LexisNexis: Every Lawyer Will Have A Personalized AI Assistant

Even
though
ILTACON
ended
more
than
a
week
ago
now,
I
am
still
digging
out
from
the
deluge
of
briefings
and
meetings
I
attended
there.
One
of
particular
note
was
a
media
briefing
with
LexisNexis
executives
in
which
they
provided
further
information
on
the
company’s
AI
strategy.

Just
ahead
of
ILTACON,
LexisNexis
had
announced
the
launch
of
Protégé
General
AI,
as
I

reported
at
the
time
.
This
launch
expanded
its
Protégé
artificial
intelligence
platform
to
include
secure
access
to
multiple
general-purpose
AI
models
alongside
its
existing
legal-specific
AI
tools.

At
the
ILTACON
media
briefing,
LexisNexis
executives
detailed
new
features
of
its
Protégé
AI
platform,
provided
more
details
on
the
rollout
of
the
new
General
AI
tool,
and
discussed
the
company’s
broader
vision
of
delivering
what
it
calls
“courtroom-grade
AI”
to
the
legal
profession.


Sean
Fitzpatrick
,
CEO
of
LexisNexis
North
America,
UK
and
Ireland,
opened
the
session
by
describing
the
moment
as
unprecedented
in
terms
of
both
technological
change
and
financial
investment.



Related:

On
LawNext:
How
LexisNexis
and
Harvey
Are
Partnering
to
Reshape
Legal
AI,
with
LexisNexis
CEO
Sean
Fitzpatrick
.

“The
amount
of
investment
that’s
going
into
these
foundational
models
is
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars,
and
we’ve
never
seen
anything
like
this,”
Fitzpatrick
said.
“This
is
the
biggest
technology
spending
cycle
in
the
history
of
business.”

With
costs
for
large
language
models
dropping
by
more
than
99%
since
2022,
he
added,
the
economics
now
make
it
possible
to
operate
these
systems
at
scale.

To
that
end,
Fitzpatrick
described
his
company’s
vision
of
making
AI
assistants
widely
available.

“Our
vision
is
that
every
lawyer
is
going
to
have
their
own
digital
AI
assistant,
and
it’s
going
to
be
personalized
to
them,”
he
said.
“It’s
going
to
understand
their
practice
area,
it’s
going
to
understand
their
jurisdiction,
it’s
going
to
understand
their
style,
their
preferences,
it’s
going
to
have
access
to
our
authoritative
legal
materials,
and
it’s
going
to
have
access
to
their
own
internal
work
product.”


Building
‘Courtroom-Grade
AI’

Fitzpatrick
said
that
while
consumer-grade
AI
tools
are
widely
used
among
legal
professionals,
they
lack
the
privacy,
citation
rigor,
and
reliability
necessary
for
legal
practice.

LexisNexis,
he
emphasized,
is
committed
to
creating
“courtroom-grade
AI,”
which
it
defines
by
six
principles:

  • Grounding
    in
    authoritative
    legal
    content.
    “LexisNexis
    has
    160
    billion
    documents
    and
    records
    in
    our
    system,”
    Fitzpatrick
    said,
    “and
    so
    that’s
    what
    we
    use
    as
    grounding
    data
    when
    we
    do
    our
    AI.”
  • Verifiable
    source
    citations.
    Shepard’s
    provides
    the
    ability
    to
    verify
    that
    citations
    are
    accurate
    and
    up
    to
    date,
    he
    said.
  • Continuous
    updates
    with
    no
    knowledge
    cutoffs.
    Fitzpatrick
    noted
    that
    GPT-4o
    had
    a
    knowledge
    cutoff
    of
    2023.
    “We
    add
    2.5
    million
    documents
    and
    records
    to
    the
    system
    every
    single
    day
    from
    50,000
    different
    sources.”
  • This
    has
    two
    aspects,
    Fitzpatrick
    said:
    One
    is
    transparency
    back
    to
    the
    authority,
    so
    you
    can
    verify
    for
    yourself.
    The
    second
    is
    knowing
    what’s
    going
    on
    inside
    the
    black
    box

    what
    is
    the
    reasoning
    and
    logic.
  • Bias
    mitigation.
    Gold-standard
    security
    and
    privacy.
  • Security
    and
    privacy.
    It
    has
    to
    be
    disconnected
    from
    the
    foundational
    models
    so
    the
    data
    is
    not
    being
    used
    for
    learning
    or
    training.

