Author: TSA Press

A
few
weeks
ago,
it
was
reported
that

more
than
76,000
people
have
applied
to
law
school.
A
number
of
these
people
cited
President
Trump
as
their
motivation
to
become
a
lawyer.

Soon
after
Trump’s
first
term
started,
I
cautioned
prospective
law
students
that
it
is

not
a
good
idea
to
go
to
law
school
solely
because
they
hate
President
Trump.
Those
planning
to
attend
next
fall
should
know
that
they
will
graduate
in
May
2029
which
is
when
Trump’s
second
and
final
term
will
end.
I
realize
that
some
people
are
taking
Trump’s

trollish
comments
about
running
for
a
third
term
seriously.
But
I
wonder
how
many
reasonable
people
will
vote
for
a
82-year-old
man
in
2028
who
will
likely
have
made
billions
from
his
recent
crypto
ventures.

But
since
the
numbers
show
that
people
will
apply
to
law
school
anyway
regardless
of
what
a
lowly
columnist
writes,
perhaps
a
message
to
law
school
admissions
committee
members
would
be
more
appropriate.
While
increased
interest
in
legal
education
is
good,
all
applications
must
be
evaluated
with
greater
scrutiny.
Because
if
schools
accept
those
who
haven’t
done
their
research
and
lack
commitment,
more
students
will
be
jaded
and
depressed.
And
if
schools
accept
more
students
than
they
normally
do,
those
students
might
face
a
harder
time
getting
jobs
after
graduation.
More
unemployed
graduates
means
more
unhappy
graduates,
and
it
could
affect
the
schools’
future
rankings.

So
let’s
look
at
a
few
potential
red
flags.

One
red
flag
is
an
applicant
who
appears
to
be
going
to
law
school
to
weather
a
bad
economy.
In
a
bad
job
market,
some
people
turn
to
law
school
as
a
default
or
last-resort
option.
These
people
tend
to
have
no
or
very
superficial
legal
experience
and
their
knowledge
about
the
legal
profession
is
based
on
episodes
of
“Ally
McBeal.”
Or
these
people
are
applying
soon
after
they
were
laid
off
from
their
previous
job
and
may
have
an
erroneous
belief
that
the
legal
profession
is
more
stable.
 

This
should
be
distinguished
from
an
applicant
who
wants
a
career
change
after
working
for
several
years.
These
people
should
have
work
experience
and
can
concretely
explain
how
they
can
transfer
their
life
experience
into
the
legal
profession.

Another
red
flag
is
an
applicant
whose
personal
statement
consists
mostly
of
political
sound
bites
or
vague
platitudes.
For
example,
an
applicant
who
wants
to
go
to
law
school
to
“drain
the
swamp,”
challenge
the
“deep
state,”
“protect
democracy,”
or
fight
fascists.
It
is
fine
to
go
to
law
school
to
challenge
an
unjust
system,
but
how
will
they
use
their
law
degree
to
do
it?
Those
who
want
to
fight
fascism
should
know
what
fascism
means
without
citing
their
favorite
political
podcaster.
Otherwise,
their
motivation
could
be
coming
from
clickbait
news
headlines.
These
people
will
have
to
learn
quickly
that
legal
writing
does
not
accept
partisan
talking
points
or
lived
experiences
as
arguments.

Of
course,
nothing
is
wrong
with
having
strong
political
views.
Such
people
might
be
more
interested
in
working
for
government
or
nonprofits
serving
the
vulnerable
rather
than
making
money
at
a
major
law
firm.
But,
unfortunately,
a
growing
number
of
people
seem
to
have
a
winner-take-all
mentality.
The
legal
profession
is
desperately
asking
their
members
to
be
civil
but
social
media
algorithms
tend
to
favor
argumentative
behaviors
as
those
tend
to
attract
engagement.

Lastly,
another
red
flag
is
their
internet
footprint.
These
days,
law
schools
can
look
up
a
candidate
on
the
internet
and
check
their
social
media
posts.
An
applicant’s
social
media
activity
could
contradict
what
they
wrote
on
their
personal
statements.
Did
they
attend
a
peaceful
protest
with
a
gun
or
a
Molotov
cocktail
in
their
hand?
Did
they
advocate
political
violence?
Or
any
violence?

