing
to
deserve
it),
pre-World
War
II
Nazi
Germany
passed
400
decrees
and
pieces
of
legislation
related
to
Jews,
according
to
the

Holocaust
Encyclopedia. (Side
note: 
I
can’t
wait
for
the
hate
mail
—
HEY,
did
you
just
call
our
legislature
Nazis? Did
you? Did
you?? No,
I
didn’t. But
you
seem
to
see
the
parallel
just
fine.)  

Overamplification
of
a
group’s
power
creates
the
notion
that
the
group
is
a
“problem.” Because
they
exist. Because
they
want
inclusion. Because
they
seek
understanding.
Because
they
are
human
beings. But
the
very
real
problem
is
that
the
group
is
the
target
of
attack
and
those
attacking
spin
it
that
the
attacked
are
the
attackers.  

Universities
have
been
part
of
the
problem. In
Texas,
for
example,
university
administrations
have
turned
on
their
students
and
professors. Texas
A&M
(undefeated
in
football
and
apparently
in
hostility
to
academic
freedom)
fired
a
professor
and
demoted
a
dean,
all
because
the
professor
was
teaching
a
children’s
literature
course
and
some
of
that
literature
has
notions
of
more
than
two
genders. The
University
of
Houston
Graduate
School
of
Social
Work

canceled
a
required
course,
“Confronting
Oppression
and
Injustice.”
Apparently
confronting
oppression
and
injustice
is
now
illegal
in
Texas. And
the
University
of
Texas
is
considering
adopting
President
Donald
Trump’s
University
Compact. Other
universities
have
also
canceled
courses,
scrubbed
websites,
consolidated
departments,
and
are
otherwise
cowering
in
fear
(when
they

aren’t
hiring
the
very
people
who
have
sought
to
create
hatred,
distrust,
and
confusion
in
search
of
a
boogeymen). Texas
state
legislators
are
searching
through
syllabi
looking
for
mention
of
trans,
enabled
by
university
syllabus
programs
like
“Simple
Syllabus.”

You
would
think
that
professors
would
be
allies. And
you
would
often
be
wrong. One
professor

got
rich
for
refusing
to
use
a
trans
student’s
pronouns. Others,
perhaps
emboldened
by
legislative
and
university
hostility
toward
trans
persons,
make
their
biases
clear
in
a
variety
of
ways. The
fabled
notion
that
all
academics
are
leftists
and
Marxists
enables
the
marginalization
of
groups
who
themselves
are
surprised
when
their
purported
woke
faculty
turn
out
to
be
just
like
the
rest. Studies
exist
about
the
experiences
of
transgender
students
in
the
classroom. TL;DR:
Professors
are
not
woke.

And
as
universities
bend
the
knee
towards
false
notions
of
academic
freedom,
they
do
so
without
consideration
of
its
effects
on
making
lives
for
some
of
their
students
worse. In
a
world
in
which
“institutional
neutrality”
becomes
the
norm
and
in
which
all
viewpoints
are
held
in
equal
regard,
effects
are
not
examined. “I
have
a
right
as
a
trans
person
to
freedom
and
happiness”
is
held
in
equal
regard
with
“trans
people
should
have
no
rights.” And

university
policies
are
frequently
siding
with
the
latter
sentiment,
despite
purported
“neutrality.”  

All
of
these
attacks,
from
the
Red
Scare
to
the
Trans
Scare,
have
one
thing
in
common. A
myth
of
a
powerful
force
that
will
disrupt
society
and
destroy
America
somehow. In
reality,
each
myth
is
the
tool
used
for
some
group
to
leverage
their
way
into
academia
to
disrupt
education
and
empower
themselves
at
the
expense
of
society,
education,
and
the
targets
of
their
ignorant
attacks. Universities
do
not
see
that
the
attacks
on
trans
people
are
ultimately
attacks
on
the
universities
themselves.  

In
short,
in
a
search
for
a
boogeyman,
there
is
a
lot
of
blame
to
go
around
as
higher
education
continues
to
get

attacked
vicariously
as
vulnerable
populations
get
attacked
directly. There
is
much
to
be
learned
from
all
of
this,
assuming
the
university
administration
doesn’t
ban
our
learning
from
it.
Even
so,
this
lesson
in
discrimination,
hate,
and
fear
falls
harder
on
some
more
than
others.

---

LawProfBlawg is
an
anonymous law professor.
Follow
him
on X/Twitter/whatever (@lawprofblawg).
He’s
also
on
BlueSky,
Mastodon,
and
Threads
depending
on
his
mood. Email
him
at [email protected]. 
The
views
of
this
blog
post
do
not
represent
the
views
of
his
employer,
his
employer’s
government,
his
Dean,
his
colleagues,
his
family,
or
his
doppelgängers,
or
pets.  

