Biglaw
Firm
Just
Asks
For
3
Days
In
Person:
Good
reason
to
prefer
Arnold
&
Porter
over
the
competition!
Elsewhere,
Junior
Associates
Get
Stuck
With
4
Days:
At
least
Dechert’s
partners
will
have
to
come
in
on
those
days
too!
Once
It
Goes
Public…:
Expert
wants
$30k
for
including
a
report
that
went
into
the
public
domain.
Lina
Khan
Joins
Zohran
Mamdani’s
Transition
Team:
If
you
listen
closely
you
can
hear
the
billionaires
preparing
to
move.
So
Much
For
Respecting
The
Judiciary:
DOJ
gives
heads
up
they
don’t
care
about
little
things
like
orders
to
turn
over
discovery.
This
Week
On
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer:
Billable
hours,
riots
(?),
and
AI.
Yesterday,
Zohran
Mamdani
won
the
NYC
mayoral
election
with
over
1,036,051
votes.
Who
was
the
last
NYC
mayoral
candidate
to
received
over
a
million
votes?
Hint:
The
Yale
Law
School
graduate
began
his
career
at
a
white
shoe
law
firm
—
where
he
rose
to
partner
—
before
embarking
on
a
political
career.
Everything
I’ve
heard
is
that
it’s
still
quite
a
challenge
getting
people
in,
even
with
these
mandates.
We’re
starting
to
come
to
a
point
where
firms
have
to
put
their
money
where
their
mouth
is
and
penalize
people
if
they
don’t
come
in.
That
becomes
a
risky
proposition
when
you’re
in
a
world
where
people
have
lots
of
choices
and
not
every
firm
requires
the
same
mandate.
—
Jeffrey
Lowe,
a
recruiter
with
CenterPeak,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
Biglaw
firms
increasing
attendance
mandates
but
still
having
difficulty
in
getting
attorneys
to
abide
by
those
in-office
facetime
requirements.
Partners
have
reportedly
been
especially
have
resistant
to
these
attendance
policies.
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
few
criticisms
of
Zohran
Mamdani’s
run
for
mayor
that
actually
had
merit
was
that
he
had
little
meaningful
work
experience
to
run
New
York
City.
Now
that
the
former
SoundCloud
rapper
will
be
running
America’s
city,
there’s
some
major
focus
on
who
he
will
be
picking
to
help
him
do
the
job
that
needs
to
be
done.
He’s
off
to
an
interesting
start
—
while
one
name
on
his
transition
team
could
be
a
signal
for
the
direction
he
wants
to
take
New
York,
she’s
also
faced
some
experience
questions
of
her
own.
Business
Insider
has
coverage:
Former
Federal
Trade
Commission
Chair
Lina
Khan
—whose
regulatory
moves
angered
many
corporate
leaders
—
has
been
named
as
one
of
the
co-chairs
of
Mamdani’s
transition
team.
“What
we
saw
last
night
was
New
Yorkers
not
just
electing
a
new
mayor,
but
clearly
rejecting
a
politics
where
outsized
corporate
power
and
money
too
often
end
up
dictating
our
politics,”
Khan
said
in
a
speech
on
Wednesday.
First
things
first,
you
gotta
love
some
strong
signaling!
Khan
herself
has
encouraged
young
lawyers
to
direct
their
minds
toward
antitrust
as
a
way
to
fight
on
the
average
person’s
behalf.
On
the
other
hand,
Khan
has
also
been
taken
to
task
for
alleged
managerial
dysfunction
and
bringing
weak
cases
while
she
was
at
the
FTC.
That
said,
the
good
thing
about
teamwork
is
that
it
allows
for
team
efforts
—
other
big
names
like
Elana
Leopold,
Melanie
Hartzog,
Maria
Torres-Springer,
and
Grace
Bonilla
will
be
there
to
balance
out
the
relative
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
individual
members.
Prior
to
Mamdani’s
win,
business
leaders,
Wall
Street
financiers,
and
other
people
who
probably
think
stealing
is
a
much
bigger
problem
than
wage
theft
tantrum-promised
to
move
out
of
New
York
and
even
close
grocery
stores
if
they
didn’t
get
their
way.
