Author: TSA Press

Last
year,
I
wrote
an
article
about

whether
AI
signals
the
end
of
the
billable
hour. In
that
article,
I
asked
what
Generative
AI
will
do
to
the
billable
hour.

1. Rates
   will
   go
   up.
2. Rates
   will
   go
   down.
3. Work
   will
   shift
   to
   alternative
   fee
   arrangements.
4. Work
   will
   go
   in-house.
5. All
   of
   the
   above.

My
answer
was
“all
of
the
above.”
I
am
now
qualifying
my
answer.
AI
will
have
less
impact
in
the
near
term
on
the
shift
toward
alternative
fee
arrangements,
including
fixed
fees.
The
billable
hour
is
more
embedded,
especially
in
Biglaw,
than
most
realize. 

Three
things
must
change
for
the
billable
hour
to
give
way
to
fixed-fee
arrangements.
Law
firms
must
have
a
change
in
mindset,
culture,
and
infrastructure.
That
is
easier
said
than
done.
In
the
long
term,
competition
and
client
demands
will
force
the
change. AI
will
have
an
indirect
impact.

Mindset

Most
firms
bill
by
the
hour
and
don’t
benefit
from
efficiency
when
billable
hours
are
reduced. Generative
AI
will
drive
efficiencies,
but
it
will
not
change
the
mindset
of
marking
up
billable
hours.
It
is
still
easier
to
raise
rates
when
work
becomes
more
efficient.
If
10
hours
become
five
hours
of
work,
clients
should
expect
an
hourly
fee
at
a
higher
rate. 

Why
is
this?  

Law
firms
must
be

100%
owned
by
lawyers,
and
the
most
expedient
way
to
accomplish
this
is
through
partnerships. The
partnership
business
model
encourages
the
distribution
of
profits
every
year
to
its
lawyer
owners.
Law
firms
rely
on
billable
hours
as
a
straightforward
measure
of
work
and
attorney
contribution.
Profit
comes
from
marking
up
hours,
and
that
is
very
different
than
a
business
model
where
capital
is
retained
and
where
the
revenue
model
allows
for
a
focus
on
efficiency.  

Conrad
Everhard,
founding
partner
at
Flatiron
Partners
law
firm,
which
provides
fixed-fee
services
for
mergers
and
acquisitions,
and
other
transactions,
says,
“Biglaw
is
like
an
ocean
liner. Because
of
longstanding
culture,
staffing
models,
and
compensation,
they
are
locked
into
a
cycle
where
efficiency
doesn’t
help
the
bottom
line. It
is
a
mindset
that
makes
it
very
hard
for
Biglaw
to
pivot. But
Biglaw
is
at
an
inflection
point.
Efficiency
is
being
forced
on
it
by
technological
innovation
and
AI.”  

Culture 

Mindset
informs
culture.
Recently,
another
Biglaw
firm
just
mandated
associates
to

work
four
days
a
week
in
the
office. In-office
policy
helps
partners
feel
more
comfortable
about
the
work
(billable
hours)
being
done
by
associates,
and
it
provides
a
more
familiar
way
for
associates
to
learn
and
be
mentored
(at
least
that’s
from
a
partner’s
perspective).  

Gen
Z
is
more
digitally
adept
than
prior
generations.
Their
default
learning
and
communication
styles
are
through
technology.
How
many
firms
are
evolving
their
models
to
recognize
that
the
next
generation
of
attorneys
and
clients
will
prefer
a
better
work-life
balance
and

more
virtual
meetings?
How
many
firms
realize
they
will
desire
to
interact
via
text
or
Zoom,
and
that
they
are
more
likely
to
spar
with
an
AI
mentor
and
reserve
human
interaction
to
those
times
when
it’s
truly
needed? 

The
point
is,
there
are
new
models
and
new
approaches
like
online
learning,
virtual
meetings,
and
hoteling. A
firm’s
economics
and
a
firm’s
cohesiveness
need
to
be
balanced,
but
right
now,
I’d
argue
that
Biglaw
is
generally
leaning
toward
familiar
legacy
practices
as
opposed
to
evolving
those
practices
toward
those
that
are
likely
to
be
valued
in
a
future
state. It’s
not
a
criticism,
but
it
is
reality. 

Infrastructure

Real
estate
is
an
example
of
infrastructure
tied
to
a
traditional
mindset.
How
often
do
clients
come
to
the
office
these
days
relative
to
the
past?
There
are
times
when
in-person
meetings
are
required
or
when
a
“war
room”
environment
needs
to
be
set
up. Real
estate
is
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg.
The
entire
back
office
of
a
firm
is
organized
around
the
billable
hour. It’s
the
basis
for
partner
compensation,
measuring
the
profitability
of
engagements,
and
for
measuring
the
performance
of
associates. 

