Author: TSA Press

Law
school
dean
changes
usually
occasion
a
LinkedIn
update,
but
the
change
in
command
at
LSU
was
a
little
more
complicated.
For
publicly
unspecified
reasons,
LSU
asked
then
law
school
dean
Alena
Allen
to
step
down
from
her
position.

After
an
alleged
attempt
at
being
forced
out
of
her
job,
Allen
responded
with
a
suit
alleging
a
laundry
list
of
things
done
wrong:
whistleblower
retaliation,
gender
and
racial
discrimination,
and
violations
of
school
policies.
This
wouldn’t
have
been
the
only
time
that
LSU
decided
to
go
against
policy
to
suddenly
switch
up
on
their
employees
—
their
treatment
toward
Ken
Levy
ended
up
in
a

back
and
forth
legal
battle
for
him
to
get
back
in
the
classroom.
However,
Allen’s
issues
with
the
school
seem
to
have
resolved
much
quicker.
Law.com

has
details
on
the
settlement:

Allen,
who
was
allegedly
forced
out
of
the
deanship
in
late
August,
reached
a
settlement
with
LSU
over
her
removal
from
the
role
last
week,
Allen’s
lawyer,
Allison
Jones,
of
counsel
with
Downer,
Jones,
Marino
&
Wilhite
in
Shreveport[.]
…
On
Sept.
12,
the
day
the
settlement
was
reached,
LSU

announced
that
Allen’s
last
day
as
dean
would
be
Sept.
19,
and
she
would
be
transitioning
to
a
full-time
faculty
role.

Allen
told
Law.com
she
is
now
the
Dale
E.
Bennett
Professor
of
Law
at
LSU
Law
and
will
be
taking
a
research
leave
during
the
calendar
year
2026.

In
addition
to
whatever
money
was
negotiated
behind
closed
doors,
teaching
with
distinction
and
a
year
off
to
do
research
still
sounds
like
a
pretty
sweet
deal.
Best
of
luck
to
Allen
and
whatever
“new
direction”
LSU
plans
to
go
off
in.

Outgoing
LSU
Law
Dean
Reaches
Settlement
With
University
Following
Removal
From
Position
[Law.com]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

My
first
experience
with
technology
adoption
for
a
law
firm
was
probably
in
1993.
I
was
attending
a
partner
meeting
for
a
top
Am
Law
firm
to
demonstrate
the
first
version
of
Lexis
on
Microsoft
Windows.
My
pitch
was
strong
enough
to
get
a
partner
to
grab
the
mouse
and
try
for
himself.
The
problem
was
that
he
had
never
used
a
computer
before.
When
the
partner
grabbed
the
mouse,
he
accidentally
highlighted
half
the
screen.
Embarrassed,
he
walked
away
without
saying
a
word.

Recently,
I
was
speaking
with
a
legal
innovator
in
charge
of
evaluating

Harvey
and

Legora.
My
advice
was
to
be
realistic
and
manage
expectations
regarding
likely
adoption.
Why?
Because
even
the
most
pervasive
AI
deployments
at
firms
may
have
just
a
small
concentration
of
power
users.
I
wrote
earlier
about
the

adoption
curve,
and
in
my
opinion,
most
power
users
are
early
adopters,
comprising
a
small
percentage
of
attorneys
in
a
firm. 

Attorneys
are
busy
and
under
pressure
to
achieve
billable
hour
targets.
Despite
the
best
intentions,
there
is
often
little
time
to
invest
in
learning
a
better
way.
Most
attorneys
struggle
to
adopt
new
technology
and
adapt
to
change
for
this
reason.  

Mandatory
changes,
like
the
shift
to
Windows
11,
are
the
exception.
The
new
operating
system
will
show
up,
and
attorneys
will
adapt.
Absent
a
mandate,
most
attorneys
will
behave
like
the
early
and
late
majority
on
the
adoption
curve.
They
will
change
after
they
see
the
benefits
from
their
peers.
Partners
tend
to
behave
like
laggards
on
the
adoption
curve.
Most
won’t
change
unless
absolutely
necessary.
Senior
partners
may
be
less
familiar
with
technology
in
general.
It
could
have
been
years
since
they
last
logged
into
Westlaw,
and
they
may
still
make
references
to
the
CCH
Standard
Fed
or
have
a
tattered
BNA
Portfolio
on
their
bookshelf. 

Here
are
three
ways
to
help
deal
with
the
adoption
challenges:

• 
  Just-In-Time
  Training

The

Lean
Manufacturing
movement
of
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s
included
a
concept
called
just-in-time.
Machines
would
be
retooled
to
create
a
custom
run
when
an
order
was
placed.
While
counterintuitive,
the
approach
was
more
efficient
as
it
reduced
unnecessary
inventory
and
waste.  