Hey,
if
a
mass
exodus
of
people
hoarding
NYC
real
estate
is
what
it
takes
to
get
affordable
housing,
so
be
it!
While
I’m
betting
that
most
of
the
threats
to
leave
were
just
posturing
(have
you
ever
tried
convincing
a
New
Yorker
that
there
are
other
inhabitable
cities
in
this
country?),
Khan’s
place
on
the
transition
team
will
be
a
warning
to
billionaires
that
they
may
have
to
tighten
their
Bottega
belts
once
it
becomes
more
affordable
for
the
rabble
to
make
it
to
work.
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.
Buckle
up,
because
we’ve
got
a
new
entry
in
the
“no,
you
can’t
file
copyright
claims
over
something
you
put
on
the
public
docket”
sweepstakes.
A
Texas-based
researcher
named
Lindsay
Olson
was
paid
$30,000
by
a
law
firm
representing
a
January
6
defendant
to
conduct
a
“community
attitude”
survey
about
D.C.
jurors’
feelings
toward
the
Capitol
rioters.
Her
conclusion
was
that
D.C.
residents
felt
about
as
much
sympathy
for
insurrectionists
as
they
do
for
telemarketers
if
those
telemarketers
also
tried
to
hang
the
Vice
President
on
livestream.
Those
attorneys
did
what
lawyers
do:
they
filed
it
with
their
venue
change
motion
on
the
public
docket.
From
there,
the
lawyers
for
other
defendants
did
what
they
do:
they
pulled
the
public
filing,
attached
it
to
their
own
motions,
and
also
argued
that
D.C.
jurors
were
unduly
biased
against
people
attempting
to
overthrow
the
government.
All
of
these
motions
failed.
But
now
Olson
has
sued
a
couple
attorneys
for
including
the
report
in
their
own
motions
claiming
they
“pirated”
her
expert
report
without
paying
her
the
requisite
$30,000
fee
that
she
charged
the
first
lawyers.
She’s
also
suing
the
Trump
administration
to
the
extent
federal
public
defenders
used
the
report
—
which
she
claims
happened
at
least
11
times
—
and
there’s
a
satisfying
irony
to
Trump
pardoning
all
these
people
and
still
being
potentially
on
the
hook
for
how
they
were
defended.
There
shouldn’t
be
any
argument
that
the
report
was
a
valuable
work
of
intellectual
property.
It
reflects
Olson’s
expertise,
judgment,
and
effort.
She
could
absolutely
claim
copyright
protection
over
it…
until
it
entered
the
public
domain.
This
is
a
topic
we’ve
had
occasion
to
deal
with
before,
when
a
boutique
law
firm
sued
Winston
&
Strawn
over
cribbing
from
a
motion
to
dismiss
filed
in
a
related
case.
That
case
tried
to
bootstrap
protections
against
online
legal
research
databases
profiting
off
motions
to
a
claim
against
any
lawyer
copying
another
firm’s
filed
motion.
The
argument
was
quite
dumb,
though
we’ll
never
know
how
it
turned
out
because
Winston
settled
for
undisclosed
terms.
This
time
it’s
not
a
rival
law
firm,
but
an
expert
report,
but
the
conclusion
is
the
same.
If
authors
could
claim
intellectual
property
rights
over
their
explicitly
intended
for
litigation
work
product
after
it
enters
the
docket,
it
defeats
the
whole
purpose
of
a
common
law
legal
system.
These
venue
motions
were
consistently
unsuccessful,
but
imagine
if
one
had
prevailed.
In
such
a
world,
the
law
could
not
be
such
an
ass
as
to
tell
similarly
situated
defendants
“the
court
has
found
that
the
jury
pool
is
biased…
but
please
deposit
your
$30,000
before
we
give
you
access
to
that
legal
conclusion.”
Access
to
justice
is
baked
into
any
case
that
involves
experts,
but
the
idea
that
a
relatively
deep-pocketed
litigant
can
commission
a
report
and
poorer
litigants
have
to
pay
an
additional
toll
to
access
it
creates
a
dystopian
justice
model.
