From Startup To $2 Billion: EvenUp Is Transforming Personal Injury Practice – Above the Law

A
recent
legal
tech
funding
announcement
got
my
attention.

EvenUp
,
which
provides
several
AI
tools
for
personal
injury
(PI)
plaintiffs’
lawyers,

announced

it
had
raised
$150
million
in
funding
from
Bessemer
Venture
Partners
and
REV,
among
others.
REV
is
the
venture
capital
arm
of
RELX
which
owns
LexisNexis.
With
this
funding,
EvenUp
now
has
a
$2
billion
valuation.

This
isn’t
just
another
big
funding
round.
It
signals
that
AI
for
plaintiffs’
lawyers
has
perhaps
reached
a
tipping
point
and
is
now
an
important
market.


What
Is
EvenUp?

EvenUp
provides
all
sorts
of
AI-driven
tools
to
help
PI
lawyers,
who
primarily
get
paid
on
a
contingency
fee
basis,
in
efficiently
drafting,
reviewing,
and
strategizing
across
the
entire
case
lifecycle,
according
to
the
press
release
announcing
the
funding.

It’s
trained
on
thousands
of
PI
cases
and
millions
of
medical
records
(more
on
this
below).
According
to

Rami
Karabibar
,
CEO
and
co-founder
of
EvenUp,
“Legal
AI
is
no
longer
a
side
bet;
it’s
becoming
the
backbone
of
personal
injury
law.”


He’s
Right
About
That

I
think
Karabibar
is
right
about
that
for
several
reasons.
First,
AI
tools
enable
PI
lawyers
to
do
things
in
a
fraction
of
the
time
it
previously
took.
Since
they
spend
less
time
working
up
a
case,
their
profit
is
increased.
These
guys
don’t
bill
by
the
hour.
They
get
paid
based
on
the
result.
The
less
time
needed
to
get
to
the
result,
the
more
money
they
make.

Secondly,
because
they
can
do
things
with
EvenUp
in
less
time,
PI
lawyers
can
take
cases
that
would
not
have
previously
been
profitable
because
the
time
needed
to
work
up
the
case
would
exceed
the
foreseeable
recovery.
That
means
more
access
to
justice
for
folks
who
may
be
injured.

Raymond
Mieszaniec
,
the
co-founder
of
EvenUp
and
its
COO,
puts
it
this
way,
“Our
mission
remains
simple:
give
every
victim
a
fair
shot
at
justice.”

Finally,
one
of
the
driving
needs
of
PI
lawyers
is
to
move
cases
to
resolution
as
quickly
as
they
can.
Why?
They
don’t
get
paid
unless
and
until
the
case
resolves.
The
EvenUp
team
understands
this
and
created
tools
to
get
work
done
faster
and
indirectly
lead
to
faster
resolutions.


So???

So,
what’s
the
big
deal?
Lots
of
big
funding
announcements
these
days.
Here’s
why
this
resonates
with
me
as
a
former
defense
lawyer.

I
first
came
across
EvenUp
at
the
ILTA
startup
alley
in
2023
and

wrote
about

the
company
then.
I
heard
a
young
guy
talking
from
the
startup
stage
about
a
tool
that
would
automate
the
drafting
of
demand
letters
for
PI
lawyers.

My
first
reaction
was
ho-hum,
that
doesn’t
sound
like
a
big
deal.
But
then
I
talked
to
him.
It
turns
out
that
the
young
guy
was
Mieszaniec.
 He
was
driven
to
create
the
company
by
a
family
member’s
frustrating
experience
in
trying
to
recover
for
a
personal
injury
they
suffered.
That
experience
became
a
driving
force
and
passion
that
still
drives
a
lot
of
product
decisions.

What
Mieszaniec
and
EvenUp
were
doing
even
then
was
far
more
significant
and
a
harbinger
of
things
to
come:
they
were
using
AI
to
determine
valid
and
justifiable
demands.
It
worked
like
this:
a
lawyer
would
provide
EvenUp
with
all
the
relevant
facts
of
a
case
along
with
medical
and
employment
records,
and
any
other
important
information.
Using
AI
and
data
analytics,
EvenUp
would
compare
those
facts
to
verdicts
and
other
information.
(More
on
that
in
a
moment.)
The
tool
then
provided
a
realistic
demand
number
backed
by
data.

The
product
could
also
review
medical
records
and
other
materials
to
spot
inconsistencies
and
missing
information.


The
Key
Innovation:
Crowdsourced
Data

But
what
really
got
my
attention
was
that
Mieszaniec
convinced
a
number
of
plaintiffs’
lawyers
to
provide
EvenUp
with
access
to
actual
settlement
numbers
in
PI
cases
in
an
anonymized
way.
The
program
looked
not
only
at
actual
verdicts
in
cases
with
comparable
fact
patterns,
it
also
looked
at
settlements
in
cases
with
similar
fact
patterns. Since
most
cases,
then
and
now,
settle,
getting
that
information
in
that
way
was
truly
innovative
at
the
time.

I
saw
lots
of
value
that
could
come
from
the
tool
and
this
kind
of
thinking
not
only
for
plaintiffs’
lawyers
but
also
for
the
defense
side.
As
I

noted
at
the
time
,
this
ability
could
enhance
settlements
since
it
would
give
both
sides
access
to
good
case
valuations.
It
would
enable
insurance
companies,
who
typically
insure
defendants
in
personal
injury
cases,
to
better
determine
reserves
for
the
exposures
presented
by
cases.

