Author: TSA Press

Ed.
note:
Latest
in
a
series.

Read
the
prior
installment
here.

As
we
dive
deeper
into
our
series
on
“Lights,
Camera,
CLE:
Making
Your
Presentation
a
Blockbuster,”
it’s
time
to
move
from
preparation
to
performance.

In
the
previous
article,
we
meticulously
prepared
for
your
CLE
presentation.
Now,
building
on
that
foundation,
we
shift
the
spotlight
to
the
next
critical
phase:
engaging
your
audience.

After
all,
a
well-prepared
CLE
is
only
half
the
battle
—
the
real
challenge
is
captivating
your
audience
and
turning
your
presentation
into
an
unforgettable
experience.

Turning
Attendees
into
Participants

No
one
wants
to
present
to
an
audience
staring
at
their
phones,
right?

The
key
to
a
successful
CLE
isn’t
just
in
what
you
say
but
in
how
you
get
your
audience
involved.
Our
goal
is
to
turn
passive
listeners
into
active
participants.
Engagement
is
essential,
and
it’s
what
transforms
your
presentation
from
a
monologue
into
a
dynamic,
interactive
experience.

Interactive
Elements:
Engage,
Don’t
Just
Inform

Incorporating
interactive
elements
into
your
presentation
isn’t
just
a
good
idea;
it’s
a
necessity.
One
of
the
most
effective
ways
to
engage
your
audience
is
through
the
use
of
hypotheticals.
By
challenging
attendees
with
real-world
scenarios,
you
transform
passive
listeners
into
active
participants,
making
your
CLE
more
dynamic
and
memorable.

•
Using
Hypotheticals
to
Engage:
Start
your
CLE
by
inviting
everyone
to
participate,
emphasizing
that
“we’re
all
speakers
here
in
the
room.”
Present
hypotheticals
related
to
your
topic
and
encourage
the
audience
to
discuss
how
they
would
handle
the
situation
and
offer
insight
on
their
approaches.
This
approach
stimulates
critical
thinking
and
fosters
a
collaborative
learning
environment.

•
Encouraging
Participation:
Make
it
clear
at
the
outset
that
participation
is
encouraged
and
valued.
As
you
present
each
hypothetical,
invite
the
audience
to
share
their
thoughts
and
approaches,
transforming
the
CLE
into
a
lively,
interactive
discussion.
Clarifying
questions
during
these
discussions
further
enrich
the
learning
experience.

Storytelling
and
Relatability:
Make
It
Personal

Nothing
grabs
an
audience’s
attention
like
a
good
story.
Weaving
relatable
anecdotes
and
real-life
examples
into
your
presentation
creates
a
connection
that
extends
beyond
the
facts.

•

The
Power
of
a
Good
Story:
Start
with
a
compelling
story
that
ties
into
your
topic.
Whether
it’s
a
personal
experience
or
a
case
study,
storytelling
makes
your
content
more
relatable
and
memorable.

•
Relating
to
Your
Audience:
Tailor
your
stories
to
resonate
with
your
audience’s
experiences.
For
instance,
if
you’re
presenting
to
in-house
counsel,
share
stories
that
reflect
their
specific
challenges
and
victories.

Reading
the
Room:
Adjusting
on
the
Fly

No
matter
how
well
you’ve
prepared,
the
ability
to
read
the
room
and
adapt
is
crucial.
Whether
it’s
sensing
when
energy
levels
are
dipping
or
recognizing
when
a
particular
topic
isn’t
resonating,
being
able
to
adjust
your
presentation
on
the
fly
can
elevate
the
entire
experience.

•
Gauge
Reactions:
Pay
attention
to
body
language
and
facial
expressions.
If
you
notice
people
losing
focus,
it
might
be
time
to
switch
up
your
approach,
perhaps
by
introducing
a
more
interactive
element
or
diving
into
a
different
topic.

•
Flexibility
Is
Key:
Don’t
be
afraid
to
deviate
from
your
planned
agenda
if
it
means
keeping
your
audience
engaged.
A
flexible
presenter
who
can
adjust
to
the
audience’s
needs
is
far
more
effective
than
one
who
rigidly
sticks
to
the
script.

Theater
of
the
Mind:
Creating
a
Visual
Experience

Your
presentation
isn’t
just
about
what
you
say;
it’s
also
about
what
your
audience
sees.
A
visually
compelling
presentation
can
keep
your
audience
engaged
and
help
drive
your
points
home.

•
Slide
Design:
Keep
your
slides
simple
but
powerful.
Use
high-quality
visuals,
clear
fonts,
and
a
consistent
color
scheme.
Avoid
overcrowding
your
slides
with
text—let
your
voice
carry
the
narrative.

Engaging
With
the
CLE
Gods:
Making
Sure
the
Stage
Is
Set

Before
you
step
into
the
spotlight,
make
sure
everything
is
in
place.
This
means
not
only
being
prepared
with
your
material
but
also
ensuring
that
the
technical
aspects
of
your
presentation
are
flawless.

•
Tech
Rehearsal:
Do
a
full
run-through
with
all
the
technical
equipment
you’ll
be
using.
Make
sure
everything
works
seamlessly,
from
your
microphone
to
your
slides.

•
Backup
Plan:
Always
have
a
backup
plan.
Whether
it’s
a
second
copy
of
your
presentation
on
a
USB
drive
or
knowing
how
to
handle
a
sudden
power
outage,
being
prepared
for
the
unexpected
is
part
of
being
a
pro.

•
Timing
Is
Everything:
Practice
your
timing
to
ensure
you
stay
within
your
allotted
time.
Rushing
through
your
material
or,
worse,
running
out
of
time
can
undermine
even
the
most
well-prepared
presentation.

