Author: TSA Press

Today
is
August
22.
It’s
been
two
full
business
weeks
since
Milbank
announced
that
it
would
be

handing
out
special
bonuses
to
associates
($6,000
to
$25,000,
based
on
class
year).
Other
midsize
and
boutique
firms
have
already
stepped
in
to
award
summer
bonuses
to
their
associates
—
firms
like Vartabedian
Hester
&
Haynes ($5,000); Otterbourg ($15,000);

Bell
Nunnally
(up
to
$15,000);
and Hueston
Hennigan ($10,000
to
$30,000,
based
on
hours)
—
but
we’ve
heard
nothing
but
crickets
from
Milbank’s
Biglaw
brethren.
Biglaw
has
more
or
less
ignored
the
firm’s
announcement.

Biglaw
firms
have
played
this
waiting
game
before
when
it
comes
to
bonuses,
but
this
is
getting
to
be
a
bit
much.
This
is
looking
like
what
happened
last
summer,
when
Milbank
announced
a

special
summer
bonus,
and
the
market
didn’t
react
until

Cravath
finally
decided
to
match
when
announcing
its
year-end
bonuses.

It’s
hardly
a
spoiler
alert
to
say
what’s
bound
to
happen
next.
We
all
know
that
the
biggest
and
most
profitable
Biglaw
firms
are
going
to
match
these
bonuses
because
no
one
wants
to
be
caught
flat-footed
when
it
comes
to
compensation.
Why
not
announce
those
matches
now,
instead
of
making
associates
wait
to
hear
the
good
news?
Stop
delaying
the
inevitable.

We’ve
got
one
week
left
before
Labor
Day
is
here.
If
your
firm
announces
summer
bonuses,
please
let
us
know
ASAP,
so
we
can
spread
the
news
and
hopefully
make
the
market
do
something.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
this
stuff.
So
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Summer
Bonuses”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we’ll
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
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.

---

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.

AI
is
entering
legal
workflows
with
a
sense
of
inevitability.
To
borrow
from
Hemingway,
imagine
a
conversation
in
five
to
ten
years
between
two
Managing
Partners:  

“How
did
your
firm’s
legal
workflows
get
so
completely
taken
over
by
AI?”  
“Two
ways,”
the
other
replies.
“Gradually,
then
suddenly.”  

This
article
is
not
about
whether
that
outcome
is
right
or
wrong
or
whether
AI
is
good
or
bad.
AI
is,
fundamentally,
a
tool
—
like
many
others
that
have
come
before
it.
However,
this
particular
tool
can
increasingly
run
business
processes
autonomously,
including
legal
workflows.
As
such,
it
carries
significant
transformational
potential
and
risk.  

Assuming
the
trajectory
proves
true,
the
question
becomes:
How
do
we
design
the
human
into
modern
legal
workflows?
How
human
should
they
be?  

Recently,
the
authors
of
this
article,
three
knowledge
and
innovation
professionals
working
in
law
firms
and
one
co-founder
of
a
company
serving
the
legal-tech
industry,
participated
in
a
panel
discussion
on
AI
Overload,
a
growing
phenomenon
brought
on
by
the
flood
of
GenAI
tools
entering
the
legal
sector. 
It
quickly
became
apparent
that
we
were
only
scratching
the
surface
of
a
far
more
fundamental
phenomenon.  

Across
our
three
firms,
a
few
clear
themes
emerged:  

1.
Adopting
AI
tools
has
already
become
business
as
usual
in
many
firms.  
2.
AI
is
driving
demand
for
new
forms
of
cross-functional
collaboration
and
redefining
roles,
fueling
momentum
for
innovation. 
3.
The
pace
of
adoption
is
accelerating,
driven
by
both
top-down
interest
and
bottom-up
experimentation.  

In
many
ways,
new
norms
have
already
been
set
irreversibly.
While
not
every
AI
tool
will
withstand
the
test
of
time,
the
overall
impact
of
disruptive
AI
is
undeniable.
It
is
reshaping
legal
workflows
and
transforming
firm
operations
in
ways
more
profound
than
even
the
transition
to
the
cloud.  