As
the
number
of
applicants
increases
to
record
levels
—
with
some
having
questionable
motivations
—
law
schools
should
identify
red
flags
that
would
indicate
that
an
applicant
will
make
it
through
law
school
and
be
fulfilled
in
the
legal
profession
after
they
graduate.
It
is
fine
for
a
lawyer
to
lean
one
way
politically,
even
if
it
is
considered
extreme.
But
law
schools
should
train
future
lawyers
to
at
least
address
the
other
side’s
arguments
without
resorting
to
talking
points.
While
some
may
call
this
gatekeeping,
others
will
call
it
stewardship.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

With
Halloween
nearly
upon
us,
that
means
bonus
season
is
right
around
the
corner.
In
years
past,
Biglaw
firms
were
all
about
treats,
offering
pandemic-related
special
bonuses
amid
a
white-hot
lateral
market.
But
here
in
2025,
some
firms
are
handing
out
tricks
—
like
$0
in Milbank
special
bonus
cash (thus
far,
at
least).
That
said,
associates
are
now
eagerly
awaiting
their
year-end
bonuses.
In
fact,
the
majority
of
the
nearly
400
respondents
to
our
annual
bonus
season
survey
think
2025’s
overall
bonus
compensation
will
match
last
year’s
bonuses,
while
more
than
a
third
think
they’ll
be
even
more
generous.

As
a
little
reminder
—
as
if
you
really
needed
one
—
this
is
what
last
year’s Milbank/Cravath bonuses
looked
like:

• 
  Class
  of
  2024:
  $15,000
  (pro-rated)
• 
  Class
  of
  2023:
  $20,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2022:
  $30,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2021:
  $57,500
• 
  Class
  of
  2020:
  $75,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2019:
  $90,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2018:
  $105,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2017:
  $115,000
• 
  Class
  of
  2016:
  $115,000

Bonus
money
remained
the
same
in
2024
after
Cravath
increased
the
size
of
its
bonuses
across
all
class
years
in
2021.
Everyone
saw
more
money,
and
the
most
senior
associates
in
Biglaw
received
$115,000
instead
of
the
usual
$100,000.
Once
again,
it
was
a
great
year
for
bonuses.
With
all
of
that
background,
let’s
turn
to
this
year’s
bonuses.

Considering
current
economic
conditions,
what
will
2025
bonuses
look
like?

More
than
half
of
associates
(63%)
predict
that
there
will
be
no
change
in
bonus
amounts
from
2024.
Now,
it
seems
like
everyone
is
expecting
to
receive
exactly
what
they
did
last
year
—
save
for
the
34%
who
are
dreaming
of
taking
home
even
higher
bonus
numbers.
Biglaw
firms
better
not
disappoint,
because
we
can’t
even
imagine
the
state
of
uproar
it
would
cause
among
associates.

So,
will
any
other
money
be
headed
associates’
way?
Our
respondents
seem
pretty
enthusiastic
when
it
comes
to
bonuses
on
top
of
bonuses
in
2025.

Do
you
think
your
firm
will
use
the
year-end
bonus
announcement
to
match
the
Milbank
summer
bonus
or
offer
any
other
special
bonuses?

Most
associates
are
incredibly
optimistic
about
special
bonuses
this
year.
Last
year,
just
49%
of
associates
surveyed
said
their
firms
would
match
Milbank’s
summer
bonuses,
whereas
this
year,
75%
of
associates
think
there’s
a
Milbank
special
bonus
match
in
store
for
them,
while
6%
are
holding
out
for
a
special
bonus,
whether
or
not
it’s
a
Milbank
match.
Still,
not
everyone
is
convinced
anything
extra
will
be
offered:
15%
say
there
won’t
be
special
bonuses
at
all
and
4%
are
unsure.
Let’s
not
forget,
those
Milbank
special
summer
bonuses
ranged
from
$6,000
to
$25,000,
without
any
hourly
requirements
attached.
It’s
time
to
cross
your
fingers
and
hold
out
hope
that
this
bonus
season
will
be extra special.