“This
is
about
building
AI
that
lawyers
can
trust
in
a
courtroom
setting,”
Fitzpatrick
said.


Protégé
at
the
Center

Central
to
that
effort
is
Protégé,
the
company’s
AI
assistant.
By
2028,
he
said,
Protégé
will
automate
15-20%
of
what
lawyers
do
today.

But
he
added
that
LexisNexis
is
not
waiting
until
2028
to
deliver
on
that
vision.
Protégé
already
automates
many
of
the
tasks
lawyers
routinely
perform,
and
it
will
continue
to
add
more
capabilities.

“Think
of
all
of
the
different
things
that
all
of
the
different
types
of
attorneys
do,
there
are
tens
of
thousands
of
tasks
that
need
to
be
automated,”
he
said.
“We’re
going
to
continue
to
automate
different
tasks
along
those
workflows,
so
Protégé
will
get
more
and
more
powerful
over
time.”

Protégé
is
expanding
on
several
fronts,
Fitzpatrick
said:


  • Geographically
    :
    It
    is
    already
    live
    in
    the
    U.S.,
    U.K.,
    Canada,
    Australia,
    Hong
    Kong
    and
    New
    Zealand,
    with
    additional
    rollouts
    coming
    to
    South
    Africa,
    France,
    and
    Austria.

  • Across
    products
    :
    It
    has
    been
    integrated
    into
    Lexis+,
    Lex
    Machina,
    Intelligize,
    and
    other
    tools.

  • Within
    the
    ecosystem
    :
    LexisNexis
    has
    added
    integrations
    with
    Microsoft
    Word,
    Outlook,
    Teams,
    and
    Copilot,
    as
    well
    as
    a

    new
    connection
    with
    Harvey

    that
    allows
    Harvey
    users
    to
    query
    Lexis
    AI
    directly.


Agentic
Workflows
Demonstrated

During
the
media
briefing,

Serena
Wellen
,
vice
president
of
product
management,
demonstrated
Protégé’s
agentic
workflows,
which
she
said
have
been
designed
to
increase
transparency
into
the
process
and
give
lawyers
more
control
over
research
and
drafting.

In
one
example,
Wellen
showed
how
Protégé
can
break
down
a
complex
query
involving
an
airline’s
duty
to
an
unaccompanied
minor
into
sub-prompts
that
the
user
can
review
and
edit
before
the
system
delivers
results.

“Lawyers
can
review
every
citation,
remove
irrelevant
ones,
and
ensure
the
final
response
reflects
their
judgment,”
Wellen
said.

She
also
gave
a
preview
of
a
judicial
workflow
currently
in
development,
which
allows
judges
to
upload
case
files
and
receive
draft
bench
memos
or
opinions.
Judges
who
have
tested
it,
she
said,
compared
the
drafts
to
the
work
of
“a
really
good
law
clerk”
and
praised
the
time
savings
of
reducing
weeks
of
work
to
minutes.

“Some
of
them
even
told
us
that
some
parts
of
the
drafts
were
more
thorough
than
what
they
usually
saw.”


Protégé
for
General
AI

As
noted
above,
a
major
recent
announcement
from
LexisNexis
was
Protégé
General
AI,
a
secure
workspace
that
lets
users
access
popular
consumer
AI
models
such
as
GPT-5,
Claude
Sonnet
4,
and
OpenAI’s
O3
reasoning
models
from
within
the
LexisNexis
environment.


David
Ganote
,
vice
president
of
product
planning,
said
the
move
responds
to
the
fact
that
two-thirds
of
lawyers
already
use
consumer
AI
tools
such
as
ChatGPT
or
Claude,
often
for
research,
brainstorming
or
drafting.

“But
they’re
putting
privileged
data
into
open
models
that
aren’t
designed
to
protect
it,”
Ganote
said.