The
same
approach
might
be
considered
for
training
on
AI
initiatives.
Your
early
adopters
will
jump
at
the
opportunity
to
learn
something
new,
but
the
majority
of
attorneys
will
not
use
a
new
technology
until
there
is
a
need.
That
need
may
arise
when
a
client
specifies
the
use
of
a
new
technology.
For
the
majority,
training
before
they
have
a
need
is
going
to
be
wasteful.
Most
of
the
learning
will
be
forgotten,
and
they
will
need
to
be
retrained
when
the
need
becomes
relevant.
Training
will
be
most
effective
when
an
attorney
sees
the
need
to
adapt. 
Consider
a
video
library
of
training
materials
developed
in
conjunction
with
your
early
adopters.
This
can
be
the
basis
of
a
just-in-time
training
program
for
the
majority
of
attorneys
in
the
firm. It’s
good
to
recognize
this
dynamic
and
embrace
it,
as
it
will
reduce
frustration
for
all. 

Unless
there
is
a
need
to
use
a
new
technology,
training
can
lack
effectiveness.

Scott
Bailey,
director
of
Research
and
Knowledge
Services
at

Eversheds
Sutherland
says,
“The
firm
makes
a
point
to
use
early
adopters
in
their
training
videos
to
provide
a
testimonial
of
sorts,
sharing
the
benefits
of
the
new
AI
technology
from
an
attorney’s
point
of
view.
It
adds
credibility
and
helps
with
engagement
in
the
training
experience.”

• 
  Metrics
  And
  Leadership
  Buy-In

Facts
are
friendly.
Keep
track
of
who
your
early
adopters
are
and
how
they
distinguish
themselves
from
their
peers.
If
you
can
find
any
data
that
correlates
to
their
adoption
of
new
technology,
keep
track
of
it.
For
example,
is
it
possible
to
demonstrate
higher
utilization
or
greater
realization
among
those
who
have
been
trained
and
use
new
technology?
Also,
consider
appealing
to
leadership
for
a
just-in-time
approach
for
training
those
attorneys
in
the
majority
of
the
adoption
curve.
Tell
them
what
you
are
proposing
and
why.  

It
is
budget
season,
and
perhaps
you
can
justify
the
expense
for
better
quality
training
videos
or
for
staffing
that
needs
to
be
available
on-demand
for
follow-up
training
when
client
needs
arise.
Help
leadership
understand
that
adoption
will
be
incremental
based
on
the
needs
of
the
firm.
Keep
track
of
the
number
of
training
sessions,
the
effort
required,
and
the
results
of
just-in-time
training.
It
may
be
more
costly,
but
if
you
can
point
back
to
the
success
of
early
adopters,
it
may
create
the
business
case
you
need. 

Advocacy
and
aircover
from
leadership
is
empowering
and
can
be
the
difference
between
success
and
failure
of
initiatives.

• 
  Require
  Partner
  Training

As
you
engage
leadership,
it
may
be
possible
to
address
the
elephant
in
the
room.
Partners
are
going
to
be
less
likely
to
use
new
technologies,
but
they
do
need
to
understand
their
capabilities
to
effectively
direct
staff
and
to
be
more
credible
in
front
of
clients. If
possible,
get
leadership
to
agree
that
cursory,
hands-on
training
will
help
partners
be
more
effective
in
their
practices
and
with
clients.
It
may
require
finding
an
advocate
or
two
in
leadership,
but
it
is
worth
trying.  

Summary

The
story
of
the
partner
who
didn’t
know
how
to
use
a
computer
is
a
strong
reminder
that
the
problem
of
technology
adoption
in
firms
is
challenging. The
successful
adoption
of
an
AI
initiative
requires
a
holistic
view
of
people,
processes,
and
technology.
The
natural
tendency
is
to
focus
on
the
technology
portion. 

Training
is
a
significant
undertaking
and
can
be
underestimated,
with
a
long
tail
for
adoption.
Metrics
can
help
explain
the
challenges
and
persuade
leadership.
Establishing
realistic
expectations
for
adoption
can
be
the
difference
between
an
initiative
being
viewed
as
a
success
or
a
failure.
Set
yourself
up
for
success. 

Any
incremental
advocacy
from
leadership
will
increase
the
potential
success
of
your
initiatives. 

Consider
setting
the
goal
of
adoption
by
groups.
Can
you
get
10%
of
attorneys
to
lead
in
the
adoption
of
a
new
technology?
Can
you
offer
just-in-time
training
for
attorneys
to
respond
effectively
when
the
need
arises?  