Even
if
a
large
firm
wanted
to
move
away
from
the
billable
hour,
it
would
have
to
rethink
incentives,
retrain
staff,
change
process,
and
retool
infrastructure. To
do
that
requires
setting
aside
nonbillable
time
for
planning
and
retraining. It
requires
a
rewrite
of
major
systems,
and
that
requires
capital.  

Can
Biglaw
move
away
from
the
billable
hour?

The
Catch-22
of
retooling
infrastructure
is
that
the
partnership
model
and
incentives
are
tilted
toward
the
disbursement
of
profits
to
partners. Nonbillable
time
and
capital
investment
are
the
enemies
of
disbursing
profits.
Like
their
corporate
counterparts,
law
firms
require
retooling
to
operate
differently. But
firms
have
a
bigger
challenge
because
the
steps
required
are
counter
to
the
mindset.

When
the
familiar
model
of
the
billable
hour
starts
to
break
down,
we’ll
see
more
change. For
now,
many
clients
still
ask
for
work
by
the
hour. Firms
can
make
the
move,
but
the
move
won’t
be
easy. The
catalyst
will
be
competition
and
changing
expectations
from
clients.
AI
will
be
a
behind-the-scenes
driver.
For
now,
AI
is
not
yet
incompatible
with
the
primary,
legacy
model
of
the
billable
hour.

Everhard
adds,
“I
think
there
will
be
an
evolution
of
the
pricing
model
over
time. But
like
in
other
industries,
the
catalyst
for
change
will
come
from
outside. New
market
entrants,
AI,
and
tech
will
force
law
firms
to
rethink
the
old
playbook.
That
will
drive
the
change. That
is
what
we
did
at
Flatiron. We
got
outside
the
traditional
firm
model
and
changed
everything. We
deploy
labor
differently. And
we
heavily
leverage
AI
and
technology,
especially
our
own
‘deal
operating
system’
that
enables
us
to
handle
complex
transactions
with
a
lot
less
labor
and
time,
with
better
results.”

Firms
will
continue
to
be
profitable
using
the
billable
hour
in
the
near
term.
Competition
from
new
firms
that
operate
more
cost-effectively
will
eventually
come.
They
will
embrace
technology
and
have
a
mindset
to
deliver
value
with
improved
efficiency.
This
will
raise
awareness
with
clients
and
put
pressure
on
firms
to
shift
their
model. 

The
big
question
is,
how
long
will
it
take
for
Biglaw
to
feel
the
pressure?  

---

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.

Roger
Alford
is
a
law
professor
at
Notre
Dame,
and
a
veteran
of
the
Trump
I
administration
where
he
was
the
Department
of
Justice’s
top
antitrust
official
for
international
affairs.
In
the
Tump
II
reign,
he
took
up
the
role
of
principal
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
in
the
DOJ’s
antitrust
division.
But
he’s
been
forced
out
of
that
role,
and
based
on
recent
comments,
his
position
against
the
merger
between
competitors
Hewlett
Packard
Enterprise (HPE)
and
Juniper
Networks
is
at
the
root
of
his
ouster.

Initially
the
DOJ
sued
to
block
the
merger,
but
HPE
hired
MAGA
influencers
Mike
Davis
and
Arthur
Schwartz.
Since
that
fortuitous
hiring, HPE
reached
a
settlement
with
the
government
to
move
the
merger
forward,

And
Alford
is
not
happy
about
it.

In
a
speech
at
the
Technology
Policy
Institute
in
Aspen,
Colorado,
Alford
called
on
the
courts
to
undo
the
damage
the
alleged
corruption
hath
wrought,
saying,
“I
hope
the
[federal
court
overseeing
the
Justice
Department’s
proposed
resolution]
blocks
the
HPE/Juniper
merger,”
and
urging
them
to
“examine
the
surprising
truth
of
what
happened.”Alford
assured
the
audience,
“If
you
knew
what
I
knew,
you
would
hope
so
too.”

As

reported
by
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
Alford
places
a
lot
of
the
blame
on
two
of
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
lackeys
—
Chad
Mizelle,
spouse
to…

questionable
federal
judge
Kathryn
Mizelle,
and
Stanley
Woodward.

Alford
said
Bondi’s
chief
of
staff,
Chad
Mizelle,
is
prone
to
favoring
outside
lawyers
and
lobbyists
with
whom
he
is
friends.
Mizelle
and
another
top
aide
to
Bondi,
Stanley
Woodward,
played
significant
roles
in
how
the
department
settled
with
HPE
and
Juniper
in
June,
Alford
said.
Trump
has
nominated
Woodward
to
be
the
Justice
Department’s
third-ranking
official.