For
those
of
you
who
are
wondering
when
your
bank
accounts
will
be
a
little
more
flush,
here’s
a
list
of
the
dates
when
year-end
market
bonuses
hit
Biglaw
since
2006,
the
very
first
year
Above
the
Law
started
publishing
bonus
news.
Take
a
look:

For
the
past
few
years,
since
2018,
bonus
announcements
had
been
made
in
early
to
mid-November
until
Cravath
stretched
the
timeline
by
a
smidge
in
2021,
followed
by
Baker
McKenzie
in
2022.
Let’s
see
when
our
respondents
think
this
year’s
first
bonus
will
be
announced.

When
do
you
think
2025
bonuses
will
be
announced?

The
majority
of
respondents
(79%)
believe
that
bonuses
won’t
be
announced
until
mid-November
or
later.
The
most
popular
prediction
(selected
by
29%
of
associates)
is
the
week
before
Thanksgiving.
This
(sort
of)
lines
up
with
past
precedent
set
by
Cravath
in
recent
years
—
if
we
assume
that
Cravath
will
be
the
first
firm
on
bonuses
this
year,
that
is.

In
the
past,
Cravath
announced
its
bonus
news
on
either
the
last
Monday
in
November
or
the
first
Monday
in
the
first
week
of
December.
But
with
other
firms
in
the
mix
—
will
Milbank
or
Baker
McKenzie
try
to
announce
first
again
this
year?
—
it’s
really
hard
to
say
what
will
happen.
There
may
be
no
rhyme
nor
reason
when
it
comes
to
this
year’s
big
bonus
announcements.

While
associates
are
busy
counting
down
the
hours
until
Bonus
Day,
they’re
likely
even
busier
counting
up
the
hours
they’re
on
track
to
bill
in
2025
to
meet
bonus
eligibility
targets.
Just
how
much
are
associates
billing
now?
The
answer
is…
nearly
as
much
as
they
billed
last
year.
Here
are
the
full
survey
results.

How
many
hours
are
you
on
track
to
bill
in
2025?

The
largest
group
of
associates
(24%)
said
they
are
on
track
to
bill
between
2000
and
2099
hours
this
year.
Close
to
half
(45%)
expect
to
bill
even
more.
While
these
figures
are
similar
to
those
reported
in
2024,
fewer
respondents
this
year
said
they
expect
to
bill
at
least
2400
hours
(11%
vs
16%
in
2024).
Bill,
baby,
bill
—
and
hope
for
even
bigger
bonuses!
Associates
tell
us
that
some
firms
are
offering
special
perks
for
their
hard
work,
with
the
most
commonly
reported
incentive
is
an
above-market
bonus
for
high
billers.
A
few
associates
reported
other
kinds
of
perks
like
origination
credit
and
a
complimentary
vacation
package
worth
$5,000.

Check
back
in
with
us
on
bonuses
soon,
because
Biglaw
associates
are
looking
forward
to
their
bank
accounts
being
stuffed
like
the
Thanksgiving
turkeys
they’ll
gobble
down
at
the
end
of
next
month.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
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.

To
maintain
a
financially
healthy
law
firm,
you
must
keep
the
work
coming
in
the
door
while
effectively
collecting
the
funds
that
you’re
owed.

In
this
monthly
checklist,
our
friends
at
8am
share
simple
steps
that
will
help
you
to
do
both. 

Download
it
today
for
some
quick
steps
to
upgrade
your
cash
flow.

  

This
special,
spooky
edition
of
The
Weekly
Break
Out
is
quite
the
treat.
Editor
in
Chief
Aaron
Mehta
—
eeer,
“Mr.
Skeleton”
—
is
visited
by
four
shockingly
scary
guests
(and
Senior
Networks
and
Information
Warfare
Reporter
Mark
Pomerleau,
who
really
just
missed
the
memo)
to
talk
about
the
eerie
status
of
some
Pentagon
programs.

Hear
about
how
the
Air
Force
has
slain
its
Integrated
Capabilities
Command
and
the
Army
has
murdered
the
M10
Booker
tank.
Other
programs
like
Humvees
and
the
E-7
Wedgetail
may
have
a
grim
future
ahead.
Plus,
we
talk
about
zombie
programs
that
have
been
brought
back
to
life!