Sarah
Hirebet
points
out
that
a
new
challenge
when
investing,
as
Stradley
Ronon
has
done
in
several
preferred
GenAI
tools,
is
to
control
the
noise
and
clearly
articulate
and
communicate
across
the
firm
where
and
how
these
new
capabilities
can
realistically
support
legal
professionals.
In
particular,
the
communication
between
the
practice
groups
and
the
knowledge
team
is
key:
“Our
management
committee
is
doing
a
fantastic
job
with
leadership
here
by
highlighting
the
expertise
of
the
KM
team.
We
honor
that
collaborative
approach
by
pursuing
constant
dialogue
with
the
practice
groups
so
that
they
feel
heard
about
what
they
think
is
important.”   

This
strategy
avoids
the
risk
of
investing
in
capabilities
that
end-users
are
unaware
of
by
front-loading
change
management
efforts.
It
is
also
crucial
to
prevent
the
risk
of
application
sprawl
because
lawyers
have
transparency
in
how
their
requirements
are
recorded
and
considered
in
the
decision-making
process.    

Part
of
making
these
efforts
successful
is
offering
real
value
to
the
lawyers
who
invest
their
time
in
the
piloting
and
decision-making
process.
One
way
Stradley
did
this
was
through
a
significant
investment
in
carefully
designed,
practical
training. ”This
is
why
Stradley
has
sought
out
partnerships
with
legal
tech
vendors,
which
have
included
co-creating
the
pioneering
program
Stradley
Labs
Legal
GenAI
Drivers
Certification,
which
offers
hands-on
practice,
hackathons,
intensive
support
with
ethics
requirements
and
client
communications,
as
well
as
13
hours
of
CLE
credits.”
Hirebet
notes
that
Stradley
finds
vendor
relationships
bring
far
more
value
when
they
are
willing
to
go
beyond
an
exclusive
focus
on
their
platform
and
truly
invest
in
helping
lawyers
build
the
core
skills
they
need
to
embrace
the
transformative
potential
of
GenAI
thoughtfully.  

It
does
not
take
a
rocket
scientist
to
understand
why
many
firms
face
a
“do
or
die”
moment
—
or
at
least,
a
seismic
shift
driven
by
a
new
technological
paradigm.  

Yet,
as
stewards
of
our
firms’
intellectual
property
and
data,
not
to
mention
the
technology
itself,
we
must
ask
ourselves:
What
kind
of
firm
do
we
want
to
become?
Should
we
be
able
to
deliver
legal
work
end-to-end
with
AI
in
just
a
few
years?  

Are
we
prepared,
ready,
and
willing
to
let
human
involvement
decrease
within
legal
workflows?  

Considering
the
five-to-ten-year
horizon
belongs
firmly
in
today’s
strategic
roadmap.
Strategic
direction
must
shape
how
we
evaluate
AI
tools,
vendors,
and
their
product
roadmaps
now,
not
later.  

Sarah
Pullin
explains:
“Our
decisions
regarding
AI
at
Baker
McKenzie
are
grounded
in
a
firmwide
vision
that
integrates
our
client
needs
and
our
content,
data,
and
expertise
strategies.
This
vision
is
operationalized
through
various
initiatives,
including
collaborating
with
trusted
third
parties.
We
continuously
assess
shifts
in
the
views
of
our
clients
and
the
legal
and
business
landscape,
asking
a
fundamental
question:
How
will
this
drive
measurable
value?
That
lens
informs
our
approach
to
content
and
data
quality,
governance,
and
risk
transparency,
ensuring
that
our
data
and
business
systems
are
optimized
for
compliance
and
efficiency
and
primed
for
AI
enablement.
We
define
success
through
tangible
outcomes
and
ultimately
our
ability
to
deliver
high-quality,
insight-driven
services
to
our
clients.”  

Clearly,
all
three
firms
represented
by
the
co-authors
of
this
article
employ
well-defined
frameworks
and
governance
models
supported
by
mature,
forward-looking
strategies
that
allow
for
rapid
but
responsible
technological
change.
This
structured,
deliberate
approach
ensures
they
can
adopt
technologies
that
deliver
real,
tangible
value
to
legal
workflows.  