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

The
pendulum
is
absolutely
swinging
back
toward
the
majority
of
partners’
and
associates’
time
being
in
person,
in
the
office.

—
Rachel
Nonaka,
a
Washington,
D.C.-based
recruiter
at
Macrae,
in
comments
given
to

Reuters,
concerning
the
number
of
law
firms
that
are
boosting
their
in-office
attendance
policies
for
2026,
with
four-day
attendance
requirements
spreading
across
the
Am
Law
50.


The
following
firms
now
require
attorneys
to
work
from
the
office
four
days
each
week:

A&O
Shearman; Cooley; Covington; Davis
Polk;

Dechert
(junior
associates); DLA
Piper (corporate
associates); Goodwin; Hogan
Lovells; Latham; Paul
Weiss; Ropes
&
Gray; Sidley; Simpson
Thacher; Skadden; Vinson
&
Elkins; Weil
Gotshal; WilmerHale;
and White
&
Case. 

---

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.

WASHINGTON
—
The

Space
Development
Agency’s
plan
to
award
new
contracts
this
month
for
its
next
set
of

missile
warning/missile
tracking
satellites
is
in
limbo,
having
fallen
victim
to
the
Pentagon’s
wave
of
fiscal
2025
budget
“clawbacks”
being
used
to
pay
troops
during
the
ongoing

government
shutdown,
according
to
government
and
industry
sources.

“We
were
supposed
to
hear
by
Thanksgiving
who
wins,”
one
industry
representative
told
Breaking
Defense.
“When
the
funding
will
be
authorized,
given
the
shutdown
and
all
the
fun
there,
is
a
question
mark.”

The
Pentagon

announced
last
month
that
it
planned
to
pull
$8
billion
from
“unobligated”
research
and
development
coffers
in
order
to
pay
troops
during
the
shutdown,
but
since
then,
little
has
been
revealed
about
what
specific
programs
are
feeling
the
pinch.

“It’s
so
much
[money],
it’s
basically
everything,”
one
congressional
aide
said.

As
for
the
the
tracking
satellites,
according
to
the
SDA’s

April
solicitation,
three
winners
are
to
be
chosen
to
each
provide
18
satellites
(54
total)
for
the
Tranche
3
Tracking
Layer
constellation
—
part
of
a
larger
planned
network
of
hundreds
of
satellites
in
low
Earth
orbit
(LEO)
to
track
not
just
ballistic
but
also
hypersonic
cruise
missiles.

Tranche
3
would
expand
on
the
capabilities
being
provided
by
earlier
design
iterations
under
Tranche
1
and
Tranche
2,
and
provide
global
surveillance
of
missile
launches
using
infrared
sensors.

Spokespeople
for
the
Defense
Department
and
Space
Development
Agency
did
not
respond
to
requests
for
comment
Friday.

According
to
the
Space
Force’s

FY26
budget
submission,
the
agency
originally
was
slated
to
make
awards
worth
$237
million
for
the
Tranche
3
Tracking
Layer
in
October
using
FY25
funds.
In
December,
it
was
to
make
another
round
of
awards
worth
$536
million
using
FY26
funds.

However,
a
second
industry
source
said
that
SDA
has
taken
a
total
hit
of
$700
million
in
the
clawback
—
noting
that
some
planned
Tranche
2
Tracking
Layer
“milestones”
also
are
likely
to
be
delayed.
Between
October
and
December,
about
$357
million
was
slated
to
go
to
such
payments,
the
source
added.

While
it
is
unclear
at
the
moment
when
the
shutdown
will
end
—
and
even
less
clear
how

funds
for
FY26
finally
will
make
their
way
into
the
Pentagon’s
coffers
as
Congress
continues
to
battle
over
the
budget
—
one
government
source
with
acquisition
expertise
explained
that
the
DoD
plan
is
to
pay
back
the
RDT&E
funds
borrowed
from
most,
if
perhaps
not
all,
programs.

That
includes
the
Tranche
3
Tracking
Layer,
the
source
said,
because
missile
warning/tracking
from
LEO
is
considered
a
key
enabler
for
President
Donald
Trump’s

Golden
Dome
initiative
designed
to
develop
a
comprehensive
missile
defense
shield
over
the
US
homeland.
The
first
industry
source
agreed.

“There’s
a
hefty
amount
of
money
for
Tracking
Tranche
3
—
it’s
actually
going
to
be
the
largest
—
and
probably
with
an
immense
focus
on
fire
control,
which
supports
Golden
Dome
more
so
than
than
just
missile
warning/missile
tracking.
That
actually
is
the
strategic
piece,”
the
source
said.