We
hope
this
episode
wasn’t
too
scary
for
you.
Be
sure
to
sign
up
for
our
newsletter
below
to
see
what
other
tricks
The
Weekly
Break
Out
has
up
its
sleeve.
Happy
Halloween
from
the
Breaking
Defense
team!

For
several
months,
President
Donald
Trump
has
been
talking
about
the
massive
gaudy
ballroom
that
he
thinks
is
needed
at
the
White
House.
In
July,

Trump
said
of
the
ballroom’s
impact
on
the
White
House’s
East
Wing,
“It’ll
be
near
it
but
not
touching
it,
and
pays
total
respect
to
the
existing
building,
which
I’m
the
biggest
fan
of.”

Last
week,
construction
crews
completely
demolished
the
East
Wing
of
the
White
House
without
any
input
whatsoever
from
historians
or
structural
preservationists.
The

East
Wing
as
we
know
it
(well,
as
we
knew
it)
dates
to
1942
when
President
Franklin
D.
Roosevelt
commissioned
the
structure
to
add
necessary
wartime
working
space
to
the
White
House
as
well
as
to
conceal
a
fortified
underground
bunker
added
for
emergency
use
by
the
president
and
key
staff.

The

East
Wing
has
had
a
rich
history,
including
as
the
part
of
the
White
House
that

half
a
dozen
first
ladies
worked
out
of.
It
took
only
about
three
days
to
destroy
83
years
of
presidential
history.
This
from
the
same
administration
that
just
had
D.C.’s

only
Confederate
statute
reinstalled
while
crowing
the
same
tired
lies
you
always
hear
from
the
right
about
how
much
they
love
and
feel
the
need
to
preserve
history
whenever
it’s
a
monument
to
racism
they
want
to
protect
rather
than
the
East
Wing
of
the
effing
White
House.

At
any
rate,
the
Trump
administration
has
been
bragging
about
how
Trump’s
new
ballroom
will
not
be
taxpayer
funded,
but
will
instead
be
funded
by
private
donors.
I
mean,
taxpayers
still
aren’t
getting
compensated
for
the
total
destruction
of
the
historical
East
Wing
of
the
White
House
that
we
already
owned,
but
sure.

Also
I
don’t
really
see
how

the
president
selling
influence
to
giant
corporations
and
obscenely
wealthy
individuals
is
going
to
be
better
for
us
than
the
waste
of
a
few
hundred
million
more
tax
dollars
by
the
administration
that
just
made
history
of
its
own
by

ballooning
America’s
national
debt
by
an
additional
$1
trillion
in
the
span
of
only
two
months.
Nevertheless,
along
with
some
of
the
usual
suspects
when
it
comes
to
facilitating
presidential
corruption
in
this
administration,
the

list
of
donors
to
the
ballroom
project
provided
by
the
Trump
administration
also
contains
some
very
big,
mainstream
names,
including
a
few
companies
I
do
business
with
myself.

One
of
those
companies
is
my
cellphone
service
provider,
T-Mobile.
Though
it
is
on
the
expensive
side
compared
to
some
of
its
competitors,
I
have
generally
been
very
happy
with
T-Mobile
(thanks,
T-Mobile,
for
providing
cellphone
service
that
held
up
while
I
was
recently
traveling
in
Ukraine
even
through
“missiles
and

drones
raining
down
on
the
Lviv
region”).

I
contacted
T-Mobile
US
Media
Relations
with
the
following
questions:

1. I
   understand
   that
   the
   T-Mobile
   donation
   was
   made
   to
   the
   Trust
   for
   the
   National
   Mall.
   How
   was
   T-Mobile
   approached
   about
   making
   this
   donation?
2. Who,
   specifically,
   approached
   T-Mobile
   about
   its
   donation?
3. Was
   T-Mobile
   aware
   that
   its
   donation
   would
   be
   used
   to
   fund
   construction
   of
   the
   new
   White
   House
   ballroom
   at
   the
   time
   that
   T-Mobile
   agreed
   to
   make
   the
   donation?
4. How
   much
   did
   T-Mobile
   donate
   or
   pledge
   to
   donate?
5. Were
   any
   conversations
   had
   between
   anyone
   at
   T-Mobile
   and
   any
   official
   in
   which
   both
   this
   donation
   as
   well
   as
   business
   pertaining
   to
   the
   Trump
   Mobile
   network
   and/or
   Liberty
   Mobile
   Wireless
   came
   up?
6. Was
   anything
   promised,
   whether
   expressly
   or
   implicitly,
   to
   T-Mobile
   in
   return
   for
   making
   this
   donation?
7. Does
   T-Mobile
   support
   the
   complete
   demolition
   of
   the
   East
   Wing
   of
   the
   White
   House?

