Author: TSA Press

Tune
in
to
the
latest
Jabot
episode
as
I
chat
with

Margot
Hoppin,
co-founder
of
Hoppin
Grinsell.
Discover
the
challenges
and
victories
of
starting
a
law
firm
post-COVID,
the
impact
of
AI
in
law,
and
the
real
deal
on
work-life
balance.

Highlights

• Transition
  from
  Biglaw
  to
  founding
  a
  boutique
  firm.
• Trend
  of
  starting
  new
  firms
  post-COVID.
• Time-tracking
  challenges
  of
  running
  a
  law
  firm.
• Growth
  milestone:
  hiring
  and
  team
  development.
• Balancing
  work
  demands
  with
  personal
  time-off
  goals.
• Importance
  of
  cash
  flow
  management
  in
  a
  small
  firm.
• Key
  learnings:
  experience
  in
  running
  a
  law
  firm.
• Impact
  of
  AI
  on
  traditional
  law
  firm
  structures.
• Maintaining
  firm
  culture
  during
  growth.
• Benefits
  of
  transparency
  in
  a
  smaller
  law
  firm.
• Valuing
  open
  communication
  and
  addressing
  knowledge
  gaps.

---

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].

Winston
Churchill
once
said
about
Russia:
It
is
a
riddle
wrapped
in
a
mystery
inside
an
enigma.
 I’m
starting
to
feel
the
same
way
about
training
young
lawyers
in
the
age
of
AI.
How
do
we,
as
a
profession,
train
law
students
and
young
lawyers
with
critical
skill
sets
and
thinking
ability
when
so
much
can
now
be
done
with
AI?
It’s
a
continuing
and
critical
question
and
our
thinking
needs
to
continually
evolve.

I
have

written
recently
about
some
conclusions
of
economist
Tyler
Cowen
about
AI
and
the
need
for
law
schools
to
play
a
greater
role
in
developing
GenAI
skills.
Cowen’s
conclusions
and
to
some
extent
mine
were
that
educational
institutions
like
law
schools
need
to
double
down
on
teaching
students
how
to
effectively
use
AI.
I
had
some
thoughts
on
the
Socratic
method
and
the
use
of
adjunct
practicing
lawyer
professors.
This
came
on
the
heels
of

another
article
I
did
bemoaning
the
apparent
lack
of
critical
thinking
skills
as
noted
by
several
law
librarians.

A
Nuanced
View

Now
perhaps
another
nuanced
view
from
an
actual
academician,
Clay
Shirky,
the
vice
provost
at
New
York
University.
Shirky
recently
wrote
a
guest
essay
for
the
New
York
Times
entitled,

Students
Hate
Them,
Universities
Need
Them.
The
Only
Real
Solution
to
the
AI
Cheating
Crisis.
Shirky
makes
the
point,
“Learning
is
a
change
in
long
term
memory:
that’s
the
biological
correlate
of
what
we
do
in
the
classroom.”
Similar
to
my
discussion
of
the
need
for
repetitive
type
work
to
allow
young
lawyers
to
begin
to
see
patterns
as
they
develop,
Shirky
says
educational
institutions
need
to
move
away
from
take-home
assignments
and
essays
and
more
toward
“in
class
blue
book
essays,
oral
examinations,
required
office
hours
and
other
assessments
that
call
on
students
to
demonstrate
knowledge
in
real
time.”

Shirky
debunks
the
notion
that
educational
institutions
can
simply
talk
to
students
about
how
AI
can
disrupt
their
learning
and
that
they
should
use
it
as
a
partner
to
help
them
learn.
The
truth,
says
Shirky
is
that
despite
all
the
talk
about
using
AI
to
facilitate
learning,
students
even
the
good
ones
were
mostly
taking
the
easy
way
out.
In
his
article,
he
says:

We
cannot
simply
redesign
our
assignments
to
prevent
lazy
A.I.
use.
(We’ve
tried.)
If
you
ask
students
to
use
A.I.
but
critique
what
it
spits
out,
they
can
generate
the
critique
with
A.I.
If
you
give
them
A.I.
tutors
trained
only
to
guide
them,
they
can
still
use
tools
that
just
supply
the
answers.
And
detectors
are
too
prone
to
false
accusations
of
cheating
and too
poor
at
catching
lightly
edited
output
for
professors
to
rely
on
them.