Protégé
General
AI,
by
contrast,
offers
enterprise-grade
security
and
incorporates
LexisNexis’s
Shepard’s
citation
agent,
which
flags
unverified
or
hallucinated
citations.
It
also
allows
users
to
toggle
clearly
between
Legal
AI,
grounded
in
Lexis
content,
and
general
AI,
better
suited
for
exploratory
or
creative
tasks.

“There
are
lots
of
things
that
general
AI
does
really
well
that
don’t
require
legal
authorities,”
Ganote
said,
pointing
to
examples
such
as
explaining
concepts
to
a
jury
or
drafting
marketing
content.


Selective
Approach
to
Models


Jeff
Reihl
,
executive
vice
president
and
chief
technology
officer,
said
that
the
company’s
development
of
agents
is
not
just
a
PR
ploy.

“We
do
not
build
agents
just
so
that
you
guys
can
write
about
us
building
agents,”
he
said.
“Agents
are
extraordinarily
powerful
technology
and
we
will
use
those
to
serve
a
purpose
for
our
customers.”

Reihl
also
explained
the
strategy
behind
the
company’s
choice
of
AI
models,
saying
that
it
maintains
a
multimodal
strategy,
choosing
the
best
generative
AI
model
for
each
use
case
rather
than
chasing
the
newest
release.

Although
the
company
had
early
access
to
GPT-5,
he
said,
it
had
not
yet
been
deployed
in
Lexis
products
(at
least
as
of
the
press
briefing).

“As
of
right
now,
the
performance
is
not
better,
so
we
won’t
use
it,”
Reihl
said.
“We
don’t
put
a
new
model
into
our
product
just
because
it’s
the
latest
and
greatest.”

LexisNexis
has
direct
partnerships
with
Anthropic,
OpenAI,
AWS,
Microsoft,
and
Mistral,
giving
it
early
access
to
models
and
input
into
their
development
roadmaps.


Competitive
Landscape

As
the
briefing
concluded,
Fitzpatrick
was
asked
about
the
broader
competitive
landscape,
and
whether
Microsoft
or
Google
could
eventually
come
to
dominate
legal
AI.
He
argued
that
LexisNexis’
combination
of
authoritative
content,
secure
AI,
and
workflow
integration
gives
it
an
edge.

“It’s
a
lot
of
work
to
try
to
pull
together
the
collection
of
assets
that
we
have,”
he
said.
“You
could
give
somebody
a
billion
dollars
and
they
wouldn’t
be
able
to
do
it.”

He
also
gave
an
update
on
the
partnership
between
LexisNexis
and
Harvey,
which
in
part
involved
the
co-development
of
AI
workflows
for
lawyers.
I
asked
him
if
there
had
been
update
on
that
since
I
spoke
to
him
in
July
for
my
podcast.

“It’s
evolved
since
we
talked
about
it,”
he
replied.
“It’s
really
coming
together.”

He
said
customers
have
been
testing
it
and
they
are
building
on
the
feedback
from
those
customers.
“Really,
really
amazing
feedback
on
it,
so
we’re
very
excited.”

Fitzpatrick
closed
the
briefing
expressing
confidence
in
LexisNexis’s
continuing
leadership
in
developing
AI
for
lawyers.

“There’s
a
lot
of
room
for
people
to
innovate
around
these
things,
but
I
do
think
that
major
players
like
LexisNexis
that
have
the
content

do
have
an
advantage.

“From
a
technology
standpoint,
it’s
really
hard
to
maintain
a
competitive
advantage
if
it’s
just
technology.
And
so
that’s
why
we
try
to
take
our
content,
embed
it
in
our
technology
solutions,
and
then
embed
those
technology
solutions
into
the
workflows
of
our
customers.”

Federal Judge Slams The ‘Lawlessness’ Of Trump’s D.C. Takeover – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Andrew
Leyden/Getty
Images)

Federal
magistrate
judge
Zia
M.
Faruqui
is
not
happy
about
Donald
Trump’s
authoritarian
takeover
of
Washington
D.C.

and
the
resulting
disrespect
for
basic
constitutional
rights.
Yesterday
in
his
courtroom
was
the
case
of
Torez
Riley,
a
Black
man
charged
with
unlawful
possession
of
a
firearm.
Riley
was
on
his
was
on
his
way
to
a
Trader
Joe’s
when
stopped
by
law
enforcement,
who
searched
his
bag.