At
the
same
time,
the
human
dimension
remains
central.
Cross-firm
communication,
interdisciplinary
task
forces,
and
dedicated
committees
are
vital
to
ensure
that
issues
like
ethics,
sustainability,
strategic
alignment,
and
competitiveness
are
appropriately
weighed.  

At
K&L
Gates,
Carolyn
Austin
has
led
several
initiatives
to
establish
strong
collaborative
networks
across
the
firm.
From
formal
committees
and
small
working
groups
—
focusing
on
specific
GenAI
use
cases,
reviewing
challenges
and
feedback
—
to
PUG
(Power
User
Group)
teams
where
the
next
generation
of
lawyers
are
encouraged
to
engage.
Carolyn
says,
“Because
of
the
great
interest
in
GenAI
right
now,
we
have
a
rich
opportunity
to
engage
our
community
of
legal
professionals,
including
senior
partners,
new
associates,
and
allied
professionals,
in
practice
innovation. 
Involving
task
forces
with
intentionally
diverse
roles,
multiple
skill
sets,
and
complementary
expertise
tends
to
surface
fascinating
insights.
We’re
interested
in
seeing
if
new
roles
develop
out
of
this
creative
collaboration.
As
a
global
firm,
getting
a
broad,
international
view
from
across
the
firm
is
important
for
us,
and
we
believe
this
will
help
us
keep
our
AI
initiatives
grounded,
human-centered,
and
responsive
to
our
clients.”   

So,
why
do
we,
three
law
firms
and
a
vendor,
treat
AI
as
something
more
than
just
another
technology
tool?
Because
if
we
do
not,
we
risk
reaching
a
point,
gradually,
then
suddenly,
where
our
workflows
have
transformed
beyond
recognition
and
possibly
beyond
our
control.
Think
of
electric
vehicles
that
are
diagnosed
and
updated
remotely
and
require
specialist
equipment
to
be
fixed.
No
one
knows
what
is
happening
under
the
hood,
and
even
the
traditional
mechanic’s
role
has
become
negligible.
Our
goal
should
be
to
transform
legal
workflows
deliberately
and
consciously
—
to
retain
the
human
element
where
it
matters
most,
to
stay
competitive,
and
to
remain
in
control.  

To
help
explore
what
this
balance
might
look
like,
it
is
helpful
to
consider
two
hypothetical
extremes:
Firm
X
and
Firm
Y.  

Type
X
Firms  

These
firms
are
all
in
when
it
comes
to
AI.
They
strive
to
deliver
high-quality
work
with
maximum
efficiency,
using
AI
to
generate
work
products
autonomously.
Their
workflows
are
powered
by
specialized
legal
AI
models,
fine-tuned
for
specific
areas
of
law
or
work
types,
and
capable
of
operating
within
standard
OCGs
agreed
upon
with
clients.
Human
involvement
is
minimal,
typically
limited
to
final
approvals
for
compliance
purposes.
In
effect,
the
legal
workflows
of
Type
X
firms
are
not
human.  

Type
Y
Firms  

On
the
other
hand,
Type
Y
firms
compete
based
on
human
expertise.
Their
work
products
are
crafted
by
experienced
legal
professionals,
supported
by
deep
in-house
knowledge
repositories,
best
practices,
and
top-tier
templates
and
precedents.
These
firms
embrace
technology
for
general
productivity
and
collaboration
—
summarising
meetings,
managing
actions,
and
translating
in
real
time
—
but
avoid
AI-generated
legal
outputs.
Type
Y
firms
proudly
assert
that
their
legal
work
is
entirely
human-made,
with
partners
standing
fully
behind
the
results.
Their
workflows
are,
in
effect,
human
through
and
through.  

The
reality?
Neither
Type
X
nor
Type
Y
is
likely
to
thrive
long-term.  

Type
X
firms
may
achieve
efficiency
but
will
drift
toward
commoditization.
Drawing
from
the
same
knowledge
pools
and
offering
similar
outputs,
they
risk
falling
into
price-based
competition
that
drives
margins
downward.  