SDA’s

January
2024
contracts
for
the
previous
Tranche
2
Tracking
Layer
included
the
development
of
six
first-iteration
fire
control
satellites,
which
will
carry
sensors
precise
enough
to
convey
targeting
coordinates
for
interceptors.
Under
those
contracts,
worth
a
total
of
more
than
$2.5
billion,
L3Harris
Technologies
will
receive
$919
million,
Lockheed
Martin
$890
million
and
Sierra
Space
$740
million
to
each
deliver
and
operate
18
space
vehicles,
including
two
kitted
out
for
fire
control.
Those
birds
currently
are
slated
to
be
launched
no
later
than
April
2027.

Valerie
Insinna
contributed
to
this
report.

Legal
technology
company

Clio
has
completed
its
$1
billion
acquisition
of

vLex,
marking
the
conclusion
of
the
largest
deal
in
legal
tech
history,
and
has
simultaneously
closed
a
$500
million
Series
G
funding
round,
along
with
a
$350
million
debt
facility,
valuing
the
combined
company
at
$5
billion,
and
clearing
the
way
to
move
forward
on
creating
an
unprecedented
unified
platform
that
spans
both
the
business
and
practice
of
law.

With
the
deal
now
closed,
Clio
becomes
a
company
with
$400
million
in
annual
recurring
revenue
and
a
customer
base
of
400,000
legal
professionals,
it
says.

Today’s
dual
announcements
cap
an
extraordinarily
compressed
180-day
period
during
which
Clio
executed
the
largest
acquisition
in
legal
tech
history
while
securing
substantial
new
financing
–
all
while
building
and
launching
major
new
products
that
debuted
at
its
ClioCon
conference
in
October.

“This
is
a
defining
moment
for
Clio
and
for
the
legal
industry,”
said
Jack
Newton,
Clio’s
founder
and
CEO.
“We
founded
Clio
to
transform
the
legal
experience
for
all,
and
this
milestone
brings
that
mission
to
a
new
horizon.”

The
transaction
brings
vLex’s
350-plus
employees
–
including
experts
in
law,
data
and
technology
–
into
Clio’s
organization,
creating
what
Newton
calls
“the
world’s
most
powerful
legal
intelligence
platform,
a
platform
that
will
define
how
legal
work
is
done
for
generations
to
come.”

The
acquisition,
which
was

originally
announced
on
June
30,
2025,
received
final
regulatory
approval
from
Spanish
authorities
in
late
October,
clearing
the
way
for
it
to
close.

The
finalization
of
this
mega-deal
brings
together
Clio’s
cloud-based
legal
operating
system,
reportedly
used
by
more
than
200,000
legal
professionals
globally,
with
vLex’s
comprehensive
legal
research
platform
and
its
Vincent
AI
assistant,
which
serves
2.8
million
registered
users
across
more
than
110
countries.

(Clio
said
that
number
of
2.8
million
users
reflects
the
entirety
of
vLex’s
partnerships,
including
academic
and
nonprofit
partnerships,
some
of
which
Clio
does
not
count
as
part
of
its
combined
customer
count
of
400,000.)

A
Whirlwind
180
Days

In
an
exclusive
LawSites
interview
Thursday
with
Newton
and
Chief
Financial
Officer
Curt
Sigfstead,
before
the
two
flew
off
to
vLex
headquarters
in
Barcelona
to
celebrate
the
closing,
Newton
told
me
that
he
first
met
with
vLex
CEO
Lluís
Faus
exactly
180
days
before
the
deal
officially
closed
last
week
–
a
remarkably
compressed
timeline
for
executing
not
only
a
$1
billion
acquisition,
but
also
the
Series
G
financing
and
an
accompanying
$350
million
debt
facility.

“I’ve
never
been
so
proud
of
what
the
team’s
been
able
to
execute
on
in
a
compressed
time
frame
at
Clio,”
Newton
told
LawSites.
“And
on
top
of
that,
we
built
a
really
phenomenal
and
impactful
new
product
in
the
form
of
Clio
Work
and
launched
that
and
had
that
in
customers’
hands
the
week
after
ClioCon.”

Newton’s
ClioCon
keynote,
in
which
he
unveiled
the
company’s
vision
for
an
“Intelligent
Legal
Work
Platform,”
generated
extraordinary
reaction
across
the
legal
industry.
The
keynote
has
garnered
more
than
20,000
views

on
YouTube,
and
Newton
said
the
response
extended
far
beyond
Clio’s
existing
customer
base.

Related:

To
A
Sometimes
‘Shell-Shocked’
ClioCon
Audience,
Jack
Newton
Presented
Clio’s
Vision
for
a
New
Era
of
AI-Driven
Legal
Work.