Your
firm
can
be
better
equipped
to
outpace
its
peers
in
AI
adoption
if
you
set
realistic
expectations
and
meet
attorneys
where
they
are
at. 
Make
it
natural
to
find
training
relevant
at
the
right
moment,
and
you’ll
attract
more
converts
and
advocates!

---

Ken
Crutchfield
has
over
forty
years
of
experience
in
legal,
tax,
and
other
industries.
Throughout
his
career,
he
has
focused
on
growth,
innovation,
and
business
transformation. His
consulting
practice
advises
investors,
legal
tech
startups
and
others.
As
a
strategic
thinker
who
understands
markets
and
creating
products
to
meet
customer
needs,
he
has
worked
in
start-ups
and
large
enterprises.
He
has
served
in
General
Management
capacities
in
six
businesses.
Ken
has
a
pulse
on
the
trends
affecting
the
market.
Whether
it
was
the
Internet
in
the
1980s
or
Generative
AI,
he
understands
technology
and
how
it
can
impact
business.
Crutchfield
started
his
career
as
an
intern
with
LexisNexis
and
has
worked
at
Thomson
Reuters,
Bloomberg,
Dun
&
Bradstreet,
and
Wolters
Kluwer.
Ken
has
an
MBA
and
holds
a
B.S.
in
Electrical
Engineering
from
The
Ohio
State
University.

I recently was
working
on
a blog
post on
how various
stresses
placed
on
lawyers
could
result
in
unchecked citations.
The
title
of
the
post
was Billable
Hour
Demand,
Shadow
Use
of
AI
and
Law
Reality:
It’s
a
Hot
Mess.

After
it
was
more
or
less
complete,
I
ran
it
by
one
of
the
public
LLMs for
comment.
It
made
several suggestions including
the
deletion
of
the
term
“hot
mess.”
I
asked
it
several
times for
clarity
about
why
it
wanted
to
remove
the
term
without
getting
a
clear
answer.
I
finally
said,
“I
really
like
the
term
because
it correctly describes what
is
going
on
and
I’m
putting
it
in
the
title.”
The
LLM
then
replied, “Great
idea–that
term
really
captures
what
you’re
trying
to
say!”
 The
post went
on
to get
more
clicks
and
likes
than
many others I
have
done.

I
mention
this
not
only
because
it
once
again
demonstrates
that
AI
tools
really
want
to
please
you
and
will
tell
you
what
you
want
to
hear. But
more importantly,
it’s
an
example
of
why
as
a
writer,
you
can’t
just
rely
on
AI
if
you
want
to
attract
readership
and
create
your
own
style.

Before
AI, I,
like many writers, would
go
through
several
drafts
and
change
things frequently before
being
satisfied
with
the final
product. But
if
AI
had
been
around
and
I
had
relied
on
it
more or
less
completely,
I might not
have
gotten a
final
product
I
was
proud
of.
No
hot
mess.

That’s
because
words
matter.
Names
matter.
The
turn
of
a
phrase
is
important
and
can
turn
writing
into
something memorable.
And
there’s
plenty
of historical examples.

It’s
rumored
that the
famous
last
line
of
the
Hemingway
book
The
Sun
Also
Rises
—
“isn’t
it
pretty
to
think
so”
—
was
rewritten
by
Hemingway
several
times. The
line
is
the
final
one
in
the
book
and comes
when
two
people
are discussing a
love
affair
they
could
never
have.
One
of
the characters muses they could
have
had
such
a
good
time
together.  The
other
character
then
utters
the
famous
line. The
line “isn’t
it
pretty
to
think
so” pretty
well
sums
up
the point
of
the book
and
the
times in
which
it
was
written.

But
it’s
commonly believed that
at
one
point
Hemingway
considered
using
the
line “isn’t
it
nice
to
think
so.”
Whether
that’s true
or
not, using
the
word
nice
in
the
line
would make
it
like
a
weak
handshake: yucky. It
fails
to
capture
the
bite
and
tension
of
the
story. It’s
not
as
haunting.

Another
example: reportedly the
line “government
of
the
people,
by
the
people,
and
for
the
people,
shall
not
perish
from
the
earth”
from
the
Gettysburg
address
was originally
“government
of
the
people,
by
the
people,
and
for
the
people,
shall
not
perish
upon
the
earth.”
Changes
the
impact
considerably.

How
about
this
one:
Winston Churchill’s line from
his
Battle
of
Britain speech: “This
was
their
finest
hour.”
Reportedly
the
line
was
originally “This
could
prove
to
be
their
finest
hour.”
Not
the
same rallying
cry
to
a
public
desperate
for
hope
and
good
news.