Engaging
Personally:
The
Secret
to
Lasting
Connections

Remember,
it’s
not
just
about
delivering
a
great
presentation
—
it’s
also
about
forming
genuine
connections
with
your
audience.
These
personal
connections
can
turn
a
one-time
presentation
into
a
long-term
professional
relationship.

•
Personal
Touches
Matter:
After
the
CLE,
take
the
time
to
engage
with
your
audience
on
a
personal
level.
Whether
it’s
a
quick
chat
about
why
they
attended,
what
they
found
most
interesting,
or
even
a
conversation
about
their
hobbies
or
interests,
these
interactions
help
cement
your
relationship
beyond
the
professional
sphere.

•
Follow
Up
Thoughtfully:
Following
up
after
the
CLE
is
crucial,
but
it
doesn’t
always
have
to
be
about
work.
Mention
something
personal
you
discussed
during
the
event.
A
simple,
“I
remember
you
mentioned
your
interest
in
sailing—how’s
that
going?”
can
go
a
long
way
in
sustaining
the
conversation
and
strengthening
the
connection.

•
Building
Trust
Takes
Time:
It’s
important
to
remember
that
building
trust
and
turning
relationships
into
client
opportunities
takes
time.
It
often
requires
7-8
meaningful
interactions
to
convert
a
relationship
into
a
client.
By
engaging
personally
and
showing
genuine
interest
in
your
audience,
you
make
it
easier
to
reach
out
and
continue
the
conversation
in
the
future.

The
Art
of
Engagement

Mastering
the
art
of
engagement
is
what
truly
sets
a
CLE
presentation
apart.
It’s
not
just
about
the
content;
it’s
about
creating
an
experience
that
resonates
with
your
audience,
leaves
them
thinking,
and
makes
them
eager
to
engage
with
you
again.

By
turning
attendees
into
participants,
telling
compelling
stories,
reading
the
room,
creating
a
visual
experience,
and
engaging
personally,
you
ensure
that
your
CLE
isn’t
just
another
lecture
—
it’s
a
memorable,
impactful
event.

In
our
next
article,
we’ll
dive
into
managing
nerves
and
overcoming
challenges
during
your
CLE
presentation.
From
staying
calm
under
pressure
to
handling
unexpected
technical
issues,
we’ll
equip
you
with
the
tools
you
need
to
deliver
your
presentation
like
a
seasoned
pro.

Turning
Attendees
into
Participants:

✔️ Use
hypotheticals
to
engage
your
audience
and
encourage
participation.

✔️ Emphasize
that
everyone
in
the
room
is
a
‘speaker,’
fostering
open
discussion
and
collaboration.

Storytelling
and
Relatability:
✔️ Incorporate
compelling
stories
that
tie
into
your
topic.

✔️ Tailor
your
stories
to
resonate
with
the
specific
challenges
and
experiences
of
your
audience.

Reading
the
Room:
✔️ Pay
attention
to
body
language
and
adjust
your
presentation
accordingly.

✔️ Be
flexible
and
willing
to
deviate
from
your
script
if
it
means
keeping
your
audience
engaged.

Theater
of
the
Mind:
✔️ Create
a
visually
compelling
presentation
with
simple,
powerful
slides.

✔️ Ensure
your
visuals
support
your
narrative
without
overwhelming
the
content.

Engaging
Personally:
✔️ Engage
with
your
audience
personally
during
and
after
the
CLE.

✔️ Follow
up
with
personalized
messages
that
reference
your
discussions.

✔️ Remember
that
building
trust
and
converting
relationships
into
clients
takes
time
—
focus
on
meaningful
interactions.

By
mastering
these
techniques,
you’ll
not
only
deliver
an
engaging
and
memorable
CLE
presentation
but
also
build
lasting
connections
that
can
lead
to
significant
professional
growth.

---

Sejal
Bhasker
Patel is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
Author
of Rainmaker:
Unleashed
—
a
sharp,
strategic
playbook
for
attorneys
who
don’t
fit
the
traditional
mold.
She’s
the
founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
consulting
firm
that
works
directly
with
law
firms
and
attorneys
to
turn
relationships
into
revenue
—
without
selling
their
soul.
Her
work
is
blunt,
tailored,
and
built
on
one
core
belief:
Authenticity
isn’t
a
liability
—
it’s
your
strongest
competitive
edge.
www.sageivyconsulting.com

One
of
the
panels
assembled
by

NetDocuments
at
its
Inspire
Conference
focused
on
AI’s
broader
implications
for
legal
practice.
The
panel
was
composed
of

Zach
Abramowitz,

Nicola
Shaver,
 Zach
Warren,
and

Jennifer
Poon
of
NetDocuments.

These
folks
are
among
the
most
astute
observers
of
legal
tech,
AI,
and
innovation
that
I
know.
They
advise
law
firms.
They
undertake
surveys
and
analysis
of
the
market.
They
keep
their
fingers
firmly
on
the
pulse
of
what’s
going
on.
When
they
talk,
I
listen.
And
they
said
a
lot.

Here’s
a
rundown.

ROI
and
AI

The
panelists
agreed
we
have
not
yet
figured
out
how
to
measure
AI’s
ROI.
Quite
simply,
what
AI
does
can’t
necessarily
be
quantified
on
financial
statements
ruled
by
bean
counters.

Most
technology
requires
that
many
employees
in
an
organization
use
it
in
a
certain
way.
AI
is
different.
Its
first
adopters
were
ordinary
consumers,
not
businesses.
People
use
AI
like
a
personal
assistant
in
various
and
individual
ways
to
help
them
do
work
(and
lots
of
other
things).
People
want
to
use
it,
are
going
to
use
it,
and
are
happier
when
they
do.
But
this
kind
of
use
and
benefit
does
not
show
up
on
a
P
and
L
statement.