Upon
hearing
about
these
lawsuits,
my
first
instinct
was
that
Olson
is
suing
the
wrong
parties,
and
that
her
claim
must
rest
against
her
original
clients
who
posted
the
report
because
—
I
assumed
—
the
terms
of
that
deal
had
to
include
some
provision
that
they
would
not
post
it
in
full
on
the
public
docket.
Alas,
that’s
not
the
case!
From
the
complaint
in
Olson
v.
Webb,
one
of
the
suits
filed
in
the
Southern
District
of
Florida:
After
Plaintiff
delivered
a
copy
of
the
Report
to
the
Requesting
Attorneys,
they
and
[sic]
uploaded
a
copy
of
the
Report
to
the
Court’s
public
docket
in
1:22-cr-00015-APM
(Dkt.
654-1)
and
in
1:21-cr-00028-APM
(Dkt.
93-1)
(otherwise
known
as
the
Oath
Keepers
case
consolidated
for
trial
and
jury
selection),
causing
a
public
display
of
the
Report
in
support
of
a
motion
to
transfer
venue,
as
authorized
by
Plaintiff
in
exchange
for
the
required
$30,000
payment.
She
authorized
the
publication
on
the
docket!
The
fact
that
Defendants
made
an
authorized
copy
of
the
Report
from
the
Internet
(PACER)
and
downloaded
a
copy
which
was
available
through
PACER,
does
not
mean
that
the
Report
was
in
the
public
domain
or
unconditionally
free
to
publicly
display
a
copy
of
the
Report
for
the
very
same
purpose
it
was
created
and
offered
in
the
market.
It
kinda
does,
though.
Any
other
outcome
would
undermine
the
purpose
of
a
legal
system
based
upon
delivering
consistent
outcomes
for
parties.
It
also
quickly
becomes
a
silly
argument
because
Olson
concedes
—
as
she
must
—
that
other
lawyers
were
free
to
refer
to
the
report
on
the
docket
when
defending
other
clients,
but
claims
it
went
too
far
when
those
lawyers
attached
the
report:
Notably,
other
lawyers
representing
J6
defendants
who
filed
motions
to
transfer
venue
only
referenced
that
the
Report
existed
but
did
not
copy
and
upload
for
public
display
the
Report
in
its
entirety
and
instead
summarized
the
lawyer’s
conclusion
of
the
Report.
So,
the
intellectual
property
can
be
invoked,
but
only
if
lawyers
tell
a
federal
judge,
“You
have
PACER,
look
it
up
your
own
damn
self!”
That
strikes
me
as…
untenable.
Judges
appreciate
having
all
the
relevant
material
in
one
packet
as
opposed
to
lawyers
referencing
evidence
as
“a
surprise
tool
that
can
help
us
later.”
And
it’s
not
like
the
lawyers
paying
her
fee
aren’t
getting
value
above
and
beyond
anyone
simply
attaching
the
report
to
their
own
motions.
When
there’s
oral
argument,
Olson’s
clients
can
consult
with
her
about
the
finer
points
of
the
report.
If
a
judge
wants
further
briefing,
her
paying
customers
will
have
access
to
her
expertise.
In
the
event
some
judge
seeks
limited
testimony,
the
lawyers
who’ve
ponied
up
the
cash
will
end
up
having
access
to
her
as
a
witness.
All
of
that
matters.
It’s
hard
not
to
feel
for
Olson.
She
did
a
lot
of
work.
She
got
paid
once,
and
now
her
product
is
circulating
freely
among
the
defense
bar
like
a
bad
chain
email
from
2003.
But
that’s
the
natural
life
cycle
of
a
publicly
filed
document
in
the
legal
system.
If
someone
tried
to
snake
it
off
the
docket
and
use
it
for
a
non-legal
purpose,
it
raises
different
concerns.
But
this
is,
fundamentally,
a
piece
of
legal
advocacy,
and
if
lawyers
aren’t
free
to
use
it
to
advance
similar
legal
advocacy,
the
system
breaks.
Legal
arguments
can’t
be
hoarded
to
the
exclusive
benefit
of
one
party
once
they’re
out
there.
Was
she
planning
to
sue
the
judges
if
they
quoted
from
the
report
in
their
opinions?