And
maybe
most significantly,
Dr.
Martin
Luther
King’s
famous
line “I
have
a
dream” was
not
in
his
original speech drafts.
What was in his
drafts was “I
have
a plan,” or
“I
have
a
vision.” He
spontaneously added “I
have
a
dream”
when
he
was delivering the
speech.
The
words
“plan”
or
“vision”
fail
to have same
eloquence
and simply
aren’t stirring.

What
did all
these
people
have
in
common? They
started
with
a
concept
and
worked
hard
to
come
up
with the
best way
to sufficiently express
that
concept.

I
thought
about
this
when
I
heard
the
new
name
for
the AffiniPay group
of
companies:
8am. The
concept behind
the
name
was
that
it summarized in two
words
what
the
group
of
companies
is
all
about:
helping
lawyers
do non-billable work
that
they
don’t
like
doing. The conventional wisdom
is to
do what you
don’t
like
early
in
the
day.
So
8am
captures
the
essence
of
what
the
companies do. 

Again,
words
matter,
titles
matter. 

LLMs (Don’t) Say
the
Darndest
Things

Certainly,
you
can
use
LLMs
to
help
you
write.
But what might happen
if
we
ran
some
of
the
above
examples
by
an LLM?

The
end
of
The
Sun
Also
Rises would
have
been
“In
another
life
maybe.”

Dr.
King’s
“I
have
a
dream”
would
turn
into “the
future
isn’t
something
we
wait
for—it’s something
we
create
together.”

8am
would
be The
Legal
Edge.

See
what
overreliance
on
LLMs
get
you? Boring.
Not
memorable. Obfuscating what
you
are trying
to say.
Or
distorting
your
meaning
entirely.

Lessons
for
Lawyers

There’s
an
important
lesson
here for
lawyers.
We
are
in
the
business
of
communication.
Of
persuasion.
How
do
you
best
communicate
and
persuade?
By making
what
you
say
interesting
and
memorable.
By
treating
words
with importance and
respect.
By using
words
that
capture
what
you
are
trying
to
say
in
a
way
the
person
you
are
communicating
with
will understand and
will
stick
in
their
minds. An
LLM can’t
do
that.
At
least
not
yet.

Remember
Justice
Oliver
Wendell
Holmes
Jr.,
when
discussing
the
limits
to
the
First
Amendment,
didn’t
just
say
the
First
Amendment
is
not
absolute. Instead, he
said: “Free
speech
would
not
protect
a
man
in
falsely
shouting
fire
in
a
theatre
and
causing
a
panic.”
 Conveys
the
point
in
a
clear
and
memorable
way.

But
Wait…

But
wait,
you
say.
Can’t
LLMs
come
up
with
the
kind
of
phrases
that
catch
your
eye and
distill concepts
down
to
something
memorable? 

Maybe. But
an
LLM
will
likely
not
give
you
the
kind
of
phrase
you
really
need,
at
least
not
without
a
lot
of
work. And
maybe
not
even
then. But with
work
on
your
end, it
might
be
able
to
give
you
something
that
you
can
mold
into those
kinds
of
words.

Ivy Grey,
the Chief
Strategy and
Growth
Officer of
WorkRake,
said
in
a recent whitepaper,
“Legal
writing is
not
simply
assembling
words or
producing
text.
It
is
the
result
of
analysis,
strategy
and
judgement.”
It
is
that
analysis,
strategy
and
judgment
that
allows
you
to
take
what
an
LLM
gives
you
and
turns
into
something
that
can
communicate
and
persuade.
The
genius
of
Hemingway
was
not
only
that
he
came
up
with
the
words
to
end
his
book.
It
was
that
he
recognized when
he
had
it.
He
knew conceptually what
he
wanted
to
do.
He
used
his own “analysis,
strategy
and judgment.”

You
still
have
to
do
the
work.

Words
Matter

A
single
word,
a
small
change,
can
alter
tone,
power,
and
even
how your
writing
is remembered. Don’t
cede
that
to
a robot. 

Don’t
let
LLMs
hijack
your
style
for
the
sake
of expediency.
Don’t
be
tempted
to
think
that
how
an
LLM
writes
something
is
necessarily
better
than
you. Don’t
substitute
speed
for
the
good. Words
matter.

And
how
do
you
get
the analysis,
strategy,
and
judgment
to
know
when
you
got
something
good?
Have
a
concept.
Know
what
you
are
trying
to
really
convey.
Look
to
be
concise.