Defining
ROI
for
AI
is
also
hard
because
while
it
may
improve
efficiency,
it
can
reduce
billable
hours,
so
the
ROI
may
even
appear
negative.
But
AI
offers
other
intangible
benefits
like
happier
employees
which
businesses
retain
longer.
It
gets
better
quality
results.
It
creates
the
ability
to
do
things
that
couldn’t
be
done
before.
All
things
real
but
intangible.

Another
intangible:
AI
can
enable
predictive
analytics
which,
in
turn,
leads
to
preventing
legal
disputes
and
the
associated
costs.

But
despite
the
fact
avoided
costs
are
hard
to
quantify,
businesses
may
be
ready
to
embrace
this
one.
Here’s
why:
When
I
was
a
younger
lawyer,
I
had
an
idea
to
work
with
clients
to
help
them
avoid
litigation.
I
thought
this
advice
would
be
valuable
and
I
could
charge
for
it.
One
of
my
mentors
pooh-poohed
the
idea.

Why?
Because
then
and
now,
you
can’t
quantify
the
value
of
avoiding
litigation.
So,
when
I
would
propose
charging
for
the
advice,
the
question
would
be:
show
me
the
dollar
savings
I
will
get
for
this
cost.
Which
can’t
be
done
because
you
will
never
know
what
you
have
avoided.

That
may
still
be
true
today,
but
there
is
a
big
difference.
The
cost
of
using
AI
to
avoid
claims
is
so
negligible
as
not
be
a
significant
factor.
If
it
costs
little
to
predict
and
avoid
litigation,
it’s
a
no
brainer.
Plus,
according
to
the
panel,
CEOS
and
CFOs
may
now
be
more
concerned
than
ever
with
avoiding
litigation.
They
are
certainly
interested
in
avoiding
legal
costs.

The
panel
was
right
though:
AI
is
so
different
that
traditional
ROI
measurement
tools
just
don’t
work.
We
need
new
ways.

Pricing
and
Legal
Work

The
panel
concluded
that
the
use
of
alternative
fees
is
rising.
AI
would
seem
to
inevitably
compel
it.
But
use
of
those
models
will
require
a
huge
change
in
most
law
firm
culture.
Law
firms
will
have
to
rethink
how
they
compensate
and
advancement
people
with
these
models.
They
will
need
to
rethink
the
entire
leverage
concept.

Which
leads
to
an
Abramowitz
idea
(which
he
has
espoused
before):
Because
the
challenges
to
law
firms
to
shift
mindset
are
so
great,
AI-first
law
firms
are
on
the
rise.
These
firms
ditch
the
leverage
model
and
delegate
to
AI
many
of
the
tasks
which
only
traditional
law
firms
could
previously
supply.

Which
raises
the
question,
why
need
a
law
firm
at
all?
They
were
needed
to
make
the
leverage
model
that
has
made
lots
of
lawyers
rich.
But
at
an
AI-first
firm,
your
costs
are
negligible.
So,
whatever
revenue
you
produce
is
almost
all
profit.
And
Abramowitz
says
traditional
firms
are
losing
significant
business
to
these
firms.

Nevertheless,
law
firms
have
continually
been
able
to
raise
rates,
often
substantially,
to
combat
revenue
loss.
But
that
won’t
continue.
And
we
are
going
to
see
clients
demand
greater
efficiencies
from
their
firms
through
AI.

AI
threatens
law
firms
in
another
way,
according
to
Warren.
In-house
counsel
are
insourcing
more
work
with
AI.
This
trend
could
become
more
and
more
significant
meaning
less
and
less
revenue
for
law
firms.

But
the
panel
agreed
that
wholesale
reduction
in
lawyer
count
has
not
yet
happened.
Headcount
reductions
have
occurred
in
other
businesses,
however,
particularly
in
tech.
Of
course,
as
Abramowitz
has
opined
and
I
have
written,
there
is
always
the
possibility
AI
will
result
in
more
legal
work
shielding
for
the
time
being
some
law
firms
from
significant
revenue
disruption.

I
think
it’s
too
early
to
write
the
obituary
of
the
traditional
law
firm.
Lots
of
lawyers
get
security
and
their
identity
from
their
firms.
And
until
law
firms
are
ready
to
completely
change
their
culture,
a
culture
builds
entirely
on
the
billable
hour,
we
aren’t
going
to
see
wholesale
rejection
of
the
billable
hour
either.
 Unless
clients
aggressively
demand
it,
or
flock
to
firms
that
embrace
other
models,
which
they
haven’t
yet.

AI
Adoption
by
Law
Firms

AI
drives
efficiencies.
That’s
well
and
good
when
it
reduces
human
time
for
non-billable
tasks.
Not
so
good
when
it
reduces
billable
time.
Hence
adoption
is
often
slow
walked.

But
Warren
pointed
out
somewhat
surprisingly
that
overall
legal
is
near
the
middle
of
the
pack
of
businesses
in
terms
of
AI
adoption.
This
may
be
because
adoption
is
particularly
gaining
ground
with
in-house
counsel
who
are
having
trouble
keeping
up
with
the
demands
placed
on
them.
If
so,
clients
may
soon
demand
their
firms
do
likewise.

Another
trend:
whether
there
are
firm
polices
about
use
of
models
like
ChatGPT,
workers
are
significantly
using
them
because
they
are
easy
to
use.
This
creates
a
paradox:
individuals
in
law
firms
are
adopting
AI
faster
than
their
firms.

The
most
significant
point
made
by
the
panel
is
one
I
have
also
noticed.
Many
lawyers
are
still
just
sticking
their
heads
in
the
sand
and
not
yet
concerned
about
the
changes
AI
will
bring
to
their
work.
Their
attitude
is
like
that
of
T.
Thomas
Andrews,
designer
of
the
Titanic,
after
it
rammed
the
iceberg:
“I
have
designed
this
ship
so
that
it
will
float
forever.”