Judge
Faruqui
called
the
search
so
obviously
unconstitutional
that
a “high
school
student”
would
know
it’s
illegal.
And
it’s
“irrelevant”
that
the
search
turned
up
a
gun
when
the
search
itself
is
unconstitutional.

“The
police
are
out
there
looking
for
everybody,
and
it
seems
they’re
looking
for
people
that
look
like
you,”
Faruqui
said.
“You
can’t
go
into
a
grocery
store
without
getting
stopped
and
illegally
searched.”

In
fact,
there

are
reports

Riley’s
arrest
was
a
“point
of
contention”
in
the
Department
of
Justice
as
many
there
recognized
the
unconstitutional
nature
of
the
detention,
and
on
Monday
the
government
moved
to
dismiss
the
charges “in
the
interests
of
justice.”

Faruqui,
a
former
prosecutor
himself,
said,
“Lawlessness
cannot
come
from
the
government.
We’re
pushing
the
boundaries
here.
We’re
beyond
the
boundaries
and
something
is
going
to
have
to
break.”

Faruqui
still
took
issue
with
the
“charge
first,
ask
questions
later”
mentality
in
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
office.
“The
Sixth
Amendment
doesn’t
get
thrown
out
the
window
because
the
government
has
decided
to
make
a
show
of
arresting
people,”
said
Faruqui
and
the
spectacle
the
administration
has
made
while
throwing
out
the
constitution
is
“fundamentally
damaging
to
our
city.”

As

reported
by

Huffington
Post,
Faruqui
apologized
to
Riley
on
behalf
of
the
government.
And
pointed
out
just
how
fragile
constitutional
protections
have
become.

“This
is
on
your
record
forever,”
he
said
of
the
arrest.
“The
seven
days
you
spent
in
jail,
nothing
can
undo
that.”

Faruqui
commended
Benjamin
Helfand,
the
prosecutor
who
appeared
Monday
seeking
to
drop
the
case.
The
judge
said
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
office
badly
needs
prosecutors
who
know
the
difference
between
an
illegal
search
and
a
legal
one.

“If
the
system
is
going
to
crumble,
the
last
line
of
defense
will
be
people
like
you,”
Faruqui
said.
“Once
you
leave,
we’re
totally
cooked.”

Honestly,
we’re
probably
cooked
regardless.




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].

Morning Docket: 08.26.25 – Above the Law

*
After
Supreme
Court
conservatives
invented
a
whole
new
legal
standard
to
prevent
Trump
from
firing
Federal
Reserve
governors,
Trump
claims

without
much
support

to
have
fired
Federal
Reserve
governor.
Stocks
react…
predictably.
[WSJ]

*
Trump
also
explained
that
he’s
suing
over
the
Senate’s
use
of
blue
slips.
And
like
the
worst
1L
in
your
section,
he
can’t
identify
who
he
could
sue
or
on
what
grounds.
[Law360]

*
Law
firm
pushing
Brown
University
to
delete
research
revealing
that
anti-wind
power
groups
get
their
money
from
conservative
political
networks.
[NY
Times
]

*
ABA
asks
more
schools
to
enroll
students
without
an
admissions
test
score
to
gather
data
on
whether
the
tests
make
any
difference
outside
than
providing
the
most
insufferable
pickup
line
at
the
bar.
[Law.com]

*
Ken
Paxton
orders
Texas
public
schools
to
hang
Ten
Commandments
despite
court
order
blocking
the
obviously
unconstitutional
law.
[Houston
Chronicle
]

*
In

wake
of
PACER
hack
,
Senator
Wyden
asks
for
independent
review
of
the
judiciary’s
cybersecurity
to
see
if
John
Roberts
is
botching
that
as
badly
as
all
his
other
tasks
as
Chief
Justice.
[Reuters]