Insurance
companies’
business
model
is
based
on
the
ability
to
determine
exposures
accurately
and
then
reserve
the
funds
needed
to
pay
those
exposures.
So,
the
sooner
they
can
get
their
hands
on
the
information
to
set
that
reserve,
the
sooner
they
can
talk
settlement.
Because
the
EvenUp
analysis
was
based
on
real
data,
I
thought
it
would
provide
the
kind
of
accurate
demand
that
would
help
adjusters
set
reserves
and
would
lead
to
more
prompt
settlements,
which
benefits
all.

Mieszaniec
also
recognized
back
then
that
the
key
to
all
this
is
building
trust.
All
sides
have
to
know
that
the
EvenUp
number
is
a
good
one
and
well
supported.

I
concluded
from
talking
to
him
in
2023
that
“EvenUp
has
a
pretty
cool
idea.”


So,
How’d
That
Work
Out?

Not
surprisingly,
since
the
founders
obviously
well
understood
how
PI
cases
work
and
the
dynamics
leading
to
resolution,
EvenUp
has
grown
by
leaps
and
bounds.
It
now
offers
a
whole
slew
of
products
including
drafting
tools,
the
ability
to
create
expedited
demands,
medical
chronology
tools,
workflow
processes,
an
AI
assistant
to
answer
inquiries,
a
case
and
strategy
preparation
tool,
a
negotiation
preparation
tool,
a
settlement
repository
of
similar
matters
and
results,
and
even
a
tool
to
manage
firm
performance.

EvenUp
also
recently
announced
something
called

Mirror
Mode

which
allows
lawyers
to
create
documents
in
an
author’s
or
firm’s
previous
language,
style,
and
structure
by
mirroring
those
previously
created
documents.
As
Mieszaniec
puts
it,
“We
started
by
transforming
how
demands
were
built

today,
our
AI
spans
the
entire
case
lifecycle.”


The
Beauty
of
What
EvenUp
Is
Doing

EvenUp’s
approach
enhances
the
ability
for
individual
users,
who
are
often
with
small
firms,
to
tap
into
the
data
of
other
plaintiffs’
PI
lawyers.
That
enables
them
to
better
litigate
with
larger
firms
and
better
compete
with
the
very
large
national
plaintiffs’
firms.

It’s
also
a
good
example
of
what
can
happen
when
a
legal
tech
company
is
founded
by
people
with
passion
and
experience
in
an
area.
Yes,
the
founders
are
zealous
about
plaintiffs’
PI
work
and
the
lawyers
involved.
But
they
also
understand
the
need
to
get
these
cases
resolved
quickly
and
efficiently.
And
that
means
thinking
about
the
needs
not
only
of
plaintiffs
but
also
of
those
on
the
defense
side.

Of
course,
the
standard
concerns
with
AI
tools
remain:
algorithmic
bias,
data
privacy,
and
for
EvenUp,
whether
its
tools
will
further
gum
up
the
court
system.

But
for
now,
congrats
to
EvenUp
on
its
impressive
journey
from
startup
to
$2
billion
valuation.




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
.

Kendrick Really Is What The Culture Feeling: Drake Lost The Rap Battle AND The Court Battle – Above the Law

What
do
you
mean
you
can’t
arrest
him,
officer!?

In
the
span
of
the
last
year,
Aubrey
“Drake”
Graham
has
been
dunked
on
more
than
anyone
who
has
had
the
misfortune
of
playing
against
Dwight
Howard.
His
musical
feud
against
Kendrick
Lamar
started
to
get
rough
once
the
Compton
rapper
dropped
Euphoria,”
a
prophetic
ode
to
a
spiraling
artist
accused
of
grooming
behaviors
who
also
was
an
executive
director
for
a
show
called
Euphoria
that

just
happened
to
have
a
lot
of
racy
content
with
teenagers
.
Drake
fired
back
with
a
song
that
was
supposed
to
dead
the
feud
then
and
there,
called
Family
Matters


a
song
that
would
be
considered
good
in
its
own
right
if
Kendrick
didn’t
step
on
the
song’s
release
with
another
family-themed
diss
track
called
Meet
The
Grahams
.”

The
psychoanalysis
session
pretending
to
be
a
musical
track

should

have
been
when
Drake
threw
in
the
towel,
but
he
didn’t
have
much
time
considering
that
“Not
Like
Us”
got
dropped
within
a
24
hour
period.
That
victory
lap
quickly
turned
in
to
everyone
parading
the
corpse
of
Drake’s
career:

Kendrick
won
a
Grammy
for
the
diss
track
with
roaring
applause
from
a
room
of
celebrities
,

Conan
O’
Brien
made
a
joke
at
Drake’s
expense
at
the
Oscars
,

Will
Ferrell
and
Ana
Gasteyer
performed
Not
Like
Us
at
SNL’s
50th
anniversary
,
oh,
and
did
I
mention

THE
SUPER
BOWL
where
Drake’s
ex
Serena
Williams
was
crip
walking
celebratorily
?
Just
dunk
after
dunk
after
dunk!