We
all
know
how
that
turned
out.

The
Future

The
panelists
agreed
that
there
is
lots
of
negativity
about
AI
right
now.
And
firms
are
having
trouble
keeping
up
with
all
the
developments.

But
there
are
a
lot
of
positive
things,
many
of
what
are
not
yet
imagined,
that
are
coming.

And
all
agreed
that
at
the
end
of
the
day,
AI
is
not
an
incremental
shift
but
a
profound
one.
AI
that
can
understand
us
and
output
to
us
in
ways
we
understand
is
revolutionary.
It’s
unprecedented.

A
Recession
Away?

While
the
panel
didn’t
discuss
it,
I
wonder
if
we
are
just
an
economic
downtown
away
from
an
explosion
of
AI
adoption
and
corresponding
disruption.
Where
we
are
today
with
AI
is
like
where
we
were
with
remote
working
tools
pre-COVID.
Many
of
the
tools
existed
but
few
used
them.
When
COVID
hit,
there
was
a
sea
change,
and
we
never
looked
back.

Similarly,
if
there
is
an
economic
downtown,
businesses,
clients,
and
even
law
firms
will
be
forced
to
become
much
more
cost
conscious,
and
the
efficiencies
of
AI
can
no
longer
be
ignored.

We
better
be
ready.

Author’s
note:
While
much
of
what
is
contained
in
this
post
came
from
the
panelists,
I
have
weaved
some
of
my
thoughts
in
as
well.
I
know
the
panelists
and
don’t
think
they
will
take
offense.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

If
democracy
survives,
it’ll
be
because
a
handful
of
sleep-deprived
federal
judges
refused
to
let
it
die
on
their
watch.
Federal
district
judges
are
overworked,
under-resourced,
lied
to,
and
gaslit
by
contemptuous
government
lawyers,
beset
by
violent
threats
—
and
still
somehow
remain
the
nation’s
last
functioning
firewall
against
authoritarianism.
That’s
the
best
way
to
sum
up
the
judges’
panel
from
the

Society
for
the
Rule
of
Law
summit
this
week.
Three
retired
judges
—
Judge
Paul
Grimm
of
the
District
of
Maryland,
Judge
Nancy
Gertner
of
the
District
of
Massachusetts,
and
Judge
Michael
Luttig
of
the
Fourth
Circuit
—
spoke
for
an
hour
about
the
dire
challenges
facing
the
judiciary.
The
portrait
is
bleak,
but
the
district
bench
continues
to
perform
heroic
work.

Moderator
Ben
Wittes
of

Lawfare
—
who
quipped
after
the
fact
that

the
whole
panel
was
off
the
record
—
set
the
tone
off
the
top,
asking
the
judges
to
weigh
in
on
his
sense
that
“the
district
bench
has
been
somewhere
between
excellent
and
spectacular.”
Judge
Grimm
described
their
work
as
the
“line
in
the
sand,”
Judge
Gertner
applauded
the
district
courts
for
“meet[ing]
the
moment
in
a
way
that
I
think
is
extraordinary.”
Judge
Luttig,
as
the
appellate
representative,
said
of
the
judges
wading
through
the
mountains
of
litigation
spawned
by
the
administration’s
chaotic
policies:

They
have
brought
further
honor
to
the
lower
federal
bench,
at
a
time
—
the
most
important
moment
in
all
of
American
history.
When
the
nation
needs
the
federal
judiciary,
more
than
it
has
ever
needed
it,
and
will
ever
need
it
again.
To
the
judge.
And
to
the
court.
The
federal
judiciary
—
the

lower
federal
courts
—
have
honored
their
oath
and
they
will
continue
to
honor
their
oath.

I
suppose
one
benefit
of
the
Trump
administration’s
selective
harassment
of
people
in
historically
Democratic
jurisdictions
is
that
we
don’t
need
to
know
how
judges
in

Amarillo
or

Fort
Pierce
might
rule.
So
let’s
just
celebrate
the
district
courts
generally
and
not
dig
deeper.

And
they’re
having
to
do
their
part
for
the
rule
of
law
while
dealing
with
a
federal
government
exhibiting
outright
contempt
for
both
the
law
and
the
judges
themselves.
Judge
Luttig,

the
reigning
Cassandra
of
the
collapse
of
the
rule
of
law,
placed
the
blame
squarely
on
the
absence
of
good
faith
within
this
Justice
Department:

The
arguments
that
are
being
made…
by
the
Department
of
Justice
attorneys
under
Pam
Bondi
are
contemptuous.
Not
just
of
the
Constitution
and
the
rule
of
law,
but
contemptuous
of
the
federal
courts,
and
even,
if
not
especially,
contemptuous
of
the
individual
judges
that
are
hearing
the
cases.
Not
only
has
this
never
happened
in
all
of
American
history,
not
one
argument,
but
the
arguments
that
these
people
are
making
to
the
federal
courts
has
ever
been
made
in
American
history,
dripping
with
the
contempt
that
these
arguments
are.

It’s
also
a
government
that
is
bald-faced
lying
to
federal
judges.
Judge
Gertner
described
the
challenges
when
judges
can’t
count
on
the
parties
to
tell
the
truth:

It’s
not
just
an
issue
of
the
arguments
they’re
making.
They’re
lying.
They
are
misrepresenting
things.
One
of
the
things
I
thought
after
Trump
was
elected,
and
when
the
political
debate
made
it
into
the
courts,
one
of
the
things
we
know
about
courts
is
that
there’s
a
level
of
civility.
That
then
lawyers,
true
to
their
oaths,
will
not
lie,
will
not
misrepresent,
will
not
say
they
do
x
and
do
y.
What
is
the
most
shocking
of
all
—
at
a
time
when
you’re
always
shocked
—
is
that
that’s
not
true.
That’s
not
true
with
respect
to
the
Department
of
Justice
lawyers.
They
will
say
x,
they
will
do
y,
and
recent
whistleblower
accounts
suggest
that
they
are
openly
and
brazenly
misrepresenting
to
the
court.
The
system
fractures
what
it
happens.