See
how
none
of
this
makes
sense
the
more
you
game
it
out?
If
she
wanted
to
limit
the
circulation
of
the
full
breadth
of
her
work,
she
could’ve
put
more
limits
on
the
license
she
gave
the
first
attorneys.
Or,
better,
she
should’ve
negotiated
for
more
money
up
front
knowing
that
she
was
providing
her
clients
with
a
first
actor
advantage.
She
deserves
to
get
paid.
But
this
should
not
become
an
intellectual
property
issue.
BULAWAYO
–
The
government
says
Monomotapa
Crowne
Plaza
hotel
which
it
acquired
through
the
public
service
pension
fund
in
August
will
be
used
to
house
Members
of
Parliament.
The
182-bed
hotel
in
central
Harare
was
sold
by
African
Sun.
Finance
minister
Mthuli
Ncube
announced
the
development
to
MPs
attending
a
pre-budget
seminar
in
Bulawayo
on
Wednesday.
He
said:
“Did
we
ever
tell
the
MPs
that
we
bought
them
a
hotel?
If
you
allow
me,
I’m
going
to
announce
today
that
we
have
bought
you
a
hotel.
It’s
Monomotapa
Hotel.
“This
is
for
use
by
MPs….
This
strategic
move
is
aimed
at
ensuring
the
comfort
and
convenience
of
legislators
during
parliamentary
sessions
and
national
events,
while
also
reducing
accommodation
costs
previously
incurred
through
private
bookings.”
Ncube
would
not
say
how
the
hotel
will
finance
its
operations
and
earn
money
for
the
pension
fund,
but
hinted
that
it
will
also
be
open
to
the
public
based
on
the
availability
of
rooms.
“We
will
now
come
up
with
a
scheme
of
how
it
can
be
utilised
for
the
benefit
of
MPs.
When
you’re
not
using
it,
it
can
earn
revenue
for
its
upkeep,”
said
Ncube.
The
Monomotapa
Hotel,
known
for
its
distinctive
architecture
inspired
by
the
ancient
Kingdom
of
Monomotapa,
is
one
of
Harare’s
most
recognisable
landmarks,
located
next
to
the
Harare
Gardens.
The
Department
of
Justice
has
come
up
with
a
fairly
unique
litigation
strategy
in
the
paper-thin
case
against
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James:
antagonize
the
judge
overseeing
the
case.
I
know,
BOLD!
U.S.
District
Judge
Jamar
Walker
ordered
the
government
to
provide
discovery
to
James’s
legal
team
related
to
their
vindictive/selective
prosecution
argument.
But
instead
of
getting
their
documents
in
order,
the
DOJ
went
all
Bartleby,
the
Scrivener,
saying
they
prefer
not
to.
Yesterday,
the
government
filed
“Notice
Of
Reasons
For
Not
Providing
Pre-Vindictive/Selective
Prosecution
Motion
Related
Discovery.”
Which
was
just
a
fancy
way
of
saying
the
DOJ
was
going
to
go
all
Eric
Cartman
and
do
what
they
want
and
ignore
the
judge.
The
filing,
signed
by
Roger
Keller
Jr.,
brought
in
from
the
Missouri
office
to
give
an
assist
to
the
woefully
inexperienced
interim
U.S.
Attorney Lindsey
Halligan,
is
a
wild
romp
(for
a
court
document)
that
attempts
to
impose
the
government’s
will
on
the
court.
“In
the
October
24,
2025,
proceeding,
the
Court
instructed
the
United
States
of
America
(the
Government)
to
provide
Defendant
with
vindictive/selective
prosecution-related
discovery
before
she
filed
any
such
motion.
The
Court’s
instruction
is
premature
as
the
Government
bears
no
such
obligation
until
a
defendant
‘overcomes
a
significant
barrier
by
advancing
objective
evidence
tending
to
show
the
existence
of
prosecutorial
misconduct.
This
standard
is
a
‘rigorous’
one.’”
And
there’s
more!
Keller
continues
that
the
law
“does
not
‘allow[
]
a
defendant
to
have
discovery
on
the
government’s
prosecutorial
decisions
[until]
the
defendant
…
overcome[s]
a
significant
barrier
by
advancing
objective
evidence
tending
to
show
the
existence
of
prosecutorial
misconduct.”