“Chad
Mizelle
accepts
party
meetings
and
makes
key
decisions
depending
on
whether
the
request
or
information
comes
from
a
MAGA
friend,”
Alford
said.
“Aware
of
this
injustice,
companies
are
hiring
lawyers
and
influence
peddlers
to
bolster
their
MAGA
credentials
and
pervert
traditional
law
enforcement.”

Alford
continued,
“Although
I
am
limited
in
what
I
can
say,
it
is
my
opinion
that
in
the
HPE/Juniper
merger
scandal
Chad
Mizelle
and
Stanley
Woodward
perverted
justice
and
acted
inconsistent
with
the
rule
of
law.”
“I
am
not
given
to
hyperbole,
and
I
do
not
say
that
lightly.”

Alford’s
description
of
life
in
the
antitrust
division
reads
downright
dystopian,
with
MAGA
influence
the
new
currency
of
the
day:

Is
this
the
new
normal,
with
every
law
firm
hiring
an
influence
peddler
to
dual
track
and
sidestep
the
litigation
and
merger
review
process?
That’s
what
law
firms
are
now
considering.
The
Department
of
Justice
is
now
overwhelmed
with
lobbyists
with
little
antitrust
expertise
going
above
the
Antitrust
Division
leadership
seeking
special
favors
with
warm
hugs.
On
numerous
occasions
in
a
variety
of
matters
we
implored
our
superiors
and
the
lawyers
on
the
other
side
to
call
off
the
jackals.
But
to
no
avail.
Today
cases
are
being
resolved
based
on
political
connections,
not
the
legal
merits.

But
his
fire
comments
(you
can

read
them
in
full
here)
didn’t
just
focus
on
the
DOJ
employees
Alford
believes
betrayed
their
principles.
He
also
had
choice
words
for
the
lobbyists.

Mike
Davis
and
Arthur
Schwartz
have
made
a
Faustian
bargain
of
trading
on
relationships
with
powerful
people
to
reportedly
earn
million-dollar
success
fees
by
helping
corporations
undermine
Trump’s
antitrust
agenda,
hurt
working
class
Americans,
break
the
rules,
and
then
try
to
cover
it
up.
Outside
the
small
circle
of
transactional
MAGA
friends
seeking
and
giving
favors,
do
these
lobbyists
and
their
friends
in
power
actually
know
what
traditional
or
populist
conservatives
think
about
them?
When
lobbyists
like
Mike
Davis
and
Will
Levi
go
to
their
Supreme
Court
clerkship
reunions,
how
do
honorable
conservative
lawyers
who
clerked
for
the
great
Justices
Alito
and
Gorsuch
view
their
shenanigans?
Do
the
executives
and
the
lawyers
who
hire
these
lobbyists
know
what
the
antitrust
bar
and
the
Division’s
leaders
and
lawyers
think
of
their
behavior?
They
have
long
memories.

And
Alford
makes
it
clear
that
he
believes
his
stance
against
corruption
is
behind
his
firing.

My
position
while
I
served
in
government
was
simple:
lobbyists
and
lawyers
are
subordinate
to
the
law.
Yet
by
stating
this
truth,
I
was
dismissed
for
insubordination.
My
termination
letter
is
now
framed
and
hangs
on
the
wall
in
my
office
at
Notre
Dame.
I
joke
with
friends
that
I’ve
never
been
fired
before,
and
I’ve
been
working
since
my
first
job
as
a
young
teenager
at
the
Dairy
Queen
in
Sherman,
Texas.
All
it
took
to
be
fired
were
lobbyists
exerting
influence
on
my
superiors
to
retaliate
against
me
for
protecting
the
rule
of
law
against
the
rule
of
lobbyists.

But
a
DOJ
spokesperson,
when
asked
for
comment,
had
a
very
different
take,
“Roger
Alford
is
the
James
Comey
of
antitrust—pursuing
blind
self-promotion
and
ego,
while
ignoring
reality.”
And
HPE
provided
the
following
statement,
“Any
suggestion
that
HPE
procured
the
settlement
through
unethical
or
improper
means
is
false
and
irresponsible.”