She
cited
a
Just
Security
study
detailing

43
cases
where
the
DOJ
made
serious
misrepresentations
to
the
courts.

Unfortunately,
the
district
bench
isn’t
getting
the
support
it
needs
from
some
on
the
appellate
bench
and
none
at
all
from
the
Supreme
Court.
With
fewer
resources,
district
courts
are
churning
out
massive
opinions

in
the
middle
of
the
night
against
artificial
government
deadlines,
racing
against
a
government
that’s
proven
willing
to
disregard
its
own
pledges
to
ram
through
its
wishes.
Meanwhile
appellate
judges
auditioning
for
Trump’s
Supreme
Court

papabile
list
muse
about
whether
or
not
Donald
Trump
should
have
the
unreviewable
power

to
send
SEAL
Team
6
to
assassinate
anyone
in
an
inflatable
frog
costume.

And
the
Supreme
Court
continues
to
drop
unsigned
two-paragraph
orders
before
heading
to
bed.
For
all
the
issues
with
the
Supreme
Court’s
expanding
use
of
its
shadow
docket
to
effect
practical
change
without
the
benefit
of
argument
or
a
full
record,
Judge
Luttig
adds
that
these
opinions
are,
on
their
face,
illegitimate:

The
Supreme
Court
has
no
power
at
all
in
our
system
and
government,

except
that
power
that
comes
to
it
by
virtue
of
his
reasoned,
opinions
of
constitutional
law.
Whenever
the
Supreme
Court
is
acting
without
opinions
of
law
—
at
all
—
let
alone,
reasoned
opinions
of
law.
It
is
acting
illegitimately,
period.
It
doesn’t
have
the
power
of
the
purse.
It
doesn’t
have
the
power
of
the
sword.
The
only
power
it
has,
and
the
only
power
that
it
has
to
wield
on
behalf
of
the
American
people
is
the
power
of
its
persuasion.

And
yet,
the
conservative
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court
grows
increasingly
agitated
that
the
district
courts
aren’t
taking
these
Post-it
note
opinions
and
elevating
their
vibes
over
established
precedent.
Judge
Gertner
pointed
to
the
Harvard
grants
case,
where
Judge
Allison
Burroughs
drew
upon
Justice
Jackson’s
admonition
that
these

shadow
docket
opinions
are
nothing
more
than
Calvinball
and
that
there’s
no
existing
rationale
for
treating
those
opinions
as
precedent.
Or,
to
put
it
the
way
Judge
Gertner
did
in
a
recent
article,
the
shadow
docket
has
“all
the
formality
of
notes
on
a
napkin.”

Why
is
the
Court
so
hot
over
district
courts
following
these
shadow
docket
opinions
as
if
they’re
precedent?
Judge
Luttig
noted
that
“there’s
no
logic
to
it
at
all,
but
there’s

thinking
to
it,
and
that’s
what
we
need
to
be
concerned
about.”
For
an
administration
focused
on
upending
the
rule
of
law
as
quickly
as
possible,
converting
the
shadow
docket
into
a
rapid-fire
precedent
machine
capable
of
tossing
thousands
of
pages
of
considered
lower
court
opinions
in
an
instant
is
an
essential
tool.
I’ve
previously
suggested
that
the
Supreme
Court
majority
also
hopes
to
hedge
its
bets
this
way
—
commanding
lower
courts
to
keep
issuing
Trump-friendly
rulings
without
actually
disturbing
precedent
so
they
can
return
under
the
next
Democratic
administration
and
declare
“just
kidding,
good
thing
we
never

actually
overruled
these
cases!”
No
one
on
the
panel
went
quite
that
far,
but
they
did
point
out
that
the
Supreme
Court’s
actions
sought
to
push
off
having
to
grapple
with
the
substance
for
years,
which
certainly
backs
that
up.

This
reckless
shadow
docket
behavior
inspired
12
judges
to
call
out
the
Supreme
Court
for
its
role
in

driving
violent
threats
against
the
judiciary.
“The
level
of
personal
attacks
and
threats
against
them
has
been
beyond
anything
that
you
could
imagine,”
Judge
Grimm
explained.
“I
think
if
the
American
public
actually
heard
some
of
those
threats,
that
they
would
be
appalled.
And
you
would
not
know
—

for
a
nanosecond
—
from
their
actual
rulings,
that
the
judge
was
appointed
by
either
a
Democratic
or
a
Republican
president.”
He
proceeded
to
quote
one
specific
threat
a
federal
judge
received
and
it
succeeded
in
appalling
the
audience.
“We
are
going
to
rape
your
daughter
in
front
of
you,
cut
her
head
off
so
the
blood
splatters
on
you,
then
rape
you,
and
kill
you,”
he
recounted
the
threat.
“We’re
at
the
point
where
the
Marshals
Service
has
said,
that
there
are
over,
I
think,
this
year
it’s
almost
up
to
500
credible
threats
against
U.S.
district
judges.”

Of
course,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
offered
his
thoughts
these
threats

in
his
annual
report
this
year,
in
much
the
same
way
one
might
respond
to
a
fire
by
calling
in
a
noise
complaint
on
the
trucks.
Judge
Grimm
notes
that
nothing
has
really
improved
since
that
report.
Instead,
the
administration
continues
to
bash
lower
court
judges
publicly
—

as
Judge
Cullen
noted
in
a
recent
opinion
—
and
the
Supreme
Court
only
takes
time
out
of
their
busy
vacation
junkets
to
write
concurrences
blasting
judges
for
not
doing
their
part
to
follow
the
Court’s
lead
in
placating
the
administration.