But
as
interesting
as
music
spats
can
be,
we
here
at
Above
The
Law
are
a

legal

website.
That
said,
it
didn’t
take
long
for
the
beat
drops
to
get
replaced
with
gavel
smashing.
Not
Like
Us’s
roll
out
was
so
devastating
that
by
May
7th,

one
astute
observer
wrote
a

joke

article

suggesting
that
the
only
chance
Drake
had
of
salvaging
his
reputation
was
to

sue

somebody
over
how
hard
he
lost.

Drake
then
tried
to
parlay
his
rap
loss
in
to
a
legal
battle.
Fitting
considering
that
Kendrick
accuses
him
of
having
a
gambling
problems
on
Meet
the
Grahams,
but
that’s
an
aside.
He
sued

Universal
Music
Group
,

Spotify
,
at
one
point
he

even
pointed
blame
at
YouTube
streamers

for
broadcasting
the
song
and
helping
to
run
the
views
up.
But
the
cream
of
the
crop?
After
all
the
dud
musical
responses
and
finger
pointing
and

cringe
smoking
bullet
riddled
hoodie

attempts
at
aura
farming,
the
the
facts
remained.
He
lost
a
rap
battle

so
hard

that
a
judge
had
to
weigh
in.
And
the
judge
did

not

rule
in
his
favor.
ABC
has
coverage:

A
federal
judge
in
New
York
has
dismissed
Drake’s
defamation
case
against
his
record
label,
Universal
Music
Group,
stemming
from
a
rap
battle
with
Kendrick
Lamar.

Judge
Jeannette
Vargas
determined
the
allegedly
defamatory
statements
at
issue
in
the
lawsuit
are
“nonactionable
opinion”
and
dismissed Drake’s
lawsuit
against
UMG.

And
while
the
opinions
may
be
nonactionable
in
the
court
of
law,
they’re
getting
a

lot

of
action
in
the
court
of
public
opinion:

Drake’s
response
to
this
dismissal
is
about
as
childish
as
you’d
expect
from
a
38
year
old
man
who
regularly
refers
to
himself
as
“The
Boy”:

A
spokesperson
for
Drake
said
in
a
statement
obtained
by
ABC
News
that
his
team
intends
to
appeal
the
decision.

For
the
love
of
God,
throw
in
the
towel
Jimmy!
And
this
isn’t
just
advice
for
your
bruised
ego,
it’s
also
for
your
pockets.
Because
I’ll
tell
you
the
main
party
most
situated
to
benefit
from
your
hard
hardheadedness.
Your
lawyers:

It’s
time
to
leave
the
court
room
and
get
back
in
the
studio.
Even
Kendrick
likes
Drake
with
the
melodies.


Drake’s
Defamation
Case
Against
Record
Label
UMG
Dismissed
By
Federal
Judge

[ABC]


Earlier
:

Drake
Really
Has
One
Option
Left
Against
Kendrick
If
He
Wants
To
Win


Universal
Music
Group
Pushes
To
Dismiss
Drake’s
Desperate
Attempt
To
Save
Face
From
Lyrical
Beatdown


Drake
Files
RICO
Case
Against
His
Own
Record
Label
After
Being
Musically
Curb
Stomped
By
Pulitzer
Winning
West
Coast
Rapper


Drake
Adds
Kendrick’s
Superbowl
Performance
To
List
Of
Allegedly
Defamatory
Acts



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.

The Biglaw Firms Leading The Charge On Generative AI In Litigation – Above the Law

As
generative
artificial
intelligence
continues
to
reshape
the
practice
of
law,
firms
are
finding
themselves
at
very
different
points
on
the
adoption
curve.
Some
have
seamlessly
integrated
AI
tools
into
their
litigation
practices

using
them
to
streamline
discovery,
sharpen
strategy,
and
even
predict
outcomes

while
others
are
still
struggling
to
understand
what’s
possible,
let
along
how
to
implement
it
responsibly.
The
divide
is
becoming
increasingly
apparent
to
in-house
decision-makers,
raising
questions
about
whether
technological
sophistication
is
poised
to
become
a
new
marker
of
competitive
advantage
in
Biglaw.

According
to
a

new
ranking
produced
by
BTI
Consulting
Group
,
thanks
to
their
superior
knowledge,
some
firms
are
just
more
adept
at
handling
the
AI’s
ongoing
creep
than
others
into
contracts,
supply
chains,
data
governance,
IP,
and
beyond.

So,
which
firms
do
corporate
counsel
trust
most
in
defending
and
preparing
for
Gen
AI-infused
litigation?
Behold,
the
32
firms
BTI
breaks
down
into
Gen
AI
Powerhouses,
Gen
AI
Leaders,
and
Gen
AI
Distinguished.


Gen
AI
Litigation
Powerhouses

  • Cooley
  • DLA
    Piper
  • Faegre
    Drinker
  • Latham
    &
    Watkins
  • Orrick
  • Wilson
    Sonsini


Gen
AI
Litigation
Leaders

  • Arnold
    &
    Porter
  • Axinn
  • Goodwin
    Procter
  • Hogan
    Lovells
  • Jenner
    &
    Block
  • WilmerHale

Click

here

to
see
the
rest
of
the
firms
designated
as
distinguished
in
AI-related
litigation.

Generative
AI
isn’t
just
another
tool
in
the
litigator’s
kit

it’s
fast
becoming
a
litmus
test
for
the
firms
general
counsel
think
are
ready
for
the
future.
The
firms
that
understand
both
the
promise
and
pitfalls
of
AI
aren’t
just
keeping
the
pace
with
change,
they’re
defining
what
the
next
era
of
litigation
will
look
like.
Congratulations
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
cut
for
this
important
ranking.