One
final
point:
read.
Read
good
books
by
authors
who
know
how
use
words
effectively
and
memorably.
It
will
help
you to,
as
Supreme
Court Justice
Potter
Stewart once said
about
obscenity
in
a
famous
case, “know
it
when
you
see
it.”

---

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.

We
have
some
incredibly
unfortunate
news
to
report
out
of
New
York,
where
the
former
chair
of
Am
Law
100
firm
Paul
Weiss
recently
passed
away.

Alfred
Youngwood,
87,
joined
the
firm
in
1964
following
a
clerkship
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York.
While
at
Paul
Weiss,
he
rose
to
prominence
as
a
tax
attorney,
and
became
a
partner
in
1970.
Later,
in
1999,
Youngwood
became
the
firm’s
first
democratically
elected
chair.
After
serving
for
about
a
decade
as
chair,
he
retired
to
a
counsel
position
in
2009,
following
a
40-year
stint
at
the
firm.

The

American
Lawyer
noted
current
chair
Brad
Karp’s
poignant
words
about
Youngwood
in
a
firmwide
email:

Karp
said
that
Youngwood
was
a
“role
model
for
me
personally,
guiding
and
supporting
me
throughout
my
career
at
the
firm.”

“In
my
May
2008
remarks
upon
being
elected
to
succeed
Alfred,
I
told
my
partners
that
I
was
following
in
the
footsteps
of
towering
giants
who
loved
our
firm
and
that
Alfred
Youngwood
was
at
the
top
of
that
list,”
Karp
added.

…

Karp
also
lauded
Youngwood’s
tenure
as
chair
of
the
firm.
“Not
only
did
Paul,
Weiss
become
one
of
the
most
profitable
law
firms
in
the
country
during
Alfred’s
decade
as
chairman,
but
our
culture
and
dedication
to
pro
bono
work,
diversity,
and
associate
development
all
flourished
as
well,”
he
wrote.

Karp
went
on
to
refer
to
Youngwood
as
“one
of
our
nation’s
most
distinguished
tax
attorneys
and
business
advisors,”
praising
him
as
“brilliant,
endlessly
creative
and
a
dogged
problem-solver.”

We
here
at
Above
the
Law
would
like
to
extend
our
condolences
to
Alfred
Youngwood’s
family,
friends,
and
colleagues
during
this
difficult
time.

Alfred
Youngwood,
Former
Paul
Weiss
Chair,
Dies
at
87
[American
Lawyer]

---

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.

Earlier
this
month,
the
Michigan
state
Judicial
Tenure
Commission
filed
an
eight
count
ethics
complaint
(available
in
full
below)
against
Judge
Thomas
D.
Wilson,
alleging
a
variety
of
inappropriate
behaviors
during
his
time
on
the
bench.

According
to
the
complaint,
Wilson
abused
alcohol
between
2013
and
2021.
During
that
time
he
would
appear
in
public
“smelling
of
alcohol,
looking
disheveled,
or
appearing
flushed.”
During
an
interview
with
the
Commission,
Wilson
also
stated
he
would,
on
occasion,
leave
the
courthouse,
go
home
and
drink
alcohol,
before
returning
to
court. 

There
are
also
allegations
of
several
different
instances
of
sexual
harassment
of
women
judges
and
lawyers
he
worked
with,
including
commenting
on
their
body
parts
and/or
attractiveness.
Wilson
is
also
alleged
to
have
boasted
about
his
sexual
exploits,
telling
one
judge,
“that
his
penis
became
so
red
(implying
sexual
activity)
that
he
had
to
have
it
checked
out
at
the
health
department.”

Wilson
also
allegedly
had
relationships
with
parties
or
attorneys
appearing
before
him
that
he
failed
to
disclose
and
inserted
himself
in
cases
not
before
him.

Wilson’s
attorney,
Thomas
W.
Cranmer
of
Miller,
Canfield,
Paddock
and
Stone
PLC

told
Bloomberg
Law
Wilson
is
a
“respected
and
trusted
jurist
in
Jackson
County”
who
looks
forward
to
“clearing
his
name.”

---

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].