It’s
difficult
to
describe
Judge
Luttig
as
anything
but
furious
at
this
point.
The
ideals
that
he’s
devoted
his
life
to
upholding
have
become
a
punchline
to
the
Department
of
Justice
and
a
supermajority
of
the
Supreme
Court.
He
summarized
the
crisis
—
the
lying,
the
contempt,
the
abdication
of
the
Supreme
Court
—
by
describing
the
impossible
situation
the
courts
are
in
when
there’s
no
mechanism
to
hold
the
lawless
accountable.

Every
day
of
the
week,
for
the
past
10
months,
judges
like
Judge
Gertner
and
Judge
Grimm
are
facing
the
President
of
the
United
States,
and
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States…
lying
to
their
face.
Lying
to
the
judges.
The
prosecutors
are
lying
to
the
federal
courts.
Meanwhile,
outside
the
courtroom,
the
President
of
the
United
States,
and
the
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States,
are
trashing
the
federal
courts.
Trashing
the
individual
judges.
Calling
them
every
name
in
the
book.
Never
in
American
history
has
this
ever
happened.
And
these
people
who
are
trying
to
do
their
job
under
those
circumstances,
are
looking
up
at
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States,
who
they
know, to
a
virtual
certainty,
would
reverse
them
in
a
second
if
they
held
Donald
Trump
in
contempt.

The
only
thing
standing
between
American
democracy
and
complete
collapse
are
a
bunch
of
constantly
threatened
district
judges
and
their
clerks
sorting
through
government
gaslighting
to
write
opinions
at
2
a.m.
because
someone
has
to.
The
foundation
is,
for
now,
holding.

Everything
built
on
top
of
it
is
either
crumbling
or
actively
trying
to
knock
it
all
down.

Earlier:

Rule
Of
Law
Conservatives
Awkwardly
Embrace
#Resistance

Trump
Can
Now
Send
SEAL
Team
6
To
Assassinate
Dancing
Inflatable
Frogs

Supreme
Court’s
Shadow
Docket
Scam
Collides
With
Reality

In
A
Bold
Move,
Federal
Judges
Are
Calling
Out
The
Supreme
Court’s
Bullsh*t

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Cadwalader
has
taken
hit
after
hit
after
hit
in
recent
times,
with

sweeping
lateral
moves
affecting
one
of
the
firm’s
core
practices.
While
in
the
past,
the
firm

brushed
off
merger
rumors
with
denials,
it
now
seems
to
be
confirming
that
there’s
a
lot
of
interest
from
other
top
firms.
The
prospect
of
a
merger
for
the
embattled
firm
now
seems
like
it
may
be
gaining
momentum.

According
to
the

American
Lawyer,
a
combination
may
be
on
the
horizon
for
Cadwalader,
but
the
firm’s
reported
merger
partner
is
shrouded
in
mystery.
Here
are
some
additional
details:

[S]ources
have
indicated
in
the
last
week
that
Cadwalader
has
been
speaking
with
multiple
firms
lately
and
the
pace
of
talks
has
picked
up.
One
source
familiar
with
the
circumstances
described
the
set
of
courters
as
a
rolling
group
of
three.

Sources
say
possible
merger
partner
firms
are
likely
ranked
in
the
Am
Law
25
to
Am
Law
50
range
—
where
firms’
gross
revenues
exceed
$1
billion
—
and
are
generally
interested
in
Cadwalader’s
corporate
practices
and
its
large
New
York
office.
Cadwalader,
ranked
No.
85
in
the
Am
Law
100,
generated
$638
million
in
gross
revenue
last
year.

Cadwalader
issued
a
statement,
noting
that
it
had
indeed
been
“approached”
by
other
firms,
with
a
spokesperson
saying,
“We
have
been
approached
by
many
top-tier
firms
for
years,
and
that
continues.”

What
will
happen
next
for
Cadwalader?
Industry
insiders
say
that
the
firm
should
expect
additional
partner
exits,
while
the
firm’s
spokesperson
says
“[t]he
firm
is
in
a
very
strong
financial
position
and
remains
confident
in
our
standalone
strategy.”
So,
will
the
firm
stand
alone
and
face
a

slow
death
by
departure
like
Stroock?
Or
will
it
embrace
the
prospect
of
a
merger
and
lean
on
strength
of
a
potential
Biglaw
suitor
to
stay
the
course?
We’ll
be
watching
to
see
whether
Cadwalader
can
turn
its
woes
into
a
way
forward.

Cadwalader
Merger
Talks
Pick
Up
Pace
[American
Lawyer]

Earlier: Cadwalader’s
Mass
Exodus
Continues:
Nearly
40
Lawyers
Jump
To
Top
50
Biglaw
Firm
In
Practice
Group
Raid

Wall
Street’s
Oldest
Biglaw
Firm
Appoints
Co-Managing
Partner
Amid
Mass
Exits
And
Merger
Rumors

---

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.

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“America’s
Two-Tier
Racial
System
Is
Making
a
Comeback”: Online
at
Bloomberg
Opinion,
columnist
Ronald
Brownstein
has an
essay that
begins,
“Decision
by
decision,
the
Republican-appointed
Supreme
Court
majority
is
hardening
America’s
division
into
a
two-tier
society.”

“Who
wins
Pa.’s
yes/no
Supreme
Court
retention
votes,
and
why”: Columnist
John
Baer
has this
essay online
at
The
Patriot-News
of
Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.