So
Shirky
thinks
institutions
need
to
go
back
to
in
class
work
and
oral
discussion
designed
to
show
that
students
have
learned
something.
And
to
move
away
from
exclusive
reliance
on
writing,
at
least
outside
a
controlled
classroom.
He
goes
on
to
say
that
not
many
professors
like
this.
And
not
many
students
do
either.

What’s
This
Mean
for
Law
Schools?

If
he
is
right,
this
of
course
has
implications
for
law
schools.
But
law
professors
should
have
one
advantage.
U.S.
law
schools
were
built
on
the
Socratic
method:
oral
question
and
answer
sessions
with
students
in
a
classroom
designed
to
get
at
their
knowledge.
At
least
that’s
the
ideal.
The
method,
if
used
correctly,
would
be
ideal
for
the
kind
of
learning
Shirky
is
talking
about.
Combined
with
other
teaching
methods
like
small
group
discussion,
problem
solving
without
the
use
of
AI
and
active
listening,
could
enhance
the
skills
lawyers
will
actually
need
in
the
AI
world.

But
here’s
the
rub.
Over
time,
law
professors
have
been
relying
less
and
less
on
the
Socratic
method
and
moving
to
the
type
of
large
group
lectures
Shirky
is
bemoaning.
The
emphasis
is
more
on
writing
and
open
book
examinations
that
may
indeed
demonstrate
some
skill
in
using
AI
but
not
much
else.
To
paraphrase
Shirky,
a
student
who
cuts
and
pastes
a
legal
research
paper
is
enrolled
in
a
cutting
and
pasting
class,
not
a
law
school
class.
As
one

commentator
put
it
in
a
Nebraska
Law
Journal
article
some
time
ago,
“the
traditional
Socratic
method
is
today
more
myth
than
reality
because
legal
pedagogy
has
changed
dramatically,
and
the
Socratic
method
still
common
during
the
1950s
and
1960s
is
nearly
extinct.”

It’s
Just
Too
Damned
Hard

Shirky
talks
about
the
reluctance
of
professors
to
do
what
he
outlines.
Why?
I
think
because
it’s
just
too
damned
hard.
Giving
the
same
lecture
year
in
and
year
out
is
easy.
Coming
up
with
penetrating
questions
using
the
Socratic
method
and
then
analyzing
the
student’s
answer
for
learning
purposes
isn’t
so
easy.
It
requires
work,
patience,
and
expertise.
You
have
to
ask
questions
that
draw
out
what
a
student
knows
and
how
they
approach
a
problem.
You
have
to
be
able
to
ask
follow-up
questions.
All
without
embarrassing
or
harassing
students
unduly.

Certainly,
when
I
was
in
law
school,
there
were
some
professors
who
were
better
at
it
than
others.
And
indeed,
some
used
it
as
a
form
of
hazing:
if
I
had
to
go
through
it,
so
do
you.
But
let’s
face
it,
when
you
practice
law,
you
are
going
to
get
hard
questions
from
judges,
clients,
and
your
adversaries.

When
the
Real
Training
Begins

And
the
learning
doesn’t
stop
when
you
graduate
from
law
school;
in
fact,
some
would
say
that’s
when
the
real
training
begins.
I
have
said
for
some
time
that
law
firms
need
to
get
serious
about
training.
That’s
even
more
critical
and
challenging
now.
If
Shirky
is
right,
firms
need
to
work
harder
on
mentorship
programs.
They
need
to
train
the
trainer:
senior
lawyers
need
to
learn
how
to
mentor
and
train.
They
need
more
hands-on
training
that
can’t
be
done
exclusively
with
AI.

But
Can
We?

But
all
that
takes
time.
Time
that
can’t
be
billed.
It
takes
investment
in
the
future
for
business
models
that
often
look
only
at
the
end-of-the-year
numbers
and
distribute
to
the
partners
every
drip
and
drop
of
profit.

I’m
not
sure
we
are
ready
for
that.
But
the
consequences
if
we
don’t
may
mean
we
end
up
with
a
profession
that’s
no
longer
a
profession
and
replaced
by
something
else
entirely.
Where
legal
services
are
primarily
provided
not
by
skilled
practitioners
but
by
AI
bots
and
robot
lawyers.

---

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
Florida,
where
one
of
the
founding
partners
of
Am
Law
100
firm
Greenberg
Traurig
recently

passed
away. 