“It
felt
like
it
was
the
shot
heard
around
the
world
and
people
really
understand
a
clear
vision
of
how
AI
was
going
to
transform
the
practice
of
law,”
Newton
told
me.
“This
idea
of
marrying
the
business
of
law
and
practice
of
law,
in
the
specific
way
we’ve
done
with
this
new
intelligent
legal
work
platform,
obviously
struck
a
chord.”

Integration
Already
Underway

Even
before
closing
the
deal,
Clio
had
moved
quickly
to
leverage
the
capabilities
vLex
brought
to
the
table.
At
its
ClioCon
conference
in
Boston
in
October,
held
before
the
regulatory
approval
was
finalized
but
with
the
deal’s
closure
anticipated,
Newton
unveiled

an
ambitious
suite
of
new
products
built
around
the
vLex
acquisition.

Related:

Here’s
A
Guide
To
Help
You
Make
Sense
of
Clio’s
New
Line
Up
of
Products
and
Features.

These
included
Clio
Work,
a
new
workspace
that
combines
matter
data
with
vLex’s
legal
library
to
deliver
AI-powered
research
and
case
strategy;
Clio
for
Enterprise,
a
new
division
targeting
large
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments;
and
Vincent
Studio,
a
no-code
environment
allowing
lawyers
to
build
custom
AI
tools.

The
company
also
launched
Vincent
by
Clio,
positioning
the
AI
platform
as
the
engine
for
“enterprise-grade
legal
AI”
grounded
in
verified
legal
data.
According
to
Clio,
vLex
was
already
deployed
at
eight
of
the
world’s
10
largest
law
firms
prior
to
the
acquisition.

Financing
to
Power
Growth

The
Series
G
funding
round
was
led
by
New
Enterprise
Associates
(NEA),
with
participation
from
TCV,
Goldman
Sachs
Asset
Management,
Sixth
Street
Growth,
and
JMI
Equity.
NEA
had
also
led,
and
all
of
these
investors
had
also
participated
in,
Clio’s

record-setting
$900
million
Series
F
round
last
year.

The
round
also
includes
a
strategic
$350
million
debt
facility
led
by
Blackstone
and
Blue
Owl
Capital.

“Clio
continues
to
demonstrate
the
clarity,
execution,
and
ambition
that
define
enduring
market
leaders,”
said
Tony
Florence,
co-CEO
at
NEA.
“The
company
has
built
one
of
the
most
trusted
platforms
in
legal
technology,
and
its
integration
of
AI
is
reshaping
how
work
is
done
across
the
profession.”

In
our
interview
Thursday,
CFO
Sigfstead
emphasized
that
the
insider
round,
in
which
existing
investors
wrote
substantial
new
checks,
signaled
extraordinary
confidence
in
the
company’s
direction.

“When
you
turn
to
your
existing
investors
and
they
step
up
in
the
way
that
they
did,
the
confidence
that
we
have
going
into
the
transaction
is
just
that
much
greater,”
Sigfstead
said.

“Anytime
you
see
this
kind
of
an
insider
round
–
especially
with
the
kind
of
dollars
we’re
talking
about
here,
where
some
investors
are
writing
multi
hundred
million
dollar
checks
on
their
own
–
it’s
the
strongest
endorsement
you
can
have
of
a
company
and
I’m
very
appreciative
of
the
investors
we
have,”
Newton
added.

The
financing
serves
multiple
purposes:
helping
to
fund
the
vLex
acquisition
while
positioning
Clio
for
future
strategic
acquisitions
and
aggressive
investment
in
AI
development
and
enterprise
expansion,
Sigfstead
said.

“We
didn’t
need
to
use
all
the
cash
and
all
the
debt
to
finance
the
vLex
deal,”
Newton
said.
“We’ve
got
a
substantial
amount
of
both
cash
flow
in
the
balance
sheet
as
well
as
available
debt
facility
to
give
us
headroom
for
future
M&A
as
well
as
headroom
for
an
aggressive
invest
in
AI
and
the
enterprise
expansion
opportunity.”

“The
addition
of
debt
partners
like
Blackstone
and
Blue
Owl
Capital
reflects
the
strength
and
resilience
of
our
business,”
Sigfstead
said
in
the
company’s
announcement.
“This
financing
supports
transformational
moves
like
the
acquisition
of
vLex
and
gives
us
the
flexibility
to
act
quickly
on
future
opportunities
that
advance
our
mission
and
shape
the
future
of
legal
technology.”