Clients
Name
the
32
Law
Firms
Best
at
Gen
AI
Litigation

[Mad
Clientist
/
BTI
Consulting
Group]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

After Getting No-Billed, DOJ Tries Presenting Case To Local Grand Jury. Court Not Amused. – Above the Law

Judge
Jeanine
Pirro
(Photo
by
MIKE
THEILER/AFP/Getty
Images)

The
DOJ
got
benchslapped
again
last
night
by
federal
Magistrate
Judge
Zia
Faruqui.
The
beatdown
came
in
the
case
of
Kevontae
Stewart,
a
DC
resident
who
was
sitting
in
his
car
on
September
17,
smoking
a
joint
and
bothering
no
one,
when
ATF
agents
started
hassling
him.
Prosecutors
filed
a

criminal
complaint

alleging
that
Stewart
fled
and
tried
to
get
rid
of
a
gun,
which
he
was
not
permitted
to
possess
due
to
a
prior
criminal
conviction.
But
the
grand
jury
didn’t
buy
it,
and
the
DOJ
got

no-billed
,
as
they’ve
done
repeatedly
since
Jeanine
Pirro
got
sworn
in
as
US
Attorney
for
the
District
and
started
charging
every
person
she
could
get
her
hands
on
with
pissant
nonsense.

But
Pirro
was
feeling
fizzy
as
a
box
of
Franzia
left
in
the
sun,
so
on
September
26,
the
same
day
prosecutors
got
no-billed
by
the
federal
grand
jury,
her
office
took
Stewart’s
case
to
a
local
grand
jury
convened
by
DC
Superior
Court.
That
panel
was
more
cooperative,
and
on
September
29,
the
DOJ
tried
to
present
the
local
indictment
to
Magistrate
Faruqui.
And
then
all
hell
broke
loose.

“This
desire
to
just
at
all
costs
get
people
charged
and
arrested
is
losing,
every
day,
credibility
before
the
court,”
Judge
Faruqui

railed
,
adding,
“You
can’t
even
get
grand
juries
returned
now,
because
the
public
seems
to
have
lost
all
faith
in
the
process.”

The
court
refused
to
accept
the
indictment
and
ordered
briefing
on
the
legality
of
using
a
DC
Superior
Court
grand
jury
to
return
an
indictment
in
federal
court,
a
process
the
court
described
as
potentially
unlawful
and
at
a
minimum
unseemly.

But
Pirro’s
office
did
not
file
a
response

or
at
least
not
immediately.
First
it
demanded
to
speak
to
the
manager,
docketing
an

emergency
motion
to
vacate

Judge
Faruqui’s
briefing
order.
The
government
insisted
that
the
magistrate’s
role
is
purely
ministerial,
and
thus
the
court
had
no
discretion
to
reject
the
indictment.
But
they
got
no
joy
from
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg,
who
refused
to
countermand
the
briefing
order,
instructing
prosecutors
to
appeal
any
final
order
if
they
were
still
mad
about
it.

The
government’s
position
is
that

D.C.
Code
§
11-1916

empowers
a
local
grand
jury
to
“take
cognizance
of
all
matters
brought
before
it
regardless
of
whether
an
indictment
is
returnable
in
the
Federal
or
District
of
Columbia
courts.”
They
point
to


US
v.
Seals
,
a
1997
DC
Circuit
case
in
which
the
court
allowed
federal
prosecution
when
the
grand
jury
indictment
was
procured
by
a
jury
convened
by
the
DC
Superior
Court.
But,
as
Stewart
pointed
out
in
his
own

brief
,
that
case
preceded
the
adoption
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure
by
five
years.
FRCrP
6
empowers
“the
court”

i.e.,
a

federal

judge

to
impanel
a
grand
jury.
And
as
Judge
Faruqui
pointed
out
in
his

order

dropkicking
this
indictment,
FRCrP
1
specifically
states
that
DC
Superior
Court
judges
are

not

federal
judges.

There’s
also
the
minor
matter
that,
unlike
at
the
time
of

Seals
,
the
procedures
for
selecting
DC
and
federal
grand
juries
are
not
the
same.
And

is
the
DOJ
seriously
arguing
that
a
local
statute
can
bind
the
federal
judiciary?

WTF?????

“This
litigation
and
the
delay
caused
by
it
could
have
been
avoided
if
the
government
had
simply
gone
to
one
of
the
other
federal
grand
juries.
That
escape
hatch
remains
open
today,”
Judge
Faruqui
concluded.
“At
any
time,
the
government
can
short
circuit
this
dispute
by
taking
their
federal
charge
before
a
federal
grand
jury.
The
question
then
is
why
are
they
now
afraid
to
do
so?”

The
government
huffily
announces
that
it
will
appeal
again
to
Chief
Judge
Boasberg.
But
if
they
bet
wrong,
they’re
going
to
be
in
a
wee
spot
of
bother.
They’ve
got
30
days
from
September
18,
the
date
of
the
original
complaint,
to
indict
Stewart,
the
poor
guy
smoking
a
J
in
his
own
car
who
wound
up
in
the
middle
of
this
ridiculous
pissing
match.