“The
Order
to
produce
vindictive/selective
prosecution-related
discovery
before
Defendant
filed
her
motion
relieved
her
of
her
obligation
to
overcome
the
prosecution’s
presumptive
lawfulness
with
‘evidence
tending
to
show
the
existence
of
prosecutorial
misconduct,’”
the
filing
reads.
“The
Government
is
not
required
to
produce
vindictive/[selective]
prosecution-related
discovery
until
Defendant
overcomes
the
presumption
of
the
prosecution’s
lawfulness.”
What
an
absolutely
insane
thing
to
read
in
a
DOJ
filing!
No
motion
to
reconsider
the
court’s
order,
just
a
bold
proclamation
—
nah,
we’re
not
doing
that.
What
a
thoroughly
odd
response.
Don’t
believe
me?
Well,
let’s
check
in
with
a
conservative
legal
commentator.
When
the
far-right
legal
strategy
is
so
far
afield
you
have
Ed
Whelan
—
the
man
who
will
gladly
pedal
conspiracy
theories
for
the
cause
—
balking,
methinks
you’ve
gone
too
far.
“The
Court
has
received
the
government’s
filing
regarding
discovery
on
the
issue
of
vindictive
and/or
selective
prosecution.
The
Order
on
the
parties’
jointly
recommended
discovery
plan
governs
discovery
in
this
case,”
the
judge
said.
“To
the
extent
any
discovery
dispute
arises,
the
parties
may
address
it
in
a
motion.”
Looks
like
he’ll
be
keeping
a
pretty
tight
leash
on
the
parties.
Read
the
full
filing
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].
We
talk
about
the
DOJ
lawyers
suspended
by
the
White
House
for
calling
January
6
a
riot
in
a
sentencing
memo,
and
the
conversation
veers
down
a
rabbit
hole
about
the
proper
role
of
pardons.
For
years,
the
billable
hour
seemed
like
the
cockroach
of
law
firm
management,
but
after
surviving
numerous
brushes
with
death,
AI
might
finally
force
firms
to
look
into
alternative
fee
structures.
And
if
you’re
in
law
school
and
thinking
about
serving
the
public
interest,
expect
it
to
be
a
lot
more
expensive
unless
your
future
employer
is
blessed
by
the
Trump
administration.
As
law
firms
race
to
tighten
their
in-office
policies,
most
are
now
pushing
for
four
days
a
week
—
though
a
handful
are
taking
a
more
“modest”
approach,
asking
attorneys
to
come
to
the
office
just
three
days
a
week.
How
refreshing.
Arnold
&
Porter
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,193,720,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
51
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
recently
announced
that
come
2026,
it
would
be
making
“very
modest
adjustments”
to
its
in-office
policy,
specifying
that
all
attorneys
and
professional
staff
would
be
expected
in
the
office
three
days
each
week,
on
Tuesdays,
Wednesdays,
and
Thursdays,
during
normal
business
hours.
Leading
up
to
this
new
attendance
mandate,
A&P
will
be
in
“virtual
operating
status”
firmwide
during
the
week
of
Thanksgiving
(November
24-28)
as
well
as
the
final
two
weeks
of
the
year
(December
22,
2025
–
January
2,
2026).
As
part
of
a
memo
sent
out
this
week
and
viewed
by
Above
the
Law,
Sean
T.
Howell,
the
firm’s
CEO,
said,
“We
look
forward
to
spending
more
time
together
in
the
year
ahead
and
to
continuing
to
build
on
the
success
and
sense
of
community
that
make
our
firm
so
special.”
As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Reopening”)
or
text
us
at (646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.
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.
“The
dirty
secret,”
a
veteran
eDiscovery
consultant
told
me,
“is
that
AI
still
can’t
actually
handle
these
massive
document
sets.”
While
the
industry
rushes
toward
AI
adoption,
embracing
its
demonstrated
strengths
and
—
for
some
insane
and
persistent
reason
—
its
well-documented
weaknesses,
one
hurdle
it
can’t
quite
surmount
is
the
ever-expanding
size
of
discovery.