Type
Y
firms,
meanwhile,
may
face
recruitment
challenges.
The
next
generation
of
attorneys
may
be
unwilling
to
work
in
low-automation
environments,
and
clients
may
question
the
value
of
traditional
billing
models
that
ignore
technological
progress.  

Instead,
we
believe
a
third
model
is
more
sustainable:
the

Type
A
Firm.  

Type
A
Firms  

These
firms
are
intentionally
designed
to
balance
human
expertise
with
technological
advantage.
They
integrate
AI
to
handle
low-value,
repetitive
tasks,
reduce
friction
in
daily
work,
and
augment
professionals
on
complex
matters.
They
recognize
that
the
power
of
a
legal
expert
lies
in
their
ability
to
observe,
learn,
and
solve
complex
problems
creatively,
with
the
support
of
cutting-edge
tools
and
technology.  

Type
A
firms
constantly
evolve
their
strategy,
aiming
to
stay
ahead
of
the
curve
by
responsibly
adapting
to
new
technologies
while
simultaneously
attracting
and
retaining
top
talent.
They
design
their
workflows
with
human
agency
at
the
core
—
confident
that
no
matter
how
advanced
today’s
AI
becomes,
tomorrow’s
next
technology
breakthrough
could
render
it
obsolete.  

So,
how
do
you
act
today
to
ensure
that
you
design
yourself,
the
human,
into
strategically
aligned
GenAI-augmented
legal
workflows?   

First,
we
believe
there
are
strategies
that
firms
can
employ
now
to
balance
the
human
vs
AI
equation.
Start
by
assessing
your
firm’s
long-term
AI
vision
and
strategy.
As
per
above,
it
will
depend
on
the
type
of
firm
you
are
today
and
wish
to
be
tomorrow.   

This
will
help
us
consider
a
future
with
AI,
where
we
are
unlikely
to
be
the
most
informed
or
fastest-processing
party.
Instead,
we
must
stay
in
control
by
leveraging
our
secret
sauce,
which
includes
human
qualities
such
as
the
ability
to
forge
bonds
and
relationships
with
our
clients,
being
empathetic,
and,
crucially,
our
ability
to
be
critical
thinkers.   

Second,
start
taking
control
today.
Direct
GenAI
initiatives
towards
the
places
they
add
the
most
value
and
tightly
control
initiatives
where
AI
tools
might
impact
your
firm’s
crown
jewels.
Here
are
three
practical
suggestions
to
get
started.  

1.
Create
systems
that
give
legal
professionals
and
AI
instant
access
to
knowledge,
i.e.,
instant
access
to
authoritative
information
in
the
proper
context.
This
win-win
should
be
a
hygiene
factor
for
modern
legal
workflows,
irrespective
of
your
long-term
strategy. 
  
2.
Invest
in
training
that
ensures
that
legal
teams
both
have
a
deep
academic
understanding
of
GenAI
tools
and
the
way
they
leverage
statistical
models
to
generate
answers
that
are
not
guaranteed
to
be
accurate,
only
statistically
probable,
and
also
the
practical
skills
to
effectively
audit
and
add
the
necessary
level
of
human
judgment
to
the
generated
output.
This
is
generally
best
accomplished
by
prioritizing
tasks
that
are
readily
feasible
for
GenAI
today
and
have
high-value
outcomes.
These
will
typically
be
too
complex
to
automate,
yet
simple,
but
time-consuming
for
humans.
E.g.,
summarizing
differences
in
regulatory
requirements
across
two
or
three
jurisdictions.
  
3.
Identify
workflows
or
work
types
that
are
unique
or
high
value
to
the
firm,
especially
those
where
you
leverage
significant
in-house
IP
and
expertise.
Ringfence
these
with
strong
AI
governance.
Support
the
legal
professionals
in
these
workflows
or
work
types
with
world-class
knowledge
and
advanced
tech,
but
tightly
control
the
application
of
AI
and
the
human
audit
process
to
produce
high-quality
work
products.  