More
than
50
years
ago,

Larry
Hoffman,
95,
and
attorneys
Mel
Greenberg
and
Robert
Traurig
were
inspired
over
a
deli
lunch
to
create
a
new
firm,
and
in
1967,
the
trio
founded
Greenberg
Traurig
Hoffman.
After
serving
as
founding
chairman
and
CEO,
Hoffman
decided
to
remove
his
surname
from
the
firm’s
name.
Senior
chairman
Cesar
L.
Alvarez,
one
of
Hoffman’s
mentees,
notes
in
the

American
Lawyer
that
it
was
because
Hoffman
was
“[n]onegotistical
with
the
firm’s
best
interest
at
heart.”

Hoffman,
a
graduate
of
the
University
of
Miami
School
of
Law,
oversaw
the
firm’s
expansion
from
Florida
to
major
markets
across
the
East
Coast,
from
New
York
to
Washington,
D.C.
Under
his
leadership
and
as
the
“architect
of
the
blueprint
for
growth,”
Greenberg
Traurig
—
currently
ranked
at
No.
16
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
became
one
of
the
fastest-growing
Biglaw
firms.
Thanks
to
Hoffman’s
vision,
the
firm
has
expanded
globally,
with
more
than
2,850
lawyers
spread
across
49
offices
on
four
continents.

Here’s
what
Greenberg
Traurig
leaders

Brian
Duffy,
CEO,
and

Richard
A.
Rosenbaum,
executive
chairman,
had
to
say
of
Hoffman:

“Larry
was
an
incredible
businessman
and
an
even
better
partner
and
friend,”
said
Brian
Duffy,
CEO
of
Greenberg
Traurig.
“When
Larry
believed
in
you,
it
gave
you
the
confidence
to
believe
in
yourself.
He
did
so
many
things
the
right
way
and
always
for
the
right
reasons.
His
passing
is
a
reminder
to
the
entire
GT
Family
of
what
we
owe
to
the
man
and
his
legacy.”

“Without
Larry
Hoffman,
Greenberg
Traurig,
and
myself
personally,
would
not
have
experienced
the
extraordinary
growth
and
success
we
have
seen
over
many
years,”
said
Richard
A.
Rosenbaum,
executive
chairman
of
Greenberg
Traurig,
in
a
statement.
“He
was
my
second
father
and
without
his
vision,
sacrifice,
unselfishness,
wisdom
and
business
savvy,
his
deep,
though
quiet,
understanding
of
so
many
things
relevant
to
a
growing
professional
service
organization,
and
his
instincts
about
people,
we
would
simply
not
be
who
we
are
today.”

Hoffman
was
the
last
living
founder
of
the
firm,
having
been
predeceased
by
Traurig
in
2018
and
Greenberg
in
1994.

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

Greenberg
Traurig
Founder
Larry
Hoffman
Dies
at
95
[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.

In
his
Bloomberg
column
this
week,

David
Lat
explores
whether
making
or
refusing
to
make
deals
with
Trump
has
affected
attrition
at

14
law
firms
targeted
by
the
president. 

Armed
with
data
from
SurePoint
Legal
Insights
about
changes
in
headcount
over
the
last
six
months,
Lat
concludes
that
“the
Trump
deals
might
be
affecting,
but
not
fundamentally
altering,
law
firms’
overall
trajectories.” 

Whether
coincidence
or
cause
and
effect,
or
some
combination
thereof,
a
few
stats
are
worth
highlighting:

• On
  average,
  Am
  Law
  100
  firms
  saw
  attrition
  of
  -1.7%
• The
  five
  firms
  subjected
  to
  executive
  orders
  that
  did
  not
  capitulate
  averaged
  a
  2.8%
  decline
  in
  headcount
• The
  nine
  firms
  that
  made
  deals
  with
  Trump
  averaged
  a
  4.9%
  drop 
• Two
  firms
  that
  cut
  deals
  —
  A&O
  Shearman
  and
  Cadwalader
  —
  had
  the
  steepest
  declines
  (-10%
  and
  -11%,
  respectively)
• The
  only
  two
  firms
  whose
  headcount
  increased
  also
  settled
  (Milbank
  expanded
  by
  5%
  and
  Simpson
  Thacher
  by
  2%)
• Perkins
  Coie,
  which
  is
  fighting
  the
  EO,
  shrank
  by
  8%
  —
  the
  same
  attrition
  rate
  as
  Paul,
  Weiss
  and
  Skadden,
  the
  first
  two
  firms
  to
  cut
  deals
• Covington
  and
  Jenner
  &
  Block,
  neither
  of
  which
  settled,
  basically
  broke
  even 

Trump
Deals
Coincide
With
Attrition
at
Some—but
Not
All—Firms
[Bloomberg
Law]