Good
thing
he
wasn’t
driving
119
mph
in
a
65,
or
he
might
be
in

real
trouble
.





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

Strategies For Negotiating Rate Increases With Clients – Above the Law

Inflation
is
a
fact
of
life,
and
the
price
of
doing
business
generally
increases
from
one
year
to
another. Lawyers,
like
all
other
types
of
professionals,
need
to
increase
their
rates
in
order
to
stay
consistent
with
the
price
of
other
goods
and
services. A
multitude
of
market
conditions
may
warrant
that
a
lawyer
increase
rates
from
time
to
time,
including
more
years
of
experience,
geographic
variables,
and
a
variety
of
other
factors. Even
though
negotiating
rate
increases
with
clients
can
be
tricky,
there
are
some
strategies
lawyers
can
implement
to
make
sure
that
this
process
goes
more
smoothly.


New
Clients

It
is
far
easier
to
charge
higher
rates
to
new
clients
than
to
existing
clients.
This
is
because
new
clients
do
not
have
a
history
with
a
law
firm
and
expectations
about
what
they
might
be
charged
for
given
services.
In
addition,
new
clients
are
often
in
a
worse
position
to
negotiate
for
lower
rates
based
on
the
volume
of
work
they
provide
to
a
law
firm
or
other
factors.

When
a
law
firm
wishes
to
charge
higher
rates
to
new
clients,
they
usually
just
include
the
new
rate
in
a
retainer
agreement.
In
many
instances,
the
new
client
will
either
accept
or
reject
the
rate
without
negotiating
costs.
It
is
far
more
difficult
to
increase
rates
with
clients
with
which
a
client
has
a
relationship,
so
charging
new
clients
higher
rates
is
an
easy
step
if
a
law
firm
wishes
to
raise
rates.


Wait
For
New
Engagements

It
is
usually
easier
to
charge
higher
rates
to
existing
clients
when
the
client
seeks
out
counsel
for
a
new
engagement. In
many
jurisdictions,
lawyers
must
provide
a
client
with
an
engagement
letter
or
retainer
agreement
before
starting
work
on
a
given
matter. When
such
an
occasion
arises,
it
is
usually
a
convenient
time 
to
include
the
higher
rate
in
the
paperwork
provided
to
a
client
and
ask
that
they
assent
to
the
higher
rate.

Clients
often
need
lawyers
the
most
when
they
are
seeking
them
out
for
a
new
engagement
like
a
litigation
matter
or
deal
that
requires
work
on
an
expedited
basis. Broaching
the
subject
of
higher
rates
might
dovetail
naturally
during
the
onboarding
process
of
accepting
new
work,
and
clients
might
be
more
amenable
to
a
rate
increase
during
such
times
than
if
a
rate
increase
is
requested
during
a
more
random
time.


Annual
Rate
Increases

Some
firms
increase
their
rates
at
regular
intervals
such
as
once
a
year.
This
has
the
benefit
of
making
rate
increases
automatic
so
that
both
the
law
firm
and
clients
know
to
expect
that
rates
will
increase
at
some
set
point. In
addition,
this
might
make
it
less
awkward
for
lawyers
to
broach
the
subject
of
rate
increases
since
this
topic
does
not
seem
random
and
ad
hoc. Raising
rates
at
regular
intervals
also
reminds
lawyers
that
they
need
to
increase
their
rates
and
communicate
this
to
clients.
It
is
easy
when
operating
a
law
firm
to
forget
about
administrative
tasks,
and
regular
rate
increases
take
some
of
this
work
away
from
law
firm
and
firm
administrators.

Regular
rate
increases
have
a
few
downsides.
Market
conditions
may
not
warrant
a
rate
increase,
and
increasing
rates
at
regular
intervals
can
make
one
law
firm
less
competitive
in
a
marketplace
than
another
law
firm.
In
addition,
some
clients
might
not
properly
be
part
of
a
rate
increase,
either
because
they
give
lawyers
a
large
volume
of
work
or
they
were
only
recently
signed
to
a
firm. Law
firms
should
carefully
consider
whether
such
a
system
is
advisable
for
a
given
shop.

All
told,
negotiating
rate
increases
with
clients
can
be
stressful,
but
with
some
strategies
in
mind,
this
process
can
be
easier
to
implement.




Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of 
The
Rothman
Law
Firm
,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of 
Student
Debt
Diaries
,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at 
jordan@rothman.law.

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the Law




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.


“Hantz
Marconi
to
return
to
the
bench,
capping
whirlwind
week
for
convicted
justice”:
 Todd
Bookman
of
New
Hampshire
Public
Radio
has this
report
.


“Why
the
Oklahoma
Supreme
Court
rejected
an
attempt
to
create
business-only
courts
system”:
 Dale
Denwalt
of
The
Oklahoman
has this
report
.


“Justice
Anthony
Kennedy
wrote
the
opinion
legalizing
same-sex
marriage.
Here’s
why
he
says
it
won’t
be
overturned.”
 Joan
Biskupic
of
CNN
has this
report
.


“How
a
Pennsylvania
Supreme
Court
election
could
influence
the
2028
presidential
race;
It’s
been
20
years
since
a
Pennsylvania
justice
has
lost
a
retention
vote”:
 Emily
Chang
of
ABC
News
has this
report
.


“Trump-appointed
judges
signal
willingness
to
let
president
deploy
troops
to
states”:
 Sonja
Sharp
of
The
Los
Angeles
Times
has this
report
.