I
received
a
response
a
few
hours
later
that,
although
not
perfectly
tailored
to
my
questions,
proved
enlightening
on
its
own
merits.
Here
it
is,
verbatim,
attributed
to
T-Mobile
as
instructed:

Ahead
of
America’s
250th
Anniversary,
T-Mobile
donated
to
the
Trust
for
the
National
Mall,
which
partners
with
the
National
Park
Service
to
restore
and
enrich
the
historic
landmarks
that
define
our
nation’s
capital,
such
as
the
White
House
ballroom.

T-Mobile
has
no
role
in
the
use
of
those
funds
or
decisions
related
to
the
construction
of
the
ballroom.

Perhaps
I’m
being
lied
to
–
T-Mobile
has
a
lot
more
to
lose
by
offending
Donald
Trump
than
it
does
by
offending
me
–
but
I
don’t
think
so.
I
even
happen
to
know
a
little
about

plans
for
the
U.S.
Semiquincentennial
which
helps
me
read
between
the
lines
here
a
little
to
understand
that
most
of
these
plans
long
predate
Trump’s
second
term.

Of
course,
as
we’ve
seen
repeatedly,
Trump
is
going
to
throw
pretty
much
all
the
plans
that
predate
his
second
term
right
out
the
window,
along
with
possibly
throwing
away
the
window
itself.
Likely
T-Mobile
did
not
know
this
when
it
made
its
donation.
Quite
possibly
T-Mobile,
and
perhaps
other
companies
tagged
as
donors
for
the
ballroom
by
the
Trump
administration,
did
not
even
know
that
Trump
would
be
elected
president
at
the
time
the
funds
were
donated.

Beyond
wanting
to
generally
make
money,
I
do
not
know
what
is
in
the
cold,
metallic,
metaphorical
heart
of
a
giant
corporation
like
T-Mobile.
That
being
said,
it
sure
seems
to
me
that
their
involvement
in
this
whole
East
Wing
fiasco
is
based
largely
on
Trump
raiding
funds
that
should
have
been
used
for
something
else
–
one
of
his
signature
moves,
really
–
and
amounts
to
a
donation
made
in
good
faith
gone
awry.
In
other
words,
quite
possibly
Trump
is
abusing
his
position
(who’d
have
thunk
it?)
and
is
now
using
a
false
implication
of
support
from
mainstream
companies
in
an
attempt
to
prop
up
a
facade
of
legitimacy
over
his
White
House
ballroom
debacle.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

*
Meet
the
superstar
team
who
have
to
convince
the
Supreme
Court
that
the
word
“tariffs”
does
not
appear
in
the
IEEPA,
which
for
some
reason
is
an
uphill
battle.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Ninth
Circuit
will
convene
en
banc
to
reconsider

giving
Trump
the
power
to
send
troops
to
assassinate
costumed
frogs.
[CNN]

*
Freshly
pardoned
former
Binance
chief
threatens
to
sue
Elizabeth
Warren
for
saying
he
pleaded
guilty
to
money
laundering
instead
of
pleading
guilty
to
setting
up
the
conditions
to
allow
money
laundering.
Not
sure
how
much
reputational
damage
exists
between
that
technicality
trench.
[NY
Post]

*
Cameo
sues
OpenAI
claiming
a
feature
named
“cameo”
violates
their
trademark.
[Reuters]

*
Another
Trump
U.S.
Attorney
found
to
be
illegally
squatting
in
the
job.
[Law360]

*
D.C.
Bar
committee
suggests
firms
who
made
deals
with
Trump
have
ethics
issues.
[NY
Times]

*
LinkedIn
battles
data
scrapers
to
protect
us
all
from
a
future
where
every
AI
response
is
about
B2B
marketing.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]