Earlier:

New
Survey
Results
Are
In:
The
Legal
Profession
Is
Overwhelmingly
Opposed
To
The
Biglaw
Deals
With
Trump 

Nine
years
ago,
many
Biglaw
firms
with
offices
in
smaller
markets
took
the
bold
step
of
standardizing
associate
compensation.
Historically,
firms
paid
their
New
York,
D.C.,
and
California
associates
more
than
those
elsewhere
in
the
country,
both
as
a
premium
for
young
lawyers
living
in
more
expensive
markets
and
as
a
straightforward
acknowledgement
that
the
firm
made
more
money
off
their
Manhattan
practice
than
their
Atlanta
practice.
Firms
need
to
attract
the
best
talent
to
their
most
lucrative
offices
and
then
keep
them
there
despite
a
crushing
cost
of
living
imbalance.

But
a
lot
of
firms
decided
to
flatten
the
compensation
schedule.
Suddenly,
it
became
very
attractive
to
trade
San
Francisco
for
Dallas.
At
the
time,
I
declared
this
strategy…
stupid.
To
convey
my
conviction,
I
tried
to
come
up
with
a
post
that
could
compare
the
cost
of
living
in
these
markets
in
a
way
that
could
resonate.
Since
a
picture
is
worth
a
whole
bunch
of
words,

I
gathered
home
listings
off
Zillow
in
various
markets
that
a
first-year,
NY-market
salary
associate
could
credibly
afford
under
the
“2.5x
annual
income”
rule.
Associates
in
NY
and
DC
loved
it.
Associates
in
Charlotte
hated
it.

Last
week,
we
published
a
piece
on

The
Cities
Where
Law
Firm
Associates
Can
Get
The
Biggest
Bang
For
Their
Buck.
Unlike
the
2016
project,
this
ranking
didn’t
assume
a
standard
Biglaw
salary,
the

National
Jurist
ranking
took
the
mean
reported
young
lawyer
salary
per
location
and
adjusted
it
with
a
cost-of-living
index.
This
created
some
weird
results,
like
D.C.
cracking
the
top
10
list
for
affordability
because
such
a
large
percentage
of
their
young
lawyers
are
making
serious
bank.
For
that
matter,
New
York
came
in
the
top
20.
The
results
were
informative,
but
lacked
that
special
flare
that
only
a
bunch
of
Zillow
images
can
drive…
home.

So
here
are
the
top
10
cities
from
the
National
Jurist
ranking,
depicted
as
current
listings
that
the
average
associate
could
secure
based
on
2.5x
the
mean
salary
there.

All
photos
are,
obviously,
from
Zillow
and
used
for
commentary
purposes.

Houston,
TX
—
Avg.
$176,610,

Target
$435K-$455K

This
one
will
generate
a
ton
of
complaints
because
Houston
is
less
a
city
than
a
vast,
sprawling
expanse.
Whatever
we
pick
will
either
be
“too
close”
or
“too
far”
from
where
lawyers
actually
work.
I’m
going
to
default
to
closer
to
the
center
of
the
city.
If
you
want
to
live
in
Katy,
go
ahead.
But
we’re
going
to
settle
on
the
Museum
District.

This
one
is
a
townhome
with
an
open-concept
loft-style
look.

3
bed,
3
bath,
2340
sq
ft.
Hardwood
floors
throughout.
Exposed
trusses,
gaslog
fireplace,
granite
kitchen,
and
a
roof
deck.
That
chimney
looks
like
it
could
get
annoying
though.
Slightly
over
the
middle
of
our
2.5
range
at
$449K.

Austin,
TX
—
Avg.
$163,598,

Target
$395K-$415K

Centrist
Democrats
can’t
say
enough
about
Austin
these
days,
praising
its
affordability
and
proclaiming
its
weak
regulation
environment
as
key
to
the
“Abundance”
agenda.
Maybe
the
lawyers
are
just
missing
that
price
point
in
the
housing
market,
because
the
offerings
in
the
ideal
range
aren’t
all
that
inspiring.
Solid
options,
to
be
sure,
but
nothing
that
would
make
someone
give
up
their
access
to
the
NYC
restaurant
scene.
Here’s
a

2
bed,
2
bath,
963
sq.
ft.
in
Tarrytown.

“Surrounded
by
tree-lined
streets,
charming
cafes,
neighborhood
parks,
and
Lake
Austin
just
minutes
away,
you’ll
love
the
established
character
and
convenience
this
community
provides,”
reads
the
description.
It’s
also
pushing
the
range
at
$415K…
and
that’s
before
the
HOA
fees.