“US
Senate
confirms
Trump
nominee
Mascott
to
federal
appeals
court”:
 Nate
Raymond
of
Reuters
has this
report
.


“Should
They
Just
Go
Ahead
and
Put
Up
a
Gold
Trump
Sign
on
the
Supreme
Court?”
 Emily
Bazelon
and
David
French
have this
written
conversation
 online
at
The
New
York
Times.

Calling All Biglaw Associates: 2025 Bonus Season Awaits – Above the Law

If
you’re
a
Biglaw
associate
in
the
fall
of
2025,
two
things
are
probably
true:
(i)
you’re
billing
your
life
away
while
considering
if
a
lateral
move
is
right
for
you
while
the
market
is
still
hot,
and
(ii)
you’re
eagerly
waiting
to
receive
news
about
your
annual
bonus
(that
may
or
may
not
include
a

special
bonus

on
top),
which
may
be
right
around
the
corner.

To
kick
off
our
coverage,
we’re
asking
you
to
take
this
(always)
confidential,
(always)
brief
survey
to
share
your
thoughts
on
the
upcoming
bonus
season.
And
if
you’d
like
to
stay
on
top
of
any
changes
this
bonus
season,
enter
your
email
below
to
sign
up
for
our
free
bonus
alerts.


button_take-the-survey

And
as
a
little
reminder,
we
love
covering
the
Biglaw
bonus
season,
but
we
need
your
help.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
bonus
memo
comes
out,
please email
us
 (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”).
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
bonus
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
the
memo
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
Please
be
sure
to
include
the
memo
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
bonus
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.

Don’t
forget,
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts,
please
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below.
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

including,
of
course,
the
first
such
announcement.


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Trump Admits: ‘We Took The Freedom Of Speech Away’ – Above the Law

In
what
may
be
the
most
accidentally
honest
moment
of
his
presidency,
Donald
Trump
just
admitted
what
we’ve
been
documenting
for
months:
“We
took
the
freedom
of
speech
away.”

Yes,
that’s
literally
what
he
said:

For
those
who’ve
been
following
Trump’s
systematic
assault
on
the
First
Amendment—which
we’ve
covered extensively at Techdirt—this
admission
is
remarkable
not
for
its
content,
but
for
its
candor.
Here’s
a
president
whose
supporters
claimed
he
would
“bring
free
speech
back”
explicitly
acknowledging
that
his
administration
has
done
the
opposite.

He
said
this
at
the
White
House’s
bizarre
roundtable
on
antifa,
which
involved
a
bunch
of
serial
fabulists
and
conspiracy
theorists
feeding
the
President’s
delusional
need
to
justify
using
the
military
on
American
citizens
who
live
in
states
that
didn’t
vote
enough
for
him.

If
you
can’t
see
the
video,
the
transcript
is
pretty
straightforward:


We
made
it
one
year
penalty
for
inciting
riots.
 We
took
the
freedom
of
speech
away
 because
that’s
been
through
the
courts
and
the
courts
said
you
have
freedom
of
speech,
but
what
has
happened
is
when
they
burn
a
flag
it
agitates
and
irritates
crowds.


I’ve
never
seen
anything
like
it
on
both
sides.
And
you
end
up
with
riots
so
we’re
going
on
that
basis.


We’re
looking
at
it
from
not
from
the
freedom
of
speech,
which
I
always
felt
strongly
about,
but
never
passed
the
courts.
This
is
what
they
do,
is
they
incite…
when
you
burn
an
American
flag,
you
incite
tremendous
violence.
We
have
many
examples
of
it.
Many,
many
examples
of
it.
And
it’s
actually
down
on
tape
and
you
see
things
happen
that
just
don’t
happen
unless
it’s
the
flag
that’s
burning.

Well,
thank
you
for
admitting
what
we
all
know
is
true.

Now,
of
course,
this
is
a
bit
of
typical
Trumpian
word
salad,
but
we
can
parse
what
he’s
trying
to
say
in
a
manner
that
likely
reveals
what
the
circle
of
suck-ups
around
him
have
been
telling
him
in
order
to
justify
their
deeply
censorial,
deeply
authoritarian
desires.

Back
in
August
he
signed
an
executive
order,
which
has
no
legal
basis
for
anything,
claiming
that
federal
prosecutors
should try to
figure
out
a
way
to
prosecute
people
for
burning
the
flag
by
arguing
that
it’s
incitement
to
imminent
violence.
This
is
because
there
is
a
widely
recognized
exception
to
the
First
Amendment
which
is
“incitement
to
imminent
lawless
action.”

The
theory,
such
as
it
is,
goes
like
this:
while
flag
burning
is
normally
protected
speech,
Trump’s
handlers
think
they
can
circumvent
that
protection
by
arguing
that
flag
burning
constitutes
incitement
to
imminent
lawless
action.

Normally
“incitement”
is
very,
very
limited
to
situations
where
someone
points
at
someone
else
and
tells
people
“go
kill
that
person”
or
something
of
that
nature.
It
has
to
be
clear,
directed,
and
involving
“imminent
lawless
action”
meaning
right
after
the
words
are
said.