The
insights
shared
by
the
co-authors
of
this
article
highlight
the
strategic
value
of
taking
a
thoughtfully
designed
approach
to
best
leverage
the
power
of
AI
technologies
towards
effective,
transformative
initiatives.
As
we
explore
the
inevitable
integration
of
AI
within
legal
workflows,
protecting
firms’
unique
knowledge
and
expertise
is
essential.
By
focusing
on
areas
where
in-house
expertise,
experience,
and
knowledge
excel
and
applying
AI
thoughtfully,
we
can
create
workflows
without
compromising
the
human
element
and
the
relationships
that
clients
value.   

This
balanced
approach
allows
us
to
adapt
and
be
resilient
in
changing
times.  

This
article
was
originally
published
in
the
2025
Summer
issue
of
ILTA’s
Peer
to
Peer
magazine
(https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/1538025-summer25/21?). 

---

Carolyn
Austin
is
the
Director
of
Practice
Innovation
at
K&L
Gates,
LLP,
in
Australia.
Carolyn
leads
a
team
of
legal
practitioners
and
specialist
technicians
focused
on
creating
innovative
approaches
to
service
delivery
through
sustainable
knowledge
management,
process
improvement,
and
digital
adoption.

Sarah
Hirebet
is
the
Director
of
Knowledge
Management
at
Stradley
Ronon
Stevens
&
Young,
LLP.
Sarah
empowers
innovation
by
leveraging
what
people
know,
amplifying
this
know-how
with
technology,
and
designing
processes
that
are
more
efficient,
more
accurate,
and
more
joyful. 

Gabriel
Karawani
is
a
Co-Founder
of
ClearPeople.
As
the
driving
force
behind
Atlas,
Gabriel
plays
a
pivotal
role
in
bringing
one
of
the
most
advanced
knowledge-centric
platforms
for
Microsoft
365
to
market,
underscoring
its
critical
role
in
the
business
success
of
many
organizations.
 

Sarah
Pullin
is
the
Global
Director
of
Knowledge
at
Baker
McKenzie.
Sarah
leads
a
function
of
knowledge
lawyers,
KM
managers,
information
and
research
teams,
global
KM
experts,
four
offshore
teams,
and
KM
systems
and
tools
in
support
of
the
firm’s
clients
and
business
strategy. 

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.

“Donna
Adelson
trial
live:
Attorneys
lay
out
their
theories
of
Dan
Markel
murder
case.” Elena
Barrera
of
The
Tallahassee
Democrat
has this
report.

“Gov.
Cox
didn’t
want
the
power
to
pick
Utah’s
chief
justice.
Lawmakers
might
make
him
do
it
anyway.
A
new
version
of
a
bill
Gov.
Spencer
Cox
vetoed
is
slated
to
be
considered
in
a
special
legislative
session
and
would
force
him
to
pick
a
Utah
Supreme
Court
chief
justice.” Robert
Gehrke
of
The
Salt
Lake
Tribune
has this
report.

Guns
or
weed?
Trump
administration
says
you
can’t
use
both.” Maureen
Groppe
of
USA
Today
has this
report.

“The
umpire
who
picked
a
side:
John
Roberts
and
the
death
of
rule
of
law
in
America;
The
chief
justice
of
the
US
has
painted
himself
as
a
modern
institutionalist
over
the
past
20
years;
Experts
say
he’s
emboldening
Trump’s
drive
toward
authoritarianism.” Ed
Pilkington
of
The
Guardian
has this
report.

“California
Supreme
Court
clears
way
for
Newsom’s
redistricting
plan”: Bob
Egelko
of
The
San
Francisco
Chronicle
has this
report.