Dallas,
TX
—
Avg.
$171,367,

Target
$415K-$435K

I
went
with
Oak
Lawn
for
this
one
because
it’s
described
as
a
nice
neighborhood
for
professionals.
This
came
in
on
the
lower
side
at
$420K,
but
it’s
a
condo
so
there
are
fees
to
consider
which
probably
brings
it
back
to
the
top
of
the
budget.

2
bed,
2
bath,
1154
sq.
ft.

“This
well-maintained
home
offers
an
open
floor
plan
with
floor-to-ceiling
windows
that
lead
to
a
spacious
balcony
with
wonderful
views
of
the
city.”
There
are
two
pools,
so
there’s
that.

Washington,
D.C.
—
Avg.
$204,101,

Target
$495K-$515K

Sure.
Whatever.
Let’s
call
D.C.
a
“bang
for
your
buck”
market.
The
Pennsylvania
is
a
mere
1000
away
from
the
White
House,
at
601
Pennsylvania
Ave.

1
bed,
1
bath,
801
sq.
ft.
with
“a
rooftop
terrace
with
sweeping
views
of
the
Capitol
and
Washington
Monument.”

It’s
only
$495K,
but
there
are
over
$700
in
condo
fees
to
consider.
But
you’ll
have
the
National
Guard
to
protect
you
from
all
the…

stray
litter
they’re
picking
up
along
the
way.
That’s
the
sort
of
intangible
amenity
that
you
really
can’t
price
in.

Chicago,
IL
—
Avg.
$177,961,

Target
$430K-$450K

Right
off
the
Magnificent
Mile,
this

2
bed,
2
bath,
1,350
sq.
ft.
is
$439K
and
convenient
to
the
heart
of
Chicago.
Maybe
you’ll
have
the
National
Guard
soon
too!
Which
would
be
the
only
thing
that
could
be
worse
for
you
than
the
condo
fees
which
top
$1000.
This
almost
certainly
renders
this
unit
outside
the
price
target,
but
it
was
slim
pickings
for
downtown
listings.

“Dark-stained
hardwood
floors
run
throughout
the
main
living
space,
which
comfortably
accommodates
both
living
and
dining
areas
and
flows
seamlessly
into
the
kitchen
–
ideal
for
everyday
living
or
entertaining.”

Los
Angeles,
CA
—
Avg.
$184,143,

Target
$445K-$465K

There’s
that
“bang
for
your
buck.”

1
bed,
1
bath,
754
sq.
ft.

and
over
$900
in
monthly
fees?
Sign
us
up!
You
know
you’re
in
trouble
when
the
listing
shows
more
shots
of
the
building
and
its
amenities
than
the
unit
itself.
Enjoy
the
modern
kitchen!

And
having
two
of
the
lights
burned
out
on
the
Dutch
angle
bathroom
shot
is
a
nice
touch.
This
is
an
excellent
example
of
the
problem
with
this
list.
While
a
perfectly
serviceable
condo,
this
just
isn’t
even
in
the
same
universe
of
lifestyle
for
the
money
as,
say,
Minneapolis
—
which
is
next
on
the
list.
And
yet
it
features
higher
for
some
reason.

Minneapolis,
MN
—
Avg.
$155,894,

Target
$380K-$400K

I
don’t
know
much
about
the
area,
but
the
Warehouse
District
looks
pretty
close
to
downtown
and
can
see
the
river…
that’s
got
to
be
good,
right?
But
also
who
cares
about
the
location
when
the
place
looks
this
nice.
That’s
a
perfect
party
room,
right
there.
The
kitchen
is
up-to-date
and
the
fireplace
looks
classy
in
freeze-your-genitals-off
Minnesota.

The
bedrooms
are
plain,
but
decently
sized.
It’s
a

2
bed,
2
bath,
1268
sq.
ft.
It’s
$395K
with
over
$800
in
fees.
Honestly,
this
looks
pretty
nice
for
the
average
of
average
lawyers.

Charlotte,
NC
—
Avg.
$390K-$410K

A
nice,
compact
kitchen.
This
one
is
a
little
further
from
downtown
but
it’s
not
so
bad.
Back
in
2016,
dealing
with
full
Biglaw
salaries,
I
picked
a
house
much
further
out
than
most
associates
would
ever
live,
but
it
was
also
basically
a
mansion.
This
is
much
more
modest
and
only
a
little
outside
downtown.