Longtime
readers
of
this
column
know
that
I
have
often
shared
insights
from
both
the

LF
Dealmakers
Forum
and
the

IP
Dealmakers
Forum.
For
the
former,
which
continues
as
a
flagship
event
in
the
litigation
finance
industry,
my
first
recap
was
written
all
the
way
back
in
2019.
Since
then,
I
have
attended
on
a
nearly
yearly
basis,
and
I
was
once
again
excited
to
get
a
press
pass
as
your
trusty
IP
columnist
to
attend
this
year’s

event,
held
last
week
in
Midtown
Manhattan.
The
location
was
new
to
me,
though
it
met
the
usual
high
Dealmakers
standard.
Still,
the
familiar
elements
that
make
this
event
a
staple
on
the
yearly
conference
calendar
were
firmly
in
place.
The
usual
mix
of
power
players
in
the
litigation
finance
space
were
in
attendance,
from
funders,
to
lawyers
of
all
stripes,
to
those
in
the
contingent
risk
insurance
industry.
In
truth,
it
was
a
little
humbling
to
see
how
many
of
the
people
at
the
event
were
folks
that
I
have
had
professional
interactions
with
over
the
years.
Some
of
those
connections,
of
course,
arose
out
of
prior
Dealmakers
events,
providing
a
heady
reminder
of
why
networking
is
a
professional
necessity,
especially
in
a
relationship-driven
industry
like
IP-focused
litigation
finance. 

What
was
most
exciting
about
this
year’s
LF
Dealmakers
for
me,
however,
was
not
the
friendly
faces
and
informative
discussion
on
the
ins
and
outs
of
the
litigation
finance
industry
as
it
stands
today.
Each
was
welcome
—
and
a
reminder
of
why
Dealmakers
events
are
consistently
worthwhile
—
but
I
was
most
keen
to
focus
this
year
on
the
shared
morning
program
dedicated
to
policy
and
industry
advocacy.
Besides
providing
some
unique
perspectives,
such
as
from
a
sitting
congressman
with
real
prior
experience
as
a
litigator,
the
discussion
on
offer
was
both
timely
and
informative
in
light
of
the
existing
and
potential
impact
regulatory
activity
has
on
the
burgeoning
litigation
finance
industry.
In
fact,
for
my
three
takeaways
from
this
year’s
event,
I’d
like
to
focus
on
policy
issues
past,
present,
and
future,
particularly
as
they
relate
to
IP-related
litigation
finance.
(To
the
extent
I
reference
any
discussion
from
LF
Dealmakers
Forum,
I
will
abide
by
the
Chatham
House
rules
adopted
by
the
event
for
the
first
time
this
year.) 

First,
there
is
no
dispute
that
the
past
few
years
have
seen
some
policy-related
decisions
that
have
had
a
significant
impact
on
litigation
finance
as
it
relates
to
patent
and
other
IP
litigation.
While
it
was
confirmed
at
this
year’s
event
that
IP
litigation
remains
a
key
area
of
focus
for
litigation
funders,
it
is
also
true
that
funder
behavior
has
been
influenced
by
both
implemented
and
proposed
regulation
in
the
past.
As
an
example
of
the
former,
the
increased
disclosure
burden
in
front
of
Chief
Judge
Connolly
in
Delaware
has
led
to
a
dramatic
drop
in
funded
patent
cases
filed
in
that
once-popular
district,
as
well
as
some
other
consequences
for
funded
patent
owners
that
I
have
covered
on
these

pages.
Likewise,
perhaps
the
defining
policy
moment
of
2025
for
the
litigation
finance
industry
—
and
maybe
ever
—
happened
right
before
the
summer,
when
a

proposed
piece
of
tax
legislation
threatened
to
doom
the
industry.
While
that
crisis
was
averted,
the
fresh
scars
from
that
abortive
legislative
clawing
at
funder
money
are
still
raw
for
many
in
the
industry.
Many
remember
the
panic,
stalled
deals,
and
feelings
of
powerlessness
that
seemed
to
collectively
seize
the
industry
until
the
parliamentarian
struck
the
amendment
from
what
passed
as
the
One
Big
Beautiful
Big
Act.
And
because
patent
cases
of
size
are
disproportionally
funded
cases,
the
potential
fallout
for
patent
litigants
and
their
counsel
was
immense
–
as
confirmed
by
the
temporary
disruption
that
even
discussion
of
a
punitive
litigation
finance
taxation
scheme
caused. 