Flag
burning
is
not
that.
And,
for
all
his
talk
about
“never
passed
the
courts,”
this
has
been
tested
in
the
courts
and
the
courts
have
been
pretty
clear:
burning
a
flag
is
almost
always
First
Amendment
protected
expression.
The
key
case
here
is Texas
v.
Johnson
:


We
are
tempted
to
say,
in
fact,
that
the
flag’s
deservedly
cherished
place
in
our
community
will
be
strengthened,
not
weakened,
by
our
holding
today.
Our
decision
is
a
reaffirmation
of
the
principles
of
freedom
and
inclusiveness
that
the
flag
best
reflects,
and
of
the
conviction
that
our
toleration
of
criticism
such
as
Johnson’s
is
a
sign
and
source
of
our
strength.
Indeed,
one
of
the
proudest
images
of
our
flag,
the
one
immortalized
in
our
own
national
anthem,
is
of
the
bombardment
it
survived
at
Fort
McHenry.
It
is
the
Nation’s
resilience,
not
its
rigidity,
that
Texas
sees
reflected
in
the
flag

and
it
is
that
resilience
that
we
reassert
today.


The
way
to
preserve
the
flag’s
special
role
is
not
to
punish
those
who
feel
differently
about
these
matters.
It
is
to
persuade
them
that
they
are
wrong.

When
Trump
says
this
“never
passed
the
courts,”
he’s
not
just
wrong—he’s
demonstrating
a
fundamental
misunderstanding
of
how
Supreme
Court
precedent
works.
Texas
v.
Johnson
didn’t
fail
to
“pass”
the
courts;
it
established
that
flag
burning
is
constitutionally
protected
speech.

As
for
the
“one
year
penalty”
that
is
not
in
the
executive
order,
nor
is
it
something
a
President
could
determine
by
Executive
Order.
But
no
one
dares
tell
the
mad
king
he’s
got
no
idea
what
he’s
talking
about.

More
telling
than
Trump’s
legal
confusion
is
his
claim
to
possess
extensive
evidence
that
doesn’t
exist.
He
insists
they
have
“many,
many
examples”
of
flag
burning
inciting
violence
that
they
have
“down
on
tape.”
This
should
be
easy
to
verify—if
such
tape
existed.

If
journalists
cared
about
getting
this
right,
they
could
ask
him
any
number
of
questions,
starting
with
why
he’s
ignoring
Texas
v.
Johnson.
Or,
maybe,
since
he
claimed
they
have
“many,
many
examples”
of
flag
burning
inciting
violence,
that
they
have
“down
on
tape,”
someone
should
ask
him
to
provide
the
tapes.
Where
is
the
evidence
of
this?
He
says
they
have
so
much
of
it,
so
surely
they
can
show
it?

The
Brandenburg
standard
for
incitement
requires
speech
that
is
“directed
to
inciting
or
producing
imminent
lawless
action
and
is
likely
to
incite
or
produce
such
action.”
Flag
burning,
as
symbolic
political
speech,
simply
doesn’t
meet
this
test.
Not
even
close.
There
would
need
to
be
specific,
directed
calls
to
violence,
not
mere
symbolic
expression
that
some
find
offensive.

But
we
all
know
it’s
the
usual
nonsensical
ramblings
of
an
old
man
who
has
no
idea
what’s
actually
going
on,
and
who
is easily
fooled
by
fake
things
 they
put
on
Fox
News.

The
only
honest
and
accurate
thing
he
said
in
the
whole
thing
was
the
line
that
every
Democrat
should
use
in
their
political
ads:

“We
took
the
freedom
of
speech
away.”

Yes,
Donald,
you
sure
did.
And
you
continue
to
do
so.
Bring
this
up
every
day.
Make
the
quote
famous.
Make
sure
everyone
knows
what
Donald
Trump
is
admitting.

This
admission
fits
perfectly
into
Trump’s
broader
pattern
of
attacking
the
First
Amendment.
From threatening
to
sue
publishers
 to promising
to
imprison
protestors
,
this
administration
has
consistently
treated
free
speech
as
an
obstacle
to
be
overcome
rather
than
a
principle
to
be
protected.

And
everyone
who
supported
him
on
the
false
belief
that
he
would
“bring
free
speech
back”
might
want
to
do
some
soul
searching
to
understand
why
you
bought
an
obvious
lie
from
an
obvious
fabulist.


Trump
Admits:
“We
Took
The
Freedom
Of
Speech
Away”


More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:


America
Is
Now
The
World’s
Sundown
Town


Hey,
San
Francisco,
There
Should
Be
Consequences
When
Police
Spy
Illegally


Appeals
Court
Subtly
Lets
The
Trump
Administration
Know
It’s
Just
Being
Racist
By
Demanding
An
End
To
Birthright
Citizenship

Morning Docket: 10.10.25 – Above the Law

*
Drake
loses
suit
over
Kendrick
diss.
[Law360]

*
Capitulating
firms
dodge
NY
ethics
complaint.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Illinois
troop
deployment
temporarily
blocked.
[Reuters]

*
Erwin
Chemerinsky
discusses
how
this
Supreme
Court
will
redefine
the
presidency.
[Law.com]

*
Lawyer
learns
the
importance
of
making
sure
the
hearing
is
over
first.
[ABA
Journal
]

*
A
conversation
following
Spellbook’s
new
funding
round.
[Artificial
Lawyer
]

Mpilo Hospital faces legal storm over babies swapped 18 years ago


BULAWAYO

The
shocking
discovery
that
two
babies
were
switched
at
birth
at
Mpilo
Central
Hospital
in
Bulawayo
18
years
ago
has
opened
the
door
to
potentially
landmark
legal
battles,
with
top
lawyer
Advocate
Thabani
Mpofu
saying
the
families
and
children
involved
could
pursue
multiple
claims
against
the
hospital.