Lofted
bedrooms
are
cool
right
up
until
they
aren’t.
But
if
you’re
living
by
yourself,
this
is
a
fine
option.

1
bed,
1
bath,
846
sq.
ft..
We’re
at
$399,500.

Boston,
MA
—
Avg.
$189,154,
Target
$465K-$485K

“This
meticulously
designed
400
sq.
ft.
home…”
I
have
a
question
about
this
“meticulous”
design:
who
put
that
microwave
there?
Am
I
misunderstanding
the
scale
and
this
is
all
built
to
Hobbit
specifications?
Because
otherwise
that
seems
like
a
third-degree
burn
waiting
to
happen.

This
is
another
loft
bed
number
and
it’s
in
Back
Bay.

1
bed,
1
bath,
400
sq.
ft.
for
$485K.
Nothing
like
a
$1,213/sqft
price
tag
to
make
you
feel
like
you’re
stretching
your
dollar!

Salt
Lake
City,
UT
—
Avg.
$139,479,
Target
$340K-$360K

Finally
a

1
bed,
1
bath,
1123
sq.
ft.
for
$350K.
Right
in
our
sweet
spot.
Around
$700
in
maintenance,
but
still.
Lovely,
open
concept.
Close
to
downtown
without
being
in
the
center
of
it.
“The
spacious
primary
suite
includes
a
walk-in
closet
and
private
full
bath,
while
the
second
bedroom
is
ideal
for
guests
with
access
to
full
bathroom.”

A
nice
view
that
probably
would
include
mountains
on
a
less
cloudy
day.

We
ended
up
with
a
whole
run
of
condos,
which
wasn’t
the
plan,
but
I
didn’t
want
to
have
to
defend
my
commuting
decisions
on
behalf
of
hypothetical
lawyers.
So
I
placed
everyone
fairly
close
to
downtown
and
that
just
turned
out
to
be
a
lot
of
condos.
Perhaps
this
experiment
would’ve
been
better
served
by
assuming
a
renter?
After
all,
most
lawyers
just
starting
out
aren’t
buying.
But
the
options
aren’t
remarkably
better
and
to
the
extent
they
are,
it’s
just
trading
equity
for
fractional
improvements.

Anyway,
that’s
what
cost
of
living
looks
like.

Earlier:

The
Cities
Where
Law
Firm
Associates
Can
Get
The
Biggest
Bang
For
Their
Buck

Here’s
Why
You
Don’t
Deserve
The
Same
Raise…
In
Pictures

---

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.

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.

“U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett
at
the
Nixon
Library”: The
Richard
Nixon
Foundation
has
posted this
video on
YouTube.

“Critics
fault
Supreme
Court
for
allowing
immigration
stops
that
consider
race
and
ethnicity”: David
G.
Savage,
Michael
Wilner,
and
Andrea
Castillo
of
The
Los
Angeles
Times
have this
report.

“Florida
parents
take
gender
pronoun
dispute
at
school
to
U.S.
Supreme
Court;
January
and
Jeffrey
Littlejohn
say
Leon
Schools
created
a
secret
‘gender-support
plan’
for
their
child”: Stephany
Matat
has this
article online
at
The
Tallahassee
Democrat.

“‘It’s
going
to
get
ugly’:
L.A.
immigrants
fear
the
worst
as
Supreme
Court
allows
raids
to
resume.” Brittny
Mejia,
Rachel
Uranga,
and
Ruben
Vives
of
The
Los
Angeles
Times
have this
report.

“Trump
administration’s
$4.7M
contract
for
El
Salvador
prison
revealed;
The
$4.67
million
agreement
appeared
in
a
federal
court
disclosure
as
part
of
a
civil
suit
from
a
group
of
human
rights
organizations
suing
the
Trump
administration”: Nick
Penzenstadler
and
Eduardo
Cuevas
of
USA
Today
have this
report.

“New
York
AG
will
fight
Texas
over
abortion
pills
in
‘shield’
law
challenge;
Democrat
Letitia
James
is
squaring
off
against
her
Texas
counterpart,
Republican
Ken
Paxton,
in
a
closely
watched
legal
battle”: Praveena
Somasundaram
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.

I
know
it’s
never
great
to
blame
the
victim,
but
this
all
could
have
been
avoided
if
ICE
officers
hadn’t
decided
they
all
needed
to
act
like paramilitary
death
squad
members while
raiding
Home
Deport
parking
lots.
If
you’re
in
the
sort
of
business
you
feel
you
can’t
do
safely
with
your
entire
face
exposed,
you’re
in
the
wrong
business.