Alford
supposes
that
he’ll
be
written
off
as
“naïve,”
and
there’s
a
ring
of
truth
there.
I
mean,
he
*was*
working
for
the
Trump
administration.
That’s
the
guy
who
bullied
nine
major
law
firms
into
giving
him

almost
a
billion
dollars
in
free
legal
services
to
get
out
from
under
unconstitutional
executive
orders.
The
same
one
who
finagled

$20
million
in
free
air
time
from
CBS
because
he
didn’t
like
60
Minutes’
journalism.
Who
got
himself
a
“free”
plane
from
Qatar.
Pay-to-play
is
the
name
of
the
game
in
2025,
and
the
antitrust
division
is
only
taking
their
lead
from
the
top.

---

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].

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Jeanine
M.
Donahue
to
our
pages.
Click


here

if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.

“Location,
location,
location”
is
a
well-known
phrase
in
the
real
estate
industry
implying
that
location
is
the
most
important
factor
in
determining
the
value
and
success
of
a
property. Taking
a
page
out
of
that
playbook,
“Relationships,
relationships,
relationships”
is
the
phrase
for
new
law
school
graduates
contemplating
the
value
and
success
of
their
future
career.

Keep
up
with
and
interact
with
your
college
and
law
school
classmates
—
over
LinkedIn,
TikTok,
or
whatever
social
media
platform
is
in
vogue. Don’t
limit
yourself
to
virtual
connections
—
in
person
meetups,
whether
for
drinks,
dinner,
or
an
outdoor
activity
are
important. If
distance
or
time
is
a
problem,
set
up
Zoom
lunches
where
you
can
have
a
lunch
delivered
to
your
friend
and
then
you
can
causally
chat
over
a
virtual
lunch. 
Ask
substantive
questions
about
the
person’s
area
of
practice
or
business
—
what
are
the
trends,
what
are
the
concerns
or
stressors
of
the
job/business,
what
are
their
goals
—
how
can
you
help
them
achieve
their
goals. Then
think
of
ways
to
help
your
friend.
Give
them
a
heads-up
about
an
article
you
read
or
a
speaker
you
heard
who
was
lecturing
on
a
topic
that
may
be
helpful
to
them.  

Building
these
authentic
relationships
from
the
beginning
of
your
career
will
help
you
as
you
grow. I
lost
track
of
my
good
friend
and
moot
court
partner
for
a
number
of
years
—
my
life
and
career
got
busy
and
I
lost
contact
with
him. 
When
I
finally
looked
him
up,
he
was
the
GC
of
a
Fortune
100
corporation. Because
I
had
not
nurtured
that
friendship
for
many
years,
I
lost
out
on
a
potential
opportunity
for
business
development
and
connections
(and,
honestly,
I
missed
my
friend
too!)

By
the
same
token,
try
to
maintain
relationships
with
the
people
who
you
work
with
and
for
over
the
years.
While
in
law
school,
I
worked
as
a
case
assistant
for
a
large
law
firm.
I
kept
in
touch
with
the
attorneys
and
support
staff
of
that
firm
as
I
moved
on
to
other
firms
as
a
lawyer.
Twenty
years
later,
those
big
firm
lawyers
and
some
of
their
staff
opened
up
a
litigation
boutique
and
were
looking
to
hire.
The
relationships
I
maintained
over
those
20
years
landed
me
one
of
the
best
jobs
I
have
ever
had.
And
from
that
role,
one
of
the
litigation
boutique
partners
made
introductions
for
me
to
a
client
who
I
have
now
worked
with
for
over
10
years.

Lastly,
relationships
with
co-counsel
and,
yes,
even
opposing
counsel,
are
important
to
maintain
and
nurture. These
are
the
people
you
are
going
to
call
about
what
they
are
hearing
in
your
practice
area
or
industry. They
will
be
the
ones
you
contact
to
ask
about
their
experience
with
a
judge
or
mediator
or
opposing
counsel. Opposing
counsel
who
you
respect
can
be
a
great
source
for
information
and
for
bouncing
theories
or
ideas
off
of. Attend
legal
conferences
where
both
sides
of
your
practice
attend
so
that
you
meet
the
people
in
your
practice
area
on
both
sides
of
the
V. Getting
active
in
various
legal
groups,
like
the
ABA
or
local
bar
associations,
is
another
way
for
you
to
get
that
exposure
to
co-counsel
and
opposing
counsel. Growing
those
relationships
now
will
make
it
easier
down
the
road
when
you
need
to
pick
up
the
phone
to
speak
with
those
people.

So
yes,
you
think
that
practicing
law
means
research,
arguments,
briefs,
and
trials
but
the
underpinning
of
a
successful
legal
career
starts
as
you
graduate
with
relationships,
relationships,
relationships. Congratulations
and
warmest
wishes
on
your
hard
earned
and
well-deserved
success! Don’t
wait
for
fate.
Create
the
relationships
now
that
will
shape
your
future.