Oakley
Capital
Takes
Equity

In
another
significant
aspect
of
the
deal
signaling
confidence
in
Clio’s
future,
Oakley
Capital,
the
European
private
equity
firm
that
owned
a
majority
stake
in
vLex,
chose
to
take
a
substantial
portion
of
the
transaction
consideration
as
Clio
equity
rather
than
cash.

“Oakley
choosing
to
roll
such
a
significant
portion
of
its
deal
value
into
Clio
is
another
great
signal
of
support
and
excitement
around
the
thesis
of
what
we’re
building
with
Clio
and
vLex
together,”
Newton
said.

Newton
said
his
team
had
been
very
explicit
in
pitching
Oakley
on
the
vision
for
how
combining
the
two
companies
would
create
a
new
category
of
software
that
would
be
both
disruptive
and
transformative.

“They
wanted
to
be
part
of
that,”
he
told
me.
“They
were
really
excited
about
the
one
plus
one
equals
10
math
that
we
feel
like
we’re
creating
by
bringing
these
two
companies
together.”

Arthur
Mornington,
a
partner
at
Oakley
Capital,
will
join
Clio’s
board
as
a
board
observer.

‘Intelligent
Legal
Work
Platform’

The
completed
acquisition
unites
Clio’s
legal
operating
system
with
vLex’s
Vincent
AI,
powered
by
one
of
the
world’s
most
comprehensive
global
legal
databases
containing
more
than
one
billion
editorially
enriched
documents
across
110
jurisdictions.

This
“Intelligent
Legal
Work
Platform,”
as
Clio
is
calling
it,
represents
what
Newton
describes
as
a
shift
from
a
traditional
“system
of
record”
to
a
“system
of
action”
that
leverages
dynamic
intelligence.

Related:

LawNext:
Clio
CEO
Jack
Newton
on
Its
New
‘Intelligent
Legal
Work
Platform’
and
A
New
Era
Of
AI-Driven
Legal
Work.

By
combining
practice
management,
research,
drafting,
and
firm
operations
into
connected
AI-powered
workflows,
the
platform
aims
to
enable
legal
professionals
to
move
from
insight
to
action
with
greater
speed
and
precision.

Vincent
AI
provides
what
Clio
characterizes
as
“the
strongest
foundation
for
legal
reasoning,”
drawing
from
vLex’s
massive
library.
Combined
with
Clio’s
AI
capabilities
across
Clio
Work,
Clio
Manage,
Clio
Grow
and
Clio
Draft,
the
platform
promises
unparalleled
accuracy,
efficiency
and
confidence,
Clio
says.

In
our
interview
last
week,
Newton
emphasized
that
data
quality
is
the
crucial
differentiator
–
not
just
against
legal
AI
startups,
but
against
the
“omnipresent
threat
of
OpenAI
as
a
competitor.”

“At
the
end
of
the
day,
data
is
really
the
only
competitive
moat
that
I
believe
is
sustainable,”
Newton
told
LawSites.
“If
you
don’t
have
a
differentiated
approach
on
data,
I
think
you’re
on
a
path
to
very
rapid
commoditization.”

Integration
of
Leadership
Teams

Virtually
every
key
member
of
vLex’s
leadership
team
is
joining
Clio
in
significant
roles,
marking
a
deep
integration
of
the
two
organizations.
These
include
Lluís
Faus,
vLex’s
co-founder
and
CEO,
his
brother
Angel
Faus,
vLex’s
co-founder
and
CTO,
and
former
Fastcase
founders
Ed
Walters
and
Phil
Rosenthal,
who
joined
vLex
after
the

2023
merger
of
the
two
companies.

Related:

On
LawNext
Podcast:
The
Four
Founders
of
vLex
and
Fastcase
on
the
Merger
Of
Their
Two
Companies.

Newton
told
me
that
he
will
be
in
Barcelona
today
to
celebrate
the
deal’s
closing
with
the
vLex
leadership
team
and
other
senior
leaders
from
both
companies.

“One
of
the
main
goals
of
this
transaction
and
bringing
vLex
on
board
isn’t
just
integrating
the
practice
of
law
and
the
business
of
law
from
a
product
perspective,”
Newton
said,
“it’s
integrating
the
business
of
law
and
the
practice
of
law
from
an
organizational
perspective
as
well.”

Newton
said
that
vLex’s
entire
workforce
is
joining
Clio
and
that
he
does
not
anticipate
significant
redundancies
or
layoffs,
characterizing
the
acquisition
as
bringing
“a
net
new
set
of
capabilities
and
a
unique
set
of
team
members
pursuing
a
highly
complementary
and
non-overlapping
mandate.”

“This
deal
is
all
oriented
around
growth
and
upside
opportunity
as
opposed
to
any
kinds
of
cost
savings
or
synergies
on
the
cost
front,”
he
said.