“Trump
Judges
Keep
Pulling
Desperate,
Sweaty
Stunts
In
the
Hopes
That
He
Offers
Them
Promotions;
Only
Ryan
Nelson
has
the
courage
to
ask
the
hard
questions,
like,
what
if
the
law
allows
Donald
Trump
to
do
whatever
he
wants?” Madiba
K.
Dennie
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.

“This
Former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Is
Trying
to
Salvage
His
Legacy.
It’s
Too
Late.” Jared
Jacang
Maher
and
David
Sirota
have this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

“All
the
President’s
Enemies;
Trump’s
misguided
indictments
won’t
help
him,
as
the
Founders
foresaw”: Columnist
Barton
Swaim
will
have this
op-ed in
Thursday’s
edition
of
The
Wall
Street
Journal.

“It’s
time
to
end
presidential
pardons;
A
tool
meant
to
fix
miscarriages
of
justice
now
routinely
produces
them”: Columnist
Jeff
Jacoby
has this
essay online
at
The
Boston
Globe.

Halloween
is
always
a
terrific
time
for
members
of
the
legal
community
—
especially
law
students
—
who
are
able
to
celebrate
the
holiday’s
festivities
with
costumes
of
note.
As
usual,
we
want
to
see
your
creativity
in
action.

For
the
sixteenth
year
in
a
row,
we
here
at
Above
the
Law
are
soliciting
legally
themed
costumes
for
our
annual
Halloween
contest.
We’re
continually
impressed
with
how
creative
lawyers
and
law
students
can
be
when
they
take
their
noses
out
of
their
books.

Here
are
some
of
the
winning
looks
from
the
past
few
years
of
the
contest:
the Donald
J.
Trump
College
of
Law (2016), Brett
Kavanaugh’s
calendar
and
his
beer (2018), Ruth
Baby
Ginsburg (2020),
and Warhol’s
Soup
Law (2023).

Please email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
your
pictures
and
then
we’ll
vote
on
the
winner
of
our
annual
competition.
Please
send
us
your
submissions
as
soon
as
you
can.
We’re
all
looking
forward
to
judging
you!

---

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.

Last
month, Biglaw
firm
Baker
McKenzie filed
a
defamation
lawsuit against
a
former
tax
associate,
Brooke
Radford,
alleging
Radford
made
repeated
allegations
on
social
media
and
Reddit
—
some
100+
of
them
—
falsely
accusing
a
partner
of
sexually
assaulting
her
and
accusing
the
firm
of
covering
it
up.
According
to
that
complaint,
Radford
said
she
was
assaulted
by
Maurice
Bellan
(also
a
plaintiff
in
the
lawsuit)
and
was
terminated
by
the
firm
when
she
turned
down
the
partner’s
advances.

The
original
complaint
lists the
firm,
Bellan,
and
five
unnamed
firm
employees
(the
complaint
alleged
Radford
made
harassing
and
threatening
comments
to
them
as
well)
as
plaintiffs.
However,
that
complaint
was
rejected
by
the
court,
as
the
unnamed
employees
had
not
gotten
permission
to
use
pseudonyms.

But
earlier
this
month,
the
complaint
was
refiled
—
listing
only
the
firm
and
Bellan
as
plaintiffs.
And
wow,
it’s
messy
AF.

According
to
the

new
complaint,
Radford
had
a
relationship
with Bellan’s
son,
Maurice
“Reece”
Alexander
Bellan.
Reece
ended
the
two-year
relationship
shortly
before
Radford
was
fired
from
the
firm
—
Baker
McKenzie
alleges
Radford
was
fired
for
misusing
the
firm
credit
card,
among
other
issues
—
and,
according
to
the
complaint,
that
confluence
of
events
led
Radford
to
target
Bellan
Sr.
with
her
false
accusations.

As
the
complaint
states,
“Disappointed
with
both
outcomes,
Ms.
Radford
sought
retribution
from
the
common
denominator
—
Mr.
Bellan
—
by
intentionally
spreading
lies
about
him
to
destroy
his
reputation
and
the
reputation
of
his
firm.”

And
this
version
of
the
complaint
also
maintains
the
allegations
Radford
made
of
sexual
assault
are
“unequivocally
false.”

“Mr.
Bellan’s
relationship
with
Radford
was
strictly
professional,”
according
to
the
complaint.
“Mr.
Bellan
never
touched
Ms.
Radford
or
showed
any
romantic
or
inappropriate
attention
toward
her.”

The
new
complaint

also
tracks
the
change
in
allegations
Radford
made
about
Bellan
Sr.
as
the
“false
statements
about
Mr.
Bellan
changed
dramatically
between
late
July
and
mid-September
2025.”

In
July,
Radford
was
allegedly
making
an
“outrageous
lie
that
he
offered
her
$50,000”
to
have
his
grandchild,
and
she
claimed
she
was
fired
because
she
“chose
not
to.”

By
September,
Radford
“dramatically
changed
her
false
narrative,
from
Mr.
Bellan
bribing
her
to
have
his
grandchild
to
him
assaulting
her
and
other
women
and
that
Baker
attempted
to
cover
up
his
misconduct.”

Radford
has
not
commented
on
the
complaint.

A
Baker
McKenzie
spokesperson
said,
“We
are
confident
that
our
lawsuit
will
establish
there
is
no
merit
to
Ms.
Radford’s
allegations.
We’ve
attempted
to
pursue
a
dialogue
to
try
to
address
her
purported
concerns,
but
she
has
not
engaged
with
these
efforts.
The
firm
takes
all
allegations
of
harassment
very
seriously
and
is
committed
to
providing
a
safe
and
inclusive
working
environment
for
all
of
our
people.”

---

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].