“Judge
Halts
Texas
Law
Mandating
the
Ten
Commandments
in
School;
The
state
law
had
said
public
schools
would
have
to
display
the
Ten
Commandments
in
a
‘conspicuous’
location
in
every
classroom
in
Texas
by
Sept.
1”: Pooja
Salhotra
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

Most
law
firms
have
systems
in
place
when
it
comes
to
salary
and
bonus
determinations. In
many
instances,
law
firms
evaluate
an
attorney’s
work
on
a
yearly
basis,
and
at
that
time
decide
what
salary
increase
the
attorney
will
receive,
if
any,
and
whether
the
attorney
will
receive
a
bonus
at
firms
that
do
not
have
lockstep
bonus
policies. However,
some
smaller
law
firms
do
not
have
systems
in
place
to
deal
with
salary
and
bonus
determinations,
and
some
smaller
shops
have
flexibility
when
it
comes
to
salary
determinations. At
these
shops,
it
might
make
sense
to
proactively
seek
a
pay
raise.

I
once
worked
at
a
small
law
firm
that
made
salary
decisions
no
more
frequently
than
annually. One
of
the
associates
at
the
firm
thought
that
he
was
underpaid,
and
the
market
rate
was
likely
much
higher
than
that
associate
was
earning
at
the
firm.
This
associate
spoke
to
the
managing
partner
at
he
firm
about
receiving
a
pay
raise
immediately
even
though
the
partners
used
to
make
salary
determinations
around
the
holidays. The
managing
partner
told
this
associate
to
write
a
memo
about
all
of
the
work
that
this
associate
did
in
the
previous
year,
and
how
valuable
he
was
to
the
firm. The
managing
partner
said
he
would
share
the
memo
with
the
other
partners,
and
they
would
use
this
information
when
deciding
if
that
associate
should
receive
a
pay
raise.

The
associate
showed
me
the
memo
he
drafted,
and
it
was
masterfully
written. The
memo
discussed
all
of
the
work
this
associate
had
completed
for
the
firm
in
the
proceeding
year
and
how
these
tasks
went
above
and
beyond
other
associates
at
the
firm.
The
associate
also
discussed
how
productive
he
was
and
how
much
money
he
generated
for
the
firm,
which
he
argued
warranted
a
salary
increase. My
colleague
also
argued
that
it
would
be
less
disruptive
to
keep
that
associate
at
the
shop
with
a
higher
salary
than
try
to
find
another
attorney
to
replace
the
associate
that
asked
for
the
salary
increase.

The
managing
partner
eventually
told
this
associate
that
his
hands
were
tied
until
the
annual
review
process
was
conducted. The
managing
partner
did
not
want
to
give
any
kind
of
preferential
treatment
to
the
associate
that
asked
for
a
pay
raise
since
this
could
hurt
morale
and
lead
others
to
believe
that
the
firm
was
being
unfair
in
treating
this
associate
better
than
other
attorneys. The
associate
was
not
pleased
with
this
outcome,
but
this
firm
policy
made
sense. Managing
partners
need
to
think
about
the
good
of
a
law
firm
and
its
employees
at
large
and
not
necessarily
about
the
needs
of
one
individual
attorney.

However,
at
the
annual
review
process,
this
attorney
ended
up
receiving
a
better
compensation
package
than
he
might
have
received
if
he
did
not
ask
for
a
pay
raise
earlier
in
the
year. Evidently,
the
memo
this
associate
drafted
arguing
for
a
pay
raise
had
a
substantial
impact
on
management
at
the
firm,
and
they
decided
to
increase
this
associate’s
salary
so
the
attorney
had
an
incentive
to
stay
at
the
shop.
Some
of
the
other
associates
at
the
firm
wished
that
they
had
also
spoken
up
sooner
about
requesting
a
salary
increase
so
that
they
too
could
have
received
an
increase
in
their
compensation.

Of
course,
asking
for
a
pay
raise,
or
asking
for
more
compensation
of
any
kind
can
be
awkward,
and
may
be
impossible
at
some
shops
at
which
people
are
paid
a
set
amount
depending
on
experience. However,
attorneys
should
not
be
afraid
to
ask
their
employers
for
more
money. Even
if
attorneys
are
not
immediately
paid
more
compensation,
this
could
set
the
stage
for
a
higher
salary
in
the
future.

---

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.