AI
is,
rightly,
lauded
for
its
capacity
to
analyze
and
summarize
large
amounts
of
data,
but
crunching
100
deposition
transcripts
is
one
thing
and
getting
on
top
of
terabytes
worth
of
discovery
is
quite
another.
Context
windows
just
aren’t
that
big.
Which
means
legal
tech
vendors
have
to
get
creative
within
the
limits
of
the
technology.
Today,
at
its
SYNERGY
Legal
Professionals
conference,
Thomson
Reuters
announced
a
new
beta
feature
that
gets
users
closer.
CoCounsel
Legal’s
new
bulk
document
review
feature
allows
analysis
of
10,000
documents
at
a
clip,
returning
sortable,
user-friendly
results.
The
secret
sauce
is
in
taking
these
big
batches
and
returning
structured
analysis
that
users
can
then
—
for
lack
of
a
better
term
—
daisy
chain
to
get
on
top
of
“hundreds
or
thousands
of
documents
far
more
efficiently
than
traditional
manual
methods,”
as
the
press
release
puts
it.
This
underscores,
again,
that
AI
isn’t
replacing
humans.
Someone
has
to
run
the
requisite
10K
at
a
time
searches
and
deal
with
the
results.
But
it
will
reduce
the
number
of
humans
necessary
to
get
through
these
traditionally
brute
force
searches
and
then
put
everything
together.
The
general
purpose
AI
companies
will
keep
promising
exponential
growth,
but
it’s
just
not
coming
and
the
key
differentiator
for
legal
tech
will
be
building
the
best
workarounds
to
deal
with
AI’s
baked
in
context
window
limitations.
Thomson
Reuters
also
announced
an
agentic
feature
for
“Independent
Execution
of
Legal
Tasks.”
Sigh.
The
record
will
reflect
my
ongoing
disdain
for
the
term
“agentic.”
Independent
research
into
these
so-called
“agentic”
AI
tools
reveals
a
dismal
track
record,
with
failure
rates
upward
of
70
percent
according
to
a
Carnegie
Mellon
study.
On
top
of
that,
the
term
is
employed
by
the
industry
to
describe
an
AI
tool
that
autonomously
creates
a
multi-step
workflow
and
then
acts
on
it,
which
is
just
an
invitation
to
multiple
points
of
failure
that
—
even
if
it
worked
better
than
the
studies
indicate
—
should
terrify
a
lawyer.
On
top
of
that,
compressing
multiple
steps
in
the
lawyerly
process
invites
a
psychological
reordering
that
can
make
lawyers,
well…
dumber.
But
while
the
new
Thomson
Reuters
beta
tool
will
experiment
with
independent
work,
the
planned
end
state
of
the
feature
is
a
very
useful
tool
that
shouldn’t
worry
lawyers
at
all:
With
the
second
phase,
legal
professionals
will
have
access
to
a
customizable
workflow
builder
that
will
allow
them
to
create,
save
and
share
their
own
workflows
within
CoCounsel
Legal
capitalizing
on
the
trusted
content
and
solutions
from
Thomson
Reuters
as
well
as
the
firm’s
knowledge.
Additionally,
this
facilitates
the
development
of
repeatable,
law
firm-specific
processes
and
supports
reusability
across
teams
–
ensuring
consistency
while
capturing
institutional
knowledge
and
best
practices.
Building
a
workflow
based
on
the
lived
experience
of
the
lawyers
is
exactly
the
sort
of
tool
a
firm
can
use.
It’s
“autonomous”
to
the
extent
it
checks
and
acts
upon
the
work
it’s
trained
by
the
firm
to
accomplish.
As
with
the
document
review
feature,
the
race
here
is
to
build
something
that
allows
AI
to
be
better
harnessed
to
match
what
lawyers
actually
do.
If
the
AI
bubble
doesn’t
explode
more
epically
than
that
infamous
Subway
sandwich,
this
is
where
the
action
will
be
for
the
next
few
years.
Don’t
watch
the
AI
as
much
as
what
companies
like
Thomson
Reuters
are
putting
on
top
of
AI.
That’s
the
fun
stuff
and
the
real
differentiator.
Kathryn