As
revealed
by
ZimLive
this
week,
two
families

one
from
Bulawayo
and
another
from
Shurugwi

recently
learned
through
DNA
tests
that
their
daughters,
born
on
May
13,
2007,
were
mistakenly
exchanged
at
birth.

The
truth
emerged
after
a
Bulawayo
man,
suspicious
that
his
youngest
daughter
did
not
resemble
her
siblings,
secretly
commissioned
a
DNA
test
that
revealed
she
was
not
his
biological
child.

His
wife,
adamant
she
had
never
been
unfaithful,
launched
her
own
investigation.
Only
two
girls
had
been
born
at
Mpilo
on
the
day
she
gave
birth,
and
her
dogged
enquiries
helped
her
eventually
trace
the
other
mother
through
social
media.

Further
DNA
tests
confirmed
the
unthinkable:
their
daughters
had
been
swapped
at
Mpilo
Hospital,
which
later
admitted
negligence,
citing
staff
shortages
and
system
failures
during
the
2007
economic
crisis.The
mix-up
has
devastated
both
families,
who
are
now
grappling
with
deep
emotional
turmoil,
cultural
differences
and
questions
of
identity.

The
“father”
of
the
child
raised
in
Shurugwi
died
without
knowing
the
truth.
The
second
family
lives
in
Bulawayo.

Lawyers
have
since
been
engaged
to
explore
possible
lawsuits
against
the
hospital,
the
biggest
referral
health
centre
in
south-western
Zimbabwe.

“Never
before
have
a
single
set
of
facts
opened
up
so
many
viable
causes
of
action,”
Advocate
Thabani
Mpofu
told
ZimLive
in
an
exclusive
interview.

According
to
him,
both
sets
of
parents
can
sue
Mpilo
Hospital
for
negligence
that
deprived
them
of
“the
comfort
and
integrity
of
family
life.”

“The
children
themselves
can
bring
claims
for
the
loss
of
familial
security,
for
psychological
injury
and
for
the
profound
disruption
to
their
personal
development,”
he
said.

“If
one
of
the
children
was
raised
in
harmful
or
unsuitable
conditions
they
can
also
claim
damages
for
the
injury
caused
by
that
exposure.
Equally,
there
are
likely
claims
flowing
from
being
compelled
to
live
under
false
identities
and
to
adopt
imposed
cultural
and
linguistic
practices.
These
claims
touch
on
dignity,
identity
and
constitutional
rights.”

Mpofu
said
such
suits
would
be
groundbreaking,
noting
that
while
precedent
is
limited,
Zimbabwean
courts
could
adapt
general
delictual
principles
to
accommodate
new
forms
of
harm.

“General
delictual
principles
[misdeed
or
offense]
can
be
adapted
to
support
novel
causes
of
action,
and
constitutional
remedies
may
supplement
common-law
claims.
The
law,
after
all,
is
a
living
instrument
and
must
evolve
to
meet
ever-changing
social
needs.”

The
main
challenge,
Mpofu
cautioned,
would
be
proving
and
quantifying
damages.

“Roman-Dutch
jurisprudence
has
traditionally
been
conservative
when
awarding
non-pecuniary
damages,
and
quantification
in
these
circumstances
will
be
difficult,”
he
opined.

“That
said,
the
law
does
not
consign
injured
parties
to
mere
conjecture.
Courts
have
discretion
to
make
principled,
impression-based
awards
where
necessary
to
vindicate
rights
and
compensate
real
harm.”

He
said
remedies
could
extend
beyond
compensation
to
include
measures
that
vindicate
dignity
and
deter
institutional
negligence.

“I
cannot
overstate
the
havoc
such
negligence
wreaks
on
young
lives
and
on
the
family
unit,”
he
added.
“A
measured
but
forceful
judicial
response,
one
that
recognises
the
scale
of
the
wrong
and
sets
a
clear
precedent,
is
essential.”

The
baby-swap
revelation
comes
as
Mpilo
Central
Hospital
battles
to
repair
its
image
following
a
string
of
scandals

including
the
admission
of
nursing
students
with
fake
O’
Level
certificates
and
the
exposure
of
a
bogus
doctor
who
treated
patients
and
stole
from
them.

Mpilo
Hospital
chief
medical
officer
Dr
Narcisius
Dzvanga
has
repeatedly
dodged
our
questions.
One
of
the
questions
was
whether
the
hospital
had
changed
processes
on
the
handling
of
newborn
babies,
and
if
he
can
guarantee
families
that
children
born
at
Mpilo
are
truly
theirs.

On
Wednesday,
Dr
Dvanga
said
he
would
respond
“during
working
hours
any
day
midweek.”
The
enquiry
had
been
sent
during
working
hours,
and
in
midweek.

On
Thursday,
Dr
Dzvanga

appointed
to
the
job
in
December
2022
after
a
stint
at
the
United
Bulawayo
Hospitals

said
he
had
“no
idea
on
the
timeline,”
adding:
“We
have
to
retrieve
the
records
first.”

Post
published
in:

Featured