The
Trump
administration
has
been
described
as
many
things,
none
of
them
good.
What
no
one
will
ever
accuse
it
of
being
is
“competent.”
Trump
has
surrounded
himself
with
sycophants,
most
of
them
known
only
for
waving
the
MAGA
flag
when
not
hosting
shows
on
Fox
or
podcasts
celebrating
the
debut
of
American
fascism.

Case
in
point:
SecDef
Pete
Hegseth,
who
was
previously
best
known
for
his
multiple
Fox
News
appearances
(and
is
currently
best
known
for
reposting
a
recording
of
a
pastor
saying
women
shouldn’t
have
the
right
to
vote)
now
heads
the
Defense
Department.
Somehow,
a
Signal
chat
group
that
included
him
managed
to
invite Atlantic
journalist
Jeffrey
Goldberg to
a
chat
session
discussing
an
ongoing
military
attack
in
Yemen.

In
all
fairness
to
Hegseth
(which
is
far
more
than
he
deserves),
he
probably
didn’t
send
out
this
invite
himself. On
the
other
hand,
his
defense
of
this
OPSEC
failure
strips
away
all
the
fairness
I’ve
just
awarded
him.
According
to
Hegseth,
this
was
no
big
deal
because
nothing
classified
was
discussed
and
these
weren’t
actually
“war
plans”
despite
the
group
being
referred
to
by
at
least
one
(intended)
participant
as
the
“houthi
war
chat
group.”

Well,
if
that’s
the
case,
then
future
“war
chats”
should
just
take
place
on
X
in
full
view
of
everyone.
After
all,
nothing
sensitive
or
classified
is
being
shared.
Isn’t
that
right,
Pete?

Pete
may
not
be
the
best
judge
of
what
can
or
can’t
be
shared
with
people
who
don’t
have
the
proper
security
clearance.
While
“Signalgate”
continued
to
generate
press
coverage,
it
was
discovered
that
Pete
Hegseth
was intentionally discussing
matters
of
national
security
with… his
wife,
his
brother,
and
his
family’s
lawyer.

And
that
brings
us
to
the
latest
OPSEC
failure
from
this
hideous
administration.
Again,
to
be
far
more
fair
to
ICE
than
it
deserves,
it’s
possible
no
one
from
ICE
added
this
random
person
to
a
chat
group
discussing
a
manhunt
already
in
progress.
Joseph
Cox has
the
hilariously
gory
details
at
404
Media:

Members
of
a
law
enforcement
group
chat
including
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE)
and
other
agencies
inadvertently
added
a
random
person
to
the
group
called
“Mass
Text”
where
they
exposed
highly
sensitive
information
about
an
active
search
for
a
convicted
attempted
murderer
seemingly
marked
for
deportation,
404
Media
has
learned. 

The
texts
included
an
unredacted
ICE
“Field
Operations
Worksheet”
that
includes
detailed
information
about
the
target
they
were
looking
for,
and
the
texts
showed
ICE
pulling
data
from
a
DMV
and
license
plate
readers
(LPRs),
according
to
screenshots
of
the
chat
obtained
and
verified
by
404
Media.
The
person
accidentally
added
to
the
group
chat
is
not
a
law
enforcement
official
or
associated
with
the
investigation
in
any
way,
and
said
they
were
added
to
it
weeks
ago
and
initially
thought
it
was
a
series
of
spam
messages.

Click
through
for
the
coverage
of
this
latest
attempt
to
make
America
great
again.
There
are
plenty
of
screenshots
of
the
texts,
as
well
as
confirmation
that
the
participants
in
the
chat
group
included
at
least
one
ICE
official
and
one
member
of
the
US
Marshals
Service.

Oh,
and
then
there’s
this
detail,
which
makes
it
even
more
of
an
OPSEC
failure.

These
new
ICE
messages
were
MMS,
or
Multimedia
Messaging
Service
messages, meaning
they
weren’t
end-to-end
encrypted,
like
texts
sent
over
Signal
or
WhatsApp
are.

The
government
has
issued
nothing
but
a
refusal
to
comment
on
these
revelations.
And
it’s
entirely
possible
some
random
cop
added
this
random
person
to
the
chat
group,
rather
than
someone
working
for
ICE,
but
the
end
result
is
the
same
thing:
another
unforced
error
from
an
administration
that
seems
to
be
to
have
been
crafted
from
the
ground
up
to
be
as
embarrassing
as
possible
as
often
as
possible.