Accelerating
Enterprise
Expansion

The
vLex
integration
accelerates
Clio’s
expansion
into
the
enterprise
market,
extending
its
reach
from
small-
and
mid-sized
firms
to
the
world’s
largest
legal
organizations.
According
to
Clio,
vLex
was
already
deployed
at
eight
of
the
world’s
10
largest
law
firms
before
the
acquisition.

This
follows
Clio’s

March
2025
acquisition
of
ShareDo,
a
U.K.
company
that
provides
enterprise
case
and
matter
management
software
for
large
firms.
ShareDo
has
been
rebranded
as
Clio
Operate,
a
work
management
platform
for
large
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments
that
unifies
workflows,
analytics
and
matter
management
across
global
teams.

Together,
vLex
and
Clio
Operate
anchor
Clio
for
Enterprise,
a
new
division
dedicated
to
serving
the
complex
needs
of
global
legal
teams.

“Really
we’re
serving
now
solo
practitioners
all
the
way
to
the
world’s
largest
law
firms,”
Sigfstead
told
me.
“The
ceiling
here
–
the
market
opportunity
in
terms
of
what
Clio
is
able
to
deliver
–
has
expanded
dramatically.
And
that’s
a
very
different
message
from
a
year
ago.”

Creating
A
Category

Beyond
the
financial
and
operational
details,
Newton
emphasized
that
the
deal
represents
what
he
calls
“category
creation”
–
defining
a
new
type
of
legal
technology
platform
that
fundamentally
changes
how
law
firms
operate.

“I
think
what
we’re
seeing
is
a
really
exciting
shift
from
software
being
adopted
in
a
way
that
it
tries
to
conform
to
the
existing
ways
that
lawyers
work,
to
this
intelligent
legal
work
platform
being
deployed
and
fundamentally
altering
how
law
firms
operate
and
even
the
way
they
staff,”
Newton
said.

He
noted
that
customers
and
prospects
are
now
“thinking
about
not
just
adopting
a
piece
of
software,
but
changing
the
way
their
entire
practice
operates
around
this
concept
of
an
intelligent
legal
work
platform.”

When
asked
about
skeptics
who
question
whether
Clio
can
truly
serve
all
segments
of
the
legal
market,
from
solo
practitioners
to
Am
Law
100
firms,
Newton
had
a
simple
response:
“Watch
us.”

Historic
M&A
Deal

The
combined
transaction
represents
the
largest
M&A
deal
in
legal
technology
history.
The
only
other
comparable
deal
was
Reveal’s
dual
acquisition
of
Logikcull
and
IPRO
for
a
reported
$1
billion
in
2023.

For
vLex,
the
deal
also
makes
it
one
of
the
few
Spanish
technology
companies
to
achieve
unicorn
status,
joining
a
growing
roster
of

Barcelona
billion-dollar
startups
that
includes
Glovo,
TravelPerk,
Wallbox,
and
Factorial.

For
Clio,
based
in
Burnaby,
British
Columbia,
the
acquisition
represents
the
largest
technology
deal
by
a
privately
held
Canadian
company,
cementing
its
position
as
one
of
Canada’s
most
valuable
tech
startups.

The
completion
of
the
deal
comes
16
months
after
Clio
raised
what
was
then
a
record-setting
$900
million
Series
F
round
in
July
2024,
which
valued
the
company
at
$3
billion.
That
round
provided
the
capital
that
made
the
vLex
acquisition
possible.

In
this
latest
deal,
Goldman
Sachs
acted
as
Clio’s
exclusive
financial
advisor.
Law
firms
Osler,
Hoskin
&
Harcourt
LLP,
Wilson
Sonsini
Goodrich
&
Rosati,
Gowling
WLG,
and
Pérez-Llorca
served
as
legal
counsel
to
Clio.

J.P.
Morgan
acted
as
vLex’s
exclusive
financial
advisor.
Law
firms
A&O
Shearman
and
Uría
Menéndez
served
as
legal
advisors
to
vLex.

Looking
Ahead

With
the
deal
now
closed
and
substantial
new
capital
on
hand,
Clio
is
positioned
to
accelerate
its
AI
innovation
and
pursue
additional
strategic
acquisitions.
The
company
has
made
clear
that
it
views
itself
as
what

Newton
previously
called
“the
acquirer
of
choice
in
legaltech,”
capitalizing
on
what
he
described
as
an
“explosion
of
innovation”
across
the
sector.

The
company’s
trajectory
from
its
founding
in
2008
as
a
cloud-based
practice
management
platform
for
small
firms
to
its
current
position
as
a
$5
billion
company
serving
the
entire
legal
market
represents
one
of
the
most
remarkable
growth
stories
in
legal
technology.