As
a
result
of
the
surprise
engendered
by
the
tax
proposal
aimed
at
the
industry,
LF
Dealmakers’
focus
on
avoiding
additional
policy
surprises
for
the
industry
was
well-taken
by
attendees.
For
our
second
takeaway
from
the
event,
we
can
drill
down
into
some
of
the
policy
actions
that
panelists
suggested
to
the
audience.
One
of
the
key
questions
from
the
audience
during
one
of
the
policy
panels
was
as
direct
as
it
gets,
namely,
what
could
industry
players
do
today
to
advance
the
policy
interests
of
the
litigation
finance
industry?
To
start,
the
importance
of
countering
the
“bogeyman”
narratives
around
litigation
finance
—
such
as
the
presence
of
shadowy
foreign
capital
and
funder
control
over
cases
—
by
industry
participants
was
highlighted.
More
than
just
reminding
folks
that
litigation
finance
unlocks
access
to
justice
for
deserving
litigants,
it
seems
clear
that
successful
counter-advocacy
will
require
beneficiaries
of
litigation
finance
to
tell
their
stories
publicly,
in
a
way
that
to
date
many
in
the
industry
have
been
reluctant
to
espouse.
Likewise,
building
relationships
with
politicians
from
the
ground
up,
even
at
the
state
level,
as
well
as
pooling
resources
via
industry
associations
will
be
critical
tasks
for
industry
participants
to
undertake.
Even
the
act
of
writing
about
litigation
finance
in
a
positive
light
has
promise,
if
only
to
counteract
the
negative
spin
on
the
industry
that
is
encountered
when
using
various
generative
AI
tools
to
educate
oneself
on
what
litigation
finance
is
all
about.
That’s
right,
we
have
to
help
balance
out
the
AI
by
training
it.
Welcome
to
2025. 

Lastly,
for
our
third
takeaway,
we
can
take
a
quick
peek
into
the
future
of
litigation
finance
as
it
relates
to
IP
litigation.
For
one,
there
was
a
clear
expectation
by
those
in
the
know
that
further
legislative
action
around
litigation
finance,
at
both
the
state
and
federal
levels,
was
not
only
possible
but
likely.
Accordingly,
those
with
time-sensitive
patent
monetization
or
IP
claims
are
best
advised
to
push
their
projects
along
as
quickly
as
they
can,
at
least
to
the
extent
that
they
want
to
play
the
funding
game
according
to
the
current
rules.
Along
the
same
lines,
it
remains
as
critical
as
ever
to
stay
abreast
of
different
disclosure
rules
and
decisions
on
litigation
funding
disclosure
issues
adopted
by
trial
courts
as
they
relate
to
litigation
finance,
because
they
not
only
change
—
they
also
change
defendant
behavior
in
cases. 

Ultimately,
while
the
future
of
litigation
finance
as
a
key
component
of
the
IP
litigation
ecosystem
seems
secure,
the
worthy
discussion
of
policy
at
the
LF
Dealmakers
Forum
reminds
us
of
the
critical
need
to
stay
vigilant,
knowledgeable
about
the
rules
of
the
game,
and
flexible
enough
to
adapt
to
policy
decisions
that
are
being
contemplated
or
implemented.
To
that
end,
the
team
at
LF
Dealmakers,
in
conjunction
with

Invenio,
have
released

“The
Litigation
Finance
Advocacy
Toolkit,”
“a
first-of-its-kind
resource
offering
practical
guidance
for
litigation
finance
professionals
seeking
to
influence
policy
and
public
perception.”
It
is
well
worth
the
read
and
hopefully
will
act
as
a
spur
for
further
action
by
those
interested
in
litigation
finance’s
mission
of
increasing
access
to
justice
for
meritorious
claims.
And
for
those
eager
to
deepen
their
involvement
and
sharpen
their
insights
with
even
more
of
an
IP
focus,
a
trip
to
Austin
in
early
November
for
the
upcoming

IP
Dealmakers
Forum
is
suggested
as
well.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome. 

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Donald
Trump’s
not
content
just
being
president.
He
wants
to
be
a
prosecutor
in
every
district
where
he
has
an
enemy,
so
that
he
can
make
the
decisions.

—
Former
New
Jersey
Governor

Chris
Christie,
in
comments
made
during
an
appearance
on

ABC’s
“This
Week,”
where
he
discussed
the
fallout
from
President
Donald
Trump’s
demands
that
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
prosecute
his
perceived
enemies,
including
former
FBI
Director
James
Coney,
Senator
Adam
Schiff,
and
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James.
“People
believe
those
decisions
are
now
being
made
for
personal
reasons,
not
legal
ones.
And
that
creates
a
slippery
slope
in
our
justice
system,”
Christie
said.
“Now,
we
will
have
a
very
difficult
time
coming
back
from
[it].”

---

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.

If
your
firm
is
not
collecting
earned
revenue,
growth
will
slow,
cash
flow
will
tighten,
and
profitability
will
suffer. 

Fortunately,
revenue
and
profit
leakage
can
be
minimized
with
awareness,
the
right
tools,
and
disciplined
financial
oversight.

Join
our
expert
panel
on Sept.
25
at
2
p.m.
ET
to
explore
common
sources
of
profit
leakage
and
practical,
actionable
tactics
for
improvement. 