*
White
House
appeals
ruling
that

Alina
Habba
is
not
actually
the
U.S.
Attorney
for
New
Jersey
.
This
is
approaching
“George
Costanza
showing
up
at
the
office
after
quitting”
levels.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

Be There For Your Baby’s Birth Or Do Paperwork – See Also – Above the Law

Never
Too
Young
For
Aggressive
Negotiations:
Quinn
Emanuel,
Kirkland
and
Young
Conaway
play
dirty.
They’ve
Arrested
Abrego
Garcia
Again:
He
just
got
back
and
now
they’re
trying
to
send
him
to
Uganda.
Trump
Appeals
Biglaw
Executive
Order
Loss:
He’s
got
people
on
the
inside

why
wouldn’t
he?
Pauline
Newman
Denied
Appeal
Bid:
Wouldn’t
it
be
easier
to
just
let
her
work
at
this
point?
Do
You
Really
Need
An
LSAT
To
Get
In
To
Law
School?:
If
your
school
applies
for
this
exception,
maybe
not!

Biglaw Firm Representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia – Above the Law

Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
Photo
by:
Graeme
Sloan/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


Today
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement

(ICE)
agents
arrested
Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia


poster
boy
for
the
Trump
administration’s
slapdash
approach
to
deportations

with
a
plan
to
send
him
to
(of
all
places)
Uganda.
Which
Biglaw
firm
filed
a
habeas
corpus
petition
(which
is

still
in
the
Constitution
)
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland
on
Garcia’s
behalf,
seeking
to
prevent
his
removal?


Hint:
The
filing
triggers
the
District
of
Maryland’s
habeas
corpus
standing
order
for
all
immigration
cases
preventing
removal
for
at
least
two
business
days.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Skadden Advises Intel On Trump Deal, Because What Are A Few Obvious Conflicts Among Friends? – Above the Law

(Photo
by
DON
EMMERT/AFP
via
Getty
Images)

Intel
just
agreed
to
give
the
federal
government
a
roughly
10
percent
ownership
stake.
It’s
reportedly
a
common
stock
deal
that
binds
the
federal
government
to
vote
with
the
board
unless
the
board
is
voting
to
undermine
the
deal
itself.
The
deal
is
a
payoff
for
the
CHIPS
Act,
a
$280
billion
funding
authorization
to
boost
the
domestic
semiconductor
industry.
The
Biden
administration
pushed
for
the
funding,
Trump
pushed
for
the
vig.
Theoretically,
the
equity
stake
belongs
to
the
government
and
not
Trump
personally,
but
we
thought
that

about
Air
Qatari
One
too
.

The
company
needed
lawyers
to
protect
its
interests
in
making
such
a
consequential
deal,
so
it
turned
to…
a
law
firm
that
agreed
to
give
Trump
$100
million
in
free
gifts
in
exchange
for
settling
an
attack
on
their
ability
to
stay
in
business.
It’s
the
sort
of
fact
pattern
a
professional
responsibility
professor
couldn’t
put
on
an
exam
or
they’d
be
laughed
out
of
the
academy:
a
sophisticated
client,
a
well-heeled
firm,
and
a
high-stakes
extortion
effort.

Trump’s
getting
flack
from
some
Democrats
pointing
out
that
a
Republican
just
went
further
in
seizing
the
means
of
production
than
any
fever
dream
Fox
News
ever
cooked
up
about
Zohran
Mamdani.
But
that
assumes
the
Trump
administration
is
guided
by
a
“coherent
economic
vision”
or
“sense
of
shame.”

To
be
honest,
I’ve
always
thought
deals
like
this
made
a
lot
of
sense.
The
federal
government
took
an
ownership
stake
in
GM
in
exchange
for
its
bailout
during
the
Obama
administration.
As
a
consequence,
when
the
manufacturer
came
back,
taxpayers
were
much
better
off
than
when
they
went
in.
For
all
the
scare-mongering
over
socialism,
the
American
economic
system
already
rests
on
capitalistic
gains
and
socialized
losses.
Taking
an
equity
stake
lets
the
taxpayers
in
on
the
gains
too.
It
also
helps
avoid
“picking
winners
and
losers”
if
the
beneficiaries
of
government
cash
have
to
share
a
slice
of
their
gains
with
the
public
that
their
better
managed
competitors
don’t.