That
this
development
was
inevitable doesn’t
make
it
any
more
welcome:

An
activist
has
started
using
artificial
intelligence
to
identify
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
agents
beneath
their
masks
—
a
use
of
the
technology
sparking
new
political
concerns
over
AI-powered
surveillance.

Dominick
Skinner,
a
Netherlands-based
immigration
activist,
estimates
he
and
a
group
of
volunteers
have
publicly
identified
at
least
20
ICE
officials
recorded
wearing
masks
during
arrests.
He
told
POLITICO
his
experts
are
“able
to
reveal
a
face
using
AI,
if
they
have
35
percent
or
more
of
the
face
visible.”

I’m
not
sure
what
software
Skinner
is
running
on
this
particular
box,
but
asserting
a
whole
face
can
be
accurately
determined
from
only
35%
of
a
face
is
a
non-starter.
I
certainly
wouldn’t
trust cops with
this
tech
add-on
to
existing
facial
recognition
software.
It’s
no
more
trustworthy
(perhaps
even
less!)
when
it’s
being
deployed
by
citizens.

While
I’d
like
to
believe
regular
people
would
be
more
careful
and
conscientious
of
this
tech’s
limitations
when
using
it,
there’s
no
reason
to
believe
they
won’t
be
just
as
bad
as
cops,
who
continue
to
ignore
false
positives
(and
false
arrests)
because
the
tech
makes
it
easier
to arrest people,
even
if
it’s
not
all
that
great
at
actually identifying people.

Of
course,
all
of
the
administration’s
frontmouths
claim
ICE
agents
need
masks
for
safety
reasons,
something
that’s
being
echoed
all
too
often
by
people
who
should
know
better
(or
at
least
have staffers that
know
better).

ICE
agents
“don’t
deserve
to
be
hunted
online
by
activists
using
AI,”
said
Sen. James
Lankford (R-Okla.),
who
chairs
the
Senate
Homeland
Security
subcommittee
on
border
management
and
the
federal
workforce.

That’s
not
a
statement
anyone
can
honestly
make.
There
are
many
things
ICE
is
deserving
of,
and
while
being
subjected
to
digital
vigilantism
is
far
from
ideal,
they
certainly
don’t
need more legislated
protections —
not
when
they’re
backed
by
billions
of
new
tax
dollars
and
the
president’s
hatred
for
all
things
migrant.
But
that
is
what’s
happening
now,
in
response
to
activists’
efforts
like
these.

On
the
other
hand,
some
lawmakers
are
seeking
to
prevent
ICE
officers
from
wearing
masks,
although
it’s
unlikely
any
bill
introduced
with
this
end
goal
will
ever
go
to
committee,
much
less
secure
the
number
of
votes
needed
to
see
it
vetoed
the
minute
it
hits
Trump’s
desk.

But
it
does
raise
a
lot
of
questions
that
demand
answers,
no
matter
how
uncomfortable
those
answers
might
be.
One
of
the
questions
it
raises
is
why
do
we
let
cops
do
this
sort
of
thing
if
it’s
so
obviously
a
problem
if
a
regular
person
utilizes
the
same
tech
for
the
same
reason
(identification)?
Are
legislators
really
going
to
keep
insisting
federal
officers
are
being
victimized
when
this
is
the
sort
thing
cop
shops
do
far
too
regularly?

While
the
technology
is
recent,
the
method
is
not
—
and
in
fact
a
version
of
it
has
been
used
by
American
police
departments
on
civilians.
A
2019
study from
the
Georgetown
Law
Center
on
Privacy
and
Technology found
police
departments
digitally
altering
pictures
and
using
artist
sketches
as
the
basis
for
finding
suspects
through
facial
recognition.

The
biggest
question
is
whether
federal
officers
should
be
allowed
to
be
masked
when
engaging
in
their
duties
in
full
view
of
the
public.
The
answer
should,
unequivocally,
be
“No.”
Not
“No,
unless…”
or
“No,
but…”
It’s
a
flat
“No”
from
me.
To
answer
this
question
any
other
way
simply
creates
loopholes
and
excuses
for
officers,
which
will
inevitably
return
to
the
ICE
status
quo
of
“everyone
wears
a
mask
all
the
time.”