In
our
interview,
as
Newton
reflected
on
the
ClioCon
keynote
response
and
the
completion
of
this
landmark
deal,
he
returned
to
his
theme
of
category
creation
and
industry
transformation.

“I
think
we’ll
see
just
what
a
profound
impact
that
will
have
on
the
legal
industry
in
the
coming
months
and
years
to
come,”
he
said.

*
Supreme
Court
to
hear
major
mail-
in
ballot
election
case.
What
could
possibly
go
wrong?
[Law.com]

*
Donald
Trump
treats
the
Supreme
Court
like
his
personal
fixers,
again.
Probably
because
that’s
how
they
act…
[Law360]

*
Major
legal
tech
player
Clio
get
$5
billion
valuation.
[Reuters]

*
What’s
this?
The
Department
of
Justice
is

actually
acknowledging
a
federal
judge’s
authority?
Weird.
[Law
and
Crime]

*
Christine
Pelosi
is
running
for
office.
Not
her
mother’s
congressional
seat,
but
for
the
California
Senate.
[The
Hill]

*
A
look
at
the
judicial
nominees
thus
far
in
the
Trump
II
era.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
It’s
good
to
be
at
the
top
of
the
Biglaw
heap!
Revenue
is
up
for
the
top
50
firms.
[American
Lawyer]

*
There’s
a
mass
exodus
at
the
Department
of
Justice…
and
not
many
replacements.
[ABA
Journal]

Heckler
Tells
It
Like
It
Is
At
The
New
York
Bar
Foundation
Gala:
Tough
crowd,
earned
criticism.
Remember
The
Paper
Trail!:
Might
not
be
a
Rule
26(g)
violation,
but
mind
your
manners.
Keeping
Hope
With
The
Kardashians:
Kim
channels
her
energy
toward
passing
the
bar
next
time!
Davis
Polk
Announces
25k
Public
Service
Summer:
Do
some
good
and
get
paid
for
it!
The
Champ
Is
Here!:
Check
out
the
winner
of
this
year’s
legally
themed
costume
contest!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Former
National
Football
League
commissioner
Paul
Tagliabue
passed
away
this
weekend
at
age
84.
Before
his
time
at
the
NFL,
Tagliabue
was
a
partner
at
what
Biglaw
firm?

Hint:
In
2007,
he
returned
to
the
firm
as
senior
of
counsel,
working
on
pro
bono
matters
including
voting
rights,
election
integrity,
and
Electoral
College
reform.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

I

wrote
a
while
back that,
given
the
choice,
I’d
vote
for
a
stinking
turd
for
president
rather
than
Donald
Trump.

How
right
I
was: A
stinking
turd,
for
example,
would
not
have
pardoned
the
January
6
rioters. A
stinking
turd
would
not
have
imposed
universal
tariffs. A
stinking
turd
would
not
have
threatened
to
take
over
Canada
and
Greenland. A
stinking
turd
would
not
have
posted
a
video
of
itself,
wearing
a
crown,
piloting
an
aircraft,
and
dropping
…
.  

Well,
okay. I
agree
with
the
turd
on
three
out
of
four
issues,
and
on
the
fourth,
it’s
a
push. Go
with
the
turd.

In
case
you’re
disturbed
by
my
position,
note
that
I
don’t
actually
favor
putting
stinking
turds
in
the
White
House. I’m
anti-Trump,
but
I’m
not
really
pro-turd.

So
please
take
this
next
statement
in
the
spirit
in
which
it’s
intended: The
Democrats’
next
presidential
nominee
should
be
a
straight
white
male.

I’m
not
homophobic,
femalephobic,
or
minorityphobic.

I’m
just
anti-MAGA. And
the
best
way
for
Democrats
to
defeat
MAGA
is
to
nominate
a
straight
white
male. Nominating
anyone
else
might
cost
the
Democrats
a
few
percentage
points
of
the
vote,
and
that
might
cost
the
Democrats
the
presidency. That
would
be
a
disaster,
so
straight
white
male
it
is.

I’m
thinking
only
about
swing
voters
in
swing
states. If
Pennsylvania
comprises
Philadelphia
and
Pittsburgh,
with
West
Virginia
in
between,
I’m
thinking
about
those
West
Virginians. Might
a
few
percent
of
those
West
Virginians,
consciously
or
not,
cast
a
ballot
in
favor
of
a
straight
white
Republican
man
instead
of
a
Democratic
candidate
who
was
different? I
think
so,
and
I’d
hedge
against
that.

Cory
Booker,
Wes
Moore,
Pete
Buttigieg,
Abigail
Spanberger,
or
Gretchen
Whitmer
would
all
be
fine
candidates
for
president. But
not
now. Not
when
it
matters
so
much.