Frankly,
this
is
how
every
financially
ruinous
stadium
deal
should
get
handled

if
the
owner
wants
a
handout
for
the
team,
then
the
investment
should
pay
off

directly

and
not
rely
on
some
trickle-down
nonsense.

But
that
doesn’t
mean
deals
should
be
negotiated
by
lawyers
who
recently
settled
an
extortion
bid
for
$100
million

with
the
counterparty
.

Intel
is
not
a
mom-and-pop
cobbler
blissfully
unaware
of
its
lawyers’
dealings.
It’s
a
sophisticated
party
that

knew

Skadden
is
$100
million
in
hock
to
the
Trump
administration.
Indeed,
it
likely
counted
on
it.

The
Trump
administration
walked
up
to
Intel
and
said,
“nice
little
funding
authorization
you
got
there…
shame
if
something
happened
to
it,”
and
Intel
immediately
turned
to
lawyers
who
already
surrendered
to
a
similar
threat
for
advice.
It’s
not
because
they
were
thoroughly
impressed
with
Skadden’s
brilliant
negotiation
there
(if
they
were
impressed
by
that…
then
maybe
it
explains
why
they
needed
a
bailout).
As
J.D.
Vance,
Yale
Law’s
enduring
shame,
already
proved,
Trump
doesn’t
care
what
you’ve
done
to
him
in
the
past
as
long
as
you’re
willing
to
be
obsequious
today.
Skadden
earned
a
lot
of
good
will
with
the
administration
by
coughing
up
pro
bono
commitments.
Good
will
that
Intel
would
be
remiss
to
pass
up.

And
Intel
is
exactly
the
sort
of
client
the
rules
trust
to
make
an
informed
waiver.

While
professional
responsibility
focuses
primarily
on
the
client,
it’s
also

at
least
somewhat

a
matter
of
protecting
public
trust
in
the
profession.
Just
because
the
client
can
waive
a
conflict
doesn’t
mean
it’s
good
for
the
legal
industry
to
have
firms
owing
the
government

still
unfulfilled

nine-digit
settlements
while
ostensibly
negotiating
against
it.
That’s
how
the
public
loses
its
already
rock
bottom
faith
in
lawyers.

Ideally,
ethics
rules
shouldn’t
just
exist
to
keep
dumb
clients
from
getting
tricked.
They
should
also
keep

smart
clients

from
normalizing
corruption.




HeadshotJoe
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
.

Donald Trump Goes On The Attack Over Blue Slips – Above the Law

A
blue
slip
(Senate
Judiciary
Committee
via
Alliance
for
Justice).

The
“blue
slip”
tradition,
requiring
home
state
senator
approval
for
judicial
nominees,
is
back
in
the
news.
If
the
tradition
of
getting
senators
to
sign
off
on
a
president’s
judicial
nominees

potentially
of
another
political
party

seems
like
it’s
from
a
bygone
era,
well,
you’re
not
entirely
wrong.

During
Trump’s
first
term
in
office,
the
GOP

abandoned
the
custom

for
appellate
nominees
in
order
to
stack
the
judiciary
with
far-right
acolytes.
Since
then,
Dems
have,
more
or
less,
stuck
with
the
system
(only
two
nominees
by
Joe
Biden
were
confirmed
without
blue
slips).
The
Democrats’
unwillingness
to
fight
fire
with
fire

severely
limited
 Biden’s
ability
to
counter
the
tremendous
influence
Trump
was
able
to
exert
in
his
first
term
as
president.
Though
Biden
shepherded
a
number
of
judicial
appointees
through
the
process,
he
abandoned

valuable
appellate
court
seats

to
preserve
the
blue
slip
tradition.

Now
that
the
GOP
is
back
in
power,
Senate
Judiciary
Chair
Chuck
Grassley
has
held
the
line
on
blue
slips for
district
court
and
U.S.
attorney
nominations
and
Donald
Trump
is
NOT
HAPPY

which
we
know
thanks
to
an
unhinged
social
media
rant.