Sure,
if
there
are
officers
working
in
an
undercover
position,
they’re
free
to
conceal
their
identities.
But
of
course
they
won’t
mask
up,
because
that
might
put
their
targets
on
edge.
So,
it’s
obviously
not
a
“protection”
thing
when
ICE
does
it. It’s
an intimidation thing that
goes
hand
in
hand
with
its abject
cowardice thing.
They don’t want
to
be
identified
because
they don’t want
to
be
held
accountable
for
their
actions
—
whether
it’s
being
named
in
a
lawsuit
or
simply
being
taunted
by
name
by
passersby
during
raids
of
Home
Depot
parking
lots.

Is
this
a
good
way
to
fight
back
against
ICE’s
(don’t
call
it
a)
mask
mandate?
That’s
a
flat
“No”
from
me.
Using
faulty
tech
to
generate
questionable
IDs
compounds
existing
issues
and
makes
it
far
more
likely
to
get
innocent
people
hurt
and
generate
legislation
that
will
ensure
that only the
government
gets
to
use
this
tech
irresponsibly.

While
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
people
feel
helpless
when
faced
with
this
day-to-day
onslaught
of
ICE
aggression,
you
can’t
level
the
playing
field
by
creating
a
different
slope
on
your
side
of
it.
And
as
much
as
I
want
ICE
officers
to
be
forced
to
act
like
public
servants
while
they’re
performing
their
public
duties,
I
also
realize
that’s
simply
not
going
to
happen
because
that
would
mean
ICE
officers
won’t
be
able
to
violate
rights
as
regularly
as
they
need
to
in
order
to
keep
pace
with
the
administration’s
bigoted
bloodlust.

For
now,
the
best
moves
are
to
express
your
support
for
legislators
seeking
to
pass
laws
forbidding
mask
use
by
federal
officers
and
doing
what
you
can
to
help
those
affected
by
mass
deportation
efforts,
whether
that’s
finding
them
legal
assistance
or
simply
shaming
ICE
officers
out
of
neighborhoods
and
parking
lots
by
turning
your
cameras
on
them
and
advancing
on
their
position
until
they
feel
forced
to
retreat.
There’s
no
big
victory
on
the
horizon.
But
every
battle
counts.
Trying
to
bypass
this
grind
with
unproven
tech
add-ons
isn’t
going
to
speed
up
the
process.
It’s
just
going
to
do
more
harm
than
good
in
a
world
that
already
has
an
excess
of
harm
to
deal
with.

Activists
Are
Using
AI
To
‘Identify’
ICE
Officers
And
That’s
Definitely
Not
Good
News

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

How
Palantir
Is
Mapping
Everyone’s
Data
For
The
Government

Katy/Katie
Perry
Appeal
Of
Aussie
Trademark
Ruling
Gets
Really,
Really
Silly

7th
Circuit:
No
Established
Right
To
Be
Housed
In
A
Cell
Free
Of
Scattered
Feces
And
Contaminated
Water

*
“Firms
that
aren’t
willing
or
able
to
compete
with
the
highest-paying
players
are
instead
competing
on
flexibility.”
Which
is,
frankly,
the
right
business
strategy.
[Law.com]

*
A
lawyer
for
the
Korean
workers
rounded
up
by
ICE
—
throwing

the
whole
U.S.-South
Korean
economic
alliance
in
turmoil
—
says
they
all
had
legal
visas
at
the
time.
Because
of
course
that’s
how
this
turns
out.
[AP]

*
Nadine
Menendez
gets
4.5
years
in
political
bribery
case.
The
Supreme
Court
has
spent
years
trying
to
say

bribery
isn’t
a
thing,
so
let’s
see
there’s
hope
for
her
yet!
[Law360]

*
Steve
Vladeck
breaks
down
the
Kavanaugh
concurrence
in
the
ICE
decision
and
it’s…
curious.
[One
First]

*
Looks
like
the
Feds
are
still
trying
to
go
after
former
Biglaw
associate
Paul
Bryant
even
after
the
grand
jury
passed
on
an
indictment.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Trump
attempt
to
block
migrant
children
from
Head
Start
programs
they
qualify
for
slapped
down
by
federal
judge.
[Reuters]

*
“Lower-court
judges
are
defying
precedent
and
even
openly
criticizing
Supreme
Court
justices”
Except,
you
know,
shadow
docket
opinions
are
NOT
precedent
and
the
open
criticism
is
“please
take
the
time
to
write
opinions
to
keep
right-wing
cranks
from
phoning
in
violent
threats
to
our
homes.”
Other
than
that,
the
Wall
Street
Journal
op-ed
page
is
making
great
choices.
[WSJ]