The
discussion
will
include: 

• Concrete
  examples
  of
  how
  profit
  leakage
  can
  occur
• Red
  flags
  that
  indicate
  profit
  leakage
  at
  your
  firm
• Quick
  wins
  you
  can
  implement
  right
  away
• Long-term
  strategies
  to
  sustain
  improvements

Speakers:
Kelley
Brubaker,
CPA
Kelley
is
the
owner
of
Profit
Scale
Thrive—an
Akron,
Ohio-based
accounting
and
advisory
firm,
she
partners
with
law
firm
owners
so
they
achieve
overflowing
profits,
scaled
growth,
and
thriving
lives.

As
a
Fractional
CFO,
Kelley
helps
clients
understand
their
numbers,
focus
on
the
metrics
that
matter,
spot
areas
for
improvement,
celebrate
successes,
and
create
effective
strategies
to
increase
profitability
and
reach
the
firm’s
goals.

Brittany
Hoffmann,

8am
Brittany
is
the
Webinar
Program
Specialist
at
8am,
where
she
has
led
the
company’s
webinar
initiatives
for
nearly
two
years.
With
a
background
in
supporting
legal
professionals,
Brittany
is
passionate
about
creating
engaging,
impactful
programs
that
help
law
firms
and
legal
experts
thrive.

Register
Today!

If
you’ve
ever
wondered
why
Biglaw
associates
lament
their
lack
of
work-life
balance,
it
could
be
because
they’re
regularly
working
“grueling”
shifts
at
their
firms.
What
kind
of
hours
are
we
talking
here?
According
to
a
new
study
conducted
by

Legal
Cheek,
on
average,
these
lawyers
are
working
more
than
11
hours
per
day.
But
which
firms
are
working
their
lawyers
the
hardest?

To
find
the
answer,
Legal
Cheek
surveyed
more
than
2,000
trainees
and
junior
lawyers
across
the
UK’s
top
100+
firms.
Here’s
what
they
found:

US
powerhouses
still
dominate
the
table
for
the
longest
average
working
days.
At
the
very
top,
junior
lawyers
report
clocking
around
13
hours
a
day
—
often
leaving
the
office
after
10:00
pm.
These
late
nights
don’t
go
unrewarded:
newly
qualified
salaries
at
these
top
firms
have
surged
to
a
record-breaking
£180,000
[~$243,000]
over
the
past
year
or
so.

Hot
on
the
heels
of
the
City’s
US
players,
the
Magic
Circle
sees
average
desk
time
hover
between
10
and
11
hours
a
day,
with
NQ
salaries
coming
in
just
below
their
US
counterparts
at
a
still
impressive
£150,000
[$~202,000].

Much
like
what
happens
here
in
the
US,
Biglaw
associates
are
really
working
themselves
to
the
bone
across
the
pond.
“We
are
constantly
on
call
and
we
cannot
leave
our
phones
at
home
for
more
than
20
minutes,”
said
one
associate.
“I
have
had
partners
calling
me
when
I
am
in
bed
for
redlines
and
have
been
bombarded
with
emails
even
when
ill.”

So,
with
that
not-so
rosy
picture
having
been
painted,
which
white-shoe
firms
have
associates
working
the
longest
days,
on
average?
Here
are
the
top
10,
where
some
associates
are
regularly
leaving
the
office
after
9
or
10
p.m.:

1. Milbank:
   13
   hours
   3
   minutes
2. Kirkland
   &
   Ellis:
   12
   hours
   17
   minutes
3. Winston
   &
   Strawn:
   12
   hours
   13
   minutes
4. Weil
   Gotshal:
   12
   hours
   1
   minute
5. Paul
   Weiss:
   12
   hours
   0
   minutes
6. Linklaters:
   11
   hours
   57
   minutes
7. Fried
   Frank:
   11
   hours
   51
   minutes
8. Clifford
   Chance
   /
   Jones
   Day:
   11
   hours
   49
   minutes
9. Gibson
   Dunn:
   11
   hours
   48
   minutes
10. Paul
    Hastings:
    11
    hours
    47
    minutes

Click

here
to
see
the
full
list.

While
some
firms
have
more
manageable
hours,
with
lawyers
signing
off
from
work
around
5
or
6
p.m.,
the
overall
drain
on
attorneys’
lives
outside
the
office
is
still
incredible.
Thankfully,
Biglaw
firms
are
taking
mental
health
concerns
more
seriously
than
they
have
in
the
past,
so
we
hope
that
with
these
long
hours,
they’re
doing
all
they
can
to
prevent
associate
burnout.

Exclusive
research
spotlights
working
hours
of
junior
lawyers
across
UK’s
100+
top
law
firms
[Legal
Cheek]

---

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.