New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James
was
arraigned
this
morning
in
Norfolk
on
charges
of
mortgage
fraud.
This
should
have
been
a
triumphant
day
for
Lindsey
Halligan,
the
insurance
lawyer
turned
US
Attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
This
is,
after
all,
what
she
was
hired
to
do.
But
we’re
guessing
it
wasn’t
as
fun
as
she’d
hoped.

Darn
you,
Anna
Bower!

Halligan’s

Signal
messages
hectoring
Lawfare
editor
Anna
Bower
for
posting
a
New
York
Times

story
that
appears
to
undercut
Halligan’s
case
against
James
made
national
news
earlier
this
week,
along
with
her
belated
realization
that
she
needed
to
say
“off
the
record”

first.

Last
night,
those
texts
reappeared
in
a

Motion
to
Enforce
Rules
Prohibiting
the
Government’s
Extrajudicial
Disclosures
filed
by
James’s
lawyer,
the
ubiquitous
Abbe
Lowell
along
with
local
counsel
Andrew
Bosse.
Calling
the
messages
a
“stunning
disclosure
of
internal
government
information,”
the
motion
notes
that
the
exchange
appears
to
violate
FRCrP
6(e),
28
C.F.R.
§
50.2,
EDVA
Local
Criminal
Rule
57.1,
ABA
Model
Rule
3.8
laying
out
the
Special
Responsibilities
of
a
Prosecutor,
and
the
Justice
Manual.

“Attorney
General
James
is
not
at
this
time
formally
moving
for
relief
pursuant
to
FRCrP
6(e),”
the
lawyers
coughed
delicately
in
one
footnote.
In
another
they
observe
that
auto-deleting
messages
violates
federal
records
laws,
and
promise
that
“Attorney
General
James
will
pursue
this
apparent
violation
of
the
law
with
the
appropriate
offices.”

It’s
a
helluva
way
to
start
the
initial
appearance!

James
requested
that
the
court
order
the
prosecution
to
knock
off
the
extrajudicial
disclosures,
preserve
all
communications,
and
“maintain
a
log
of
all
contact
between
any
government
attorney
or
agent
on
this
case
and
any
member
of
the
news
media
or
press
concerning
this
case.”
They
also

noticed
their
intent
to
move
to
disqualify
“purported
interim
U.S.
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan”
based
on
her
unlawful
appointment.

Halligan
was
already
facing
one
such
motion
from
former
FBI
director
Jim
Comey,
which
was
referred
to
Senior
Judge
Cameron
Currie
of
the
District
of
South
Carolina.
Lowell
suggests
that,
“for
judicial
economy,
the
two
motions
should
likely
be
consolidated.”
So
Halligan
will
only
have
to
explain

once
that,
when
the
Constitution
says
the
president
has
to
get
advice
and
consent
of
the
Senate
to
appoint
US
Attorneys,
it
actually
means
he’s
entitled
to
make
an
unlimited
number
of
interim
appointments
and
not
even
bother
to
nominate
someone
for
the
job.

On
the
plus
side,
she
finally
got
an
actual
prosecutor
to
ride
along
with
her
on
this
madcap
expedition,
although
she
had
to
go
all
the
way
to
Missouri
to
find
one.
As
in
the
Comey
prosecution,
not
a
single
lawyer
in
EDVA
will
get
near
this
shitpile
of
a
case.
And
so,
on
Wednesday
—

after
the
Bower
story
dropped!
—
Roger
A.
Keller,
an
AUSA
from
the
Eastern
District
of
Missouri,
entered
his
appearance.

And
meanwhile,
ABC

confirmed
the
Times’s
reporting
this
morning.
While
Halligan
groused
that
reports
about
James’s
great-niece
living
in
the
house
without
paying
rent
were
incorrect,
ABC
says
that
“prosecutors
found
no
record
of
James
collecting
rent
from
her
niece
beyond
$1,350
that
James
reported
on
her
2020
tax
return,
which
was
said
to
cover
the
cost
of
utilities.”
That
would
comport
with
James’s
2020

financial
disclosure
in
which
she
claimed
$1,000-5,000
in
“investment”
income,
likely
the
utility
bills
paid
by
her
niece.

After
James
pleaded
not
guilty,
Judge
Jamar
Walker
set
a
trial
date
of
January
26.
Welcome
to
the
rocket
docket,
Roger
Walker!
Looks
like
there
may
be
some
turbulence
ahead.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

According
to
a
recent
study
by
BCG
Attorney
Search,
the
four-day
mandate
for
office
attendance
is
becoming
the
norm
in
Biglaw
—
although
not
all
firms
are
fully
transparent
about
their
expectations.

The
report,
“Remote
Work
in
Law
Firms
2025–2026,”
finds
that
68%
of
major
law
firms
require
attorneys
to
be
in
the
office
four
days
a
week.
Another
12%
mandate
full-time
attendance,
while
just
8%
allow
lawyers
to
work
fully
remotely.

However,
it’s
not
always
easy
to
know
just
what
a
firm’s
*real*
expectations
are.
According
to
the
report,
73%
of
law
firms
provide
“vague
or
misleading”
descriptions
of
their
policies,
and
89%
of
the
associates
surveyed
say
there
are
unwritten,
cultural
expectations
that
exceed
the
stated
policies. 

The
report
includes
a
ranking
of
firms
based
on
their
friendliness
to
remote
work
and
offers
tips
to
lawyers
seeking
to
verify
a
firm’s
true
attitude
toward
office
attendance.

Remote
Work
in
Law
Firms
2025-2026:
Transparency
Report,
Policy
Rankings
&
Negotiation
Playbook
[BCG
Attorney
Search]

[Hat
tip:

JDJournal]

Earlier:

Biglaw
Firms
Continue
To
Depend
On
Attendance
Mandates,
And
Lawyers
Who
Don’t
Abide
Are
Getting
Punished