And
because
it
is
2025,
Grassley
responded…
on
social
media.

Plus
there’s
the
way
the
blue
slips
have
affirmatively
*helped*
the
GOP.

But
why
would
Trump
listen
to
reason
when
he’s
decided
he’s
angry
about
something?
At
a
press
conference
earlier
today,
Trump
announced
a
questionable
lawsuit
about
the
practice.
“We’re

going
to
be
filing
a
lawsuit
on
blue
slipping,”
Trump
told
reporters.
“You
know,
blue
slips
make
it
impossible
for
me
as
president
to
appoint
a
judge
or
U.S.
Attorney
because
they
have
a
gentlemen’s
agreement.
It’s
nothing
memorialized,
it’s
a
gentlemen’s
agreement
that’s
about
100
years
old.”

Not
every
Republican
sees
the
benefit
of
forcing
through
Trump
nominees
(cough,

Alina
Habba
,
cough,
cough)
without
blue
slips.
Senator
Tom
Tillis
sees
the
shortsightedness
of
forcing
the
issue.

We’ll
see
if
Trump
goes
through
with
his
promised
lawsuit
over
the
practice

but
it’s
not
the
most
ridiculous

loser
argument

the
Department
of
Justice
has
been
forced
to
make
in
court
at
Trump’s
behest.




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].

The Biglaw Firm Bucking The Return To Office Trend – Above the Law


This
[Husch
Blackwell’s
fully
virtual
office,
The
Link]
is
working.
We
figured
it
out.
And
I
think
that
people
who
are
most
frustrated
are
the
people
who
were
so
successful
and
then
enjoyed
some
of
the
benefits
of
it,
and
now
their
companies
and
their
firms
are
saying,
‘well,
we
don’t
care.
We
want
you
to
go
back
in
the
office.’



–J.Y.
Miller,
managing
partner
of
Husch
Blackwell’s
The
Link,

told
Law.com

the
virtual
office
was
been
wildly
successful

participation
in
the
virtual
office
is
up
16-fold
since
it’s
launch.
Miller
continued,
“We’ve
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
growth.
We
are
a
national
firm
in
terms
of
our
reach
and
our
expertise,
but
now
we’ve
been
able
to
really
expand
and
put
boots
on
the
ground
wherever
our
clients
need
us
and
wherever
we
see
as
a
strategic
growth
area.”

ABA Invites Schools To Accept Law School Applicants Without Requiring LSAT Scores – Above the Law

No
test,
no
problem!
The
LSAT
has
been
the
staple
box
to
tick
off
if
you
want
to
get
in
to
law
school,
but
it
hasn’t
been
a
hard
requirement
for
every
school.
The
ABA
is
inviting
law
schools
to
laxen
up
the
application
requirements
by
inviting
schools
to
give
students
more
time
to
apply
without
LSAT
scores.

Law.com

has
coverage:

The
American
Bar
Association
voted
Friday
to
extend
the
deadline
for
law
schools
to
submit
applications
requesting
to
admit
students
without
using
an
admission
test
into
next
spring.

The
vote
comes
after
the
Council
of
the
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admissions
to
the
Bar
voted
in
November
to
accept
variances
to
Standard
503,
allowing
schools
to
request
the
ability
to
admit
up
to
100%
of
its
students
without
an
admissions
test—a
significant
shift
from
the
prior
rule,
which
only
allowed
up
to
10%
of
students
to
be
admitted
without
a
test.

Since
the
vote
over
a
dozen
law
schools
have
applied
for
the
newly
created
503
Variance
form.

Does
this
mean
lawyers-to-be
should
abandon
LSAT
prep?
Hell
no

make
your
application
as
strong
as
possible!
But
if
the
other
parts
of
your
resume
can
carry
you
(or
if
the
LSAT
grade
you
earned
is
sub
par),
leaving
it
off
of
your
application
might
not
hurt
as
much.
Just
be
sure
to
check
if
your
dream
school
requires
the
test
or
not!


ABA
Invites
More
Law
Schools
to
Seek
Variance
to
Admit
Students
Without
a
Test
Score

[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.