I’d
take
Gavin
Newsom
off
the
table,
too. Newsom
is
awfully
polished
and
awfully
slick. But
California
is
viewed
by
too
many
Americans
as
the
land
of
fruits
and
nuts. And
California
has
too
many
prominent
issues
—
such
as
homelessness
and
the
high
cost
of
living
—
that
could
be
deployed
against
Newsom. Sorry,
Gavin. Do
what
the
Republicans
so
often
like
to
suggest: Go
back
where
you
came
from.

I’d
take
Josh
Shapiro
off
the
table,
too. Since
he’s
the
governor
of
Pennsylvania,
he’d
surely
carry
Pennsylvania
in
a
presidential
race,
but
I
fear
that
his
religion
might
cost
a
few
votes
in
other
swing
states,
such
as
Michigan
or
Georgia. I
wouldn’t
risk
it. (For
what
it’s
worth,
I
share
Shapiro’s
religion,
and
I
wouldn’t
nominate
myself,
either. I’m
not
an
antisemite;
I’m
a
realist.)

If
I
had
the
choice,
I’d
pick
my
candidate
either
from
one
of
the
swing
states,
to
carry
that
state
in
the
presidential
election,
or
from
some
other
state
in
which
a
Democratic
politician
has
shown
the
ability
to
appeal
to
independents
in
a
conservative
area.

At
this
point,
I’m
not
sure
who
I’d
choose
as
the
Democratic
nominee
in
2028. 
But
I’d
pick
from
among
straight
white
males
to
increase
the
chance
of
winning
in
an
election
dominated
by,
to
use
Hillary
Clinton’s
word,
deplorables.

I
realize
that
I’ll
draw
criticism
from
the
progressive
left
for
what
I’ve
written
here: “Herrmann,
you
idiot! A
straight
white
male
won’t
energize
the
base! How
do
you
think
Mamdani
won
in
New
York? The
key
is
to
motivate
people
on
the
left
to
vote.”

I
beg
to
differ. The
forces
of
anti-MAGA
don’t
need
to
energize
the
left. No
matter
who
the
Democrats
nominate,
anti-MAGA
will
win
in
California
and
New
York. We
don’t
need
bigger
margins
in
those
states.

Democrats
must
carry
the
middle
in
Georgia,
Pennsylvania,
Michigan,
Wisconsin,
Arizona,
North
Carolina,
and
Nevada. To
my
eye,
that
calls
for
a
slightly
left-of-center
candidate
who
won’t
offend
anyone: Straight,
white,
male
it
is.

And,
on
further
reflection,
maybe
we
should
rule
out
a
stinking
turd,
too.

---

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

As
you
were
applying
for
summer
gigs,
there
was
probably
a
point
where
you
asked
yourself
if
you
want
to
spend
the
summer
giving
back
to
those
in
need
or
making
a
lot
of
money
so
you
can
get
a
quick
start
on
your
student
loan
payments.
Those
either/or
quandaries
are
usually
solved
by
who
actually
gives
you
a
callback
—
but
every
once
in
a
while,
you
chance
upon
a
program
that
lets
you
get
the
best
of
both
worlds.
In
comes
Davis
Polk.

Law.com
has
coverage:

According
to
Davis
Polk’s
announcement
on
Monday,
students
can
select
from
a
number
of
non-profit,
academic,
court,
government
or
pro
bono
entities
that
give
back
to
the
community
in
which
they
live.
These
entities
can
be
ones
suggested
by
Davis
Polk
or
the
student’s
choosing,
as
long
as
they
are
approved
by
the
firm.

“We
are
pleased
to
share
that
those
students
who
join
our
2027
summer
class
full-time
and
spend
their
2026
1L
summer
giving
back
through
a
legal
internship
at
a
nonprofit,
in
government,
or
in
academia
will
qualify
for
a
$25,000
payment
upon
their
arrival
at
the
firm
in
2027,”
the
firm
wrote
in
its
post.

It
is
refreshing
to
see
Biglaw
firms
stepping
up
to
support
pro
bono
work
as
the
federal
government
does
their
damnedest
to
disincentivize
representing
undeserved
communities
by

promising
to
kick
you
off
of
public
service
loan
forgiveness
if
you
let
too
much
do-gooder
run
through
your
system.
Hey,
this
might
be
the
biggest
step
in
Biglaw
supporting
public
service

since
Skadden
nerfed
their
fellowship
program!

To
the
hopeful
1Ls:

applications
are
open!
Best
of
luck,
and
do
some
good
out
there.

Davis
Polk
Offers
$25K
Student
Stipend
For
Post-1L
Work
[Law.com]

---

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.