Or
maybe
ICE
was
just
following
DHS
head
Kristi
Noem’s
lead.
After
all,
she
doesn’t
seem
to
mind
exposing
impending
or
ongoing
ICE
operations
so
long
as
it
generates
a
photo
op
for
her
to
post
at
social
media’s
favorite
Nazi
bar:

Here’s press
coverage
of
that
debacle:

In
one
instance,
sources
told
the
Journal
that
Noem
likely
hampered
a
series
of
early
morning
raids
in
New
York
City
by posting
about
the
operation on
social
media
while
it
was
still
underway.

People
familiar
with
the
January
effort
claimed
Noem’s
post
on
X
tipped
off
targets
that
ICE
was
in
action,
spoiling
the
element
of
surprise
and
resulting
in
“fewer
arrests
than
officials
had
hoped
for.”

Of
course,
DHS
spokesperson
Tricia
McLaughlin
was
there
to
defend
the
photo
op
that
jeopardized
an
ICE
operation
by
claiming
the
raids
were
“already
winding
down”
when
the
post
went
live.
Given
the
3:43
am
timestamp,
that
seems unlikely like
McLaughlin
is
flat
out
lying
about
what
happened.

Whatever
the
case,
the
administration
continues
to
lower
the
bar
in
terms
of
basic
competence.
And
while
that
might
be
occasionally
amusing,
it’s
still
pretty
good
at
brute
forcing
its
way
towards
a
totalitarian
takeover.
Back
to
404
Media’s
Joseph
Cox:

Recently
ICE
officials
have raided
incorrect
addresses;
potentially
violated
court
orders
banning
the
agency
from racial
profiling
people
at
Home
Depots;
detained
U.S.
citizens
(including
for
days
without
water);
and
deported
U.S.
citizen
children, one
of
which
had
cancer,
with
their
families
to
Honduras,
all
while
aggressively
rounding
up
undocumented
people
many
of
whom
have
no
criminal
record
and
denying
due
process
to
some.

Being
stupid
in
group
chats
doesn’t
seem
to
be
doing
much
damage
to
the
full-on
evil
being
perpetrated
daily
by
the
Trump
administration.
While
it
does
give
us
some
hope
that
it
will
periodically
trip
over
its
own
feet,
it’s
a
pretty
fucking
cold
comfort.

ICE
Goes
Full
Hegseth:
Adds
Random
Person
To
Group
Chat
Discussing
Ongoing
Manhunt

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

DC
Appeals
Court
Shoots
Down
T-Mobile
Claim
That
Selling
Your
Location
Data
Without
Consent
Is
Perfectly
Legal

UK
Backs
Down
On
Apple
Encryption
Backdoor—But
The
Secret
Deal
Raises
New
Questions

Amy
Klobuchar
Wants
To
Break
The
Internet
Because
Someone
Made
A
Stupid
Satirical
Video
About
Her

*
Judge
rules
that
Florida
must
abandon
publicity
stunt
prison
known
as
“Alligator
Alcatraz.”
[Washington
Post]

*
In
Only
Fans
litigation,
AI
imagines
cases
like
viewers
imagine
the
cam
girl
is
really
in
love
with
them.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Chandra
Levy
prosecutor
sanctioned.
[Reuters]

*
Military
judge
named
head
of
SEC
enforcement
because
of
all
those
deep
securities
law
issues
tackled
in
the
USMJ.
[Corporate
Counsel]

*
AI
mergers
feed
business
to
top
Biglaw
firms.
Yet
again,
everyone’s
making
money
off
AI
except
the
AI
companies.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
First
time
bar
passage
is
up!
[ABA
Journal]

*
Lawyers
sit
down
to
discuss
“our
teacher
and
unparalleled
trial
lawyer Gerry
Spence.”
[YouTube]

Learners
at
a
school
in
Hwange
district
sit
in
a
classroom
which
has
lost
much
of
its
flooring