---

Jeanine
M.
Donohue
is
a
member
of
the
firm’s
Litigation
Practice
Group
and
Wineries,
Vineyards
and
Breweries
Practice
Group.
She
practices
in
the
firm’s
St.
Helena
and
San
Francisco
offices.
With
over
30
years
of
experience,
Jeanine
is
a
big
picture
strategist
who
quickly
appreciates
the
30,000
foot
major
issues,
while
also
being
attentive
to
the
nuances
and
important
details
of
each
matter
she
handles.
Jeanine
maintains
a
broad
litigation
practice
that
includes
insurance
recovery,
commercial,
real
estate
and
products
liability.
Since
2013,
Jeanine
has
served
as
Outside
General
Counsel
to
four
active
524(g)
settlement
trusts
with
over
$1
billion
in
assets.
She
manages
all
outside
trust
litigation
including
insurance
coverage
litigation,
bankruptcy
and
adversary
proceedings.

The

International
Legal
Technology
Association
conference
is,
as
always,
the
big
one
on
the
legal
tech
calendar.
It’s
the
Davos
of
doc
review,
the
Super
Bowl
of
software
integrations,
and
the
Oscars
of
people
who
unironically
use
“lawyers”
and
“technology”
in
the
same
breath.
This
year,
4600+
legal
tech
professionals
and
vendors
gathered
in
Maryland
for
a
weeklong
salute
to
all
technology…
but
mostly
AI.

National
Harbor
exists
not
so
much
a
town
as
a
synthetic
terrarium
meticulously
constructed
to
drag
conference
business
out
of
DC.
A
simulacrum
of
a
city
center,
with
themed
restaurants
and
bars
ideally
suited
to
host
client
dinners
or
vendor
happy
hours.
As
a
conference
site,
it’s
a
perfect,
enclosed
economy
running
on
lanyard-strung
badges
and
drink
tickets.
There
are
people
who
complain
about
this
venue
and
I
will
fight
every
one
of
them.
Anyone
whining
about
National
Harbor
as
a
venue
should
be
sentenced
to
ninth
circle
of
hell
(just
past
the
Magnolia
Rooms
in
the
Gaylord
Nashville
—
which
is,
while
we’re
on
the
subject,
the
location
of
this
event
next
year).

This
trade
show
Narnia
served
as
an
eerie
counterpoint
to
the
tragi-buffoonery
unfolding
across
the
Potomac.
A
peaceful,
walkable
village
contrasted
by
a
city
under
siege.
Neither
reflects
reality
much.
National
Harbor
is
basically
a
soundstage
while
D.C.
is
the
safest
it’s
been
in
decades.
The
Humvees
cruising
the
drop-off
lane
of
Union
Station
stood
in
for
the
piano
bars
in
National
Harbor,
but
both
are
just
props
backing
up
an
illusion.
For
National
Harbor
it’s
to
provide
a
comfy
conference
host
that
doesn’t
feel
like
it’s
been
plopped
in
the
middle
of
nowhere.
For
D.C.
it’s
to

distract
everyone
from
how
many
times
Donald
Trump
might
show
up
in
the
Epstein
files.
One
of
these
projects
is
more
successful
than
the
other.

But
the
key
to
appreciating
National
Harbor
is
recognizing
it
as
a
custom-built
conference
center.
It’s
not
a
real
city,
it’s
a
simulation
designed
for
dispensing
knowledge
and
sterno-warmed
chicken
dumplings.
It’s
ruthlessly
efficient
at
delivering
both,
but
you
can’t
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
it
exists
to
make
attendees
feel
good
about
the
experience.
Not
unlike
the
AI
products
dominating
the
conversation.
Since
arriving
on
the
scene,
artificial
intelligence
has
inspired
legal
tech
vendors
to
design
all
manner
of
products
delivering
on
the
promise
of
increased
productivity.
But
most
of
what
we
hear
about
are
the
lawyers
who
forgot
that
the
AI
experience
is
an
illusion
of
its
own.

“Hallucinations”
aren’t
the
problem,
lawyers

failing
to
check
their
work
before
sending
it
out
the
door
is
the
problem.
But
that’s
also
a
bit
reductionist.
There’s
a
psychological
dimension
to
the
chatbot
interface.
Lawyers
wouldn’t
trust
a
summer
associate’s
brief
on
face,
so
why
are
they
trusting
ChatGPT?
The
Christine
Lemmer-Webber
description
of
it
as

Mansplaining
as
a
Service
gets
a
lot
of
the
way
there
—
as
a
tool,
AI
delivers
results
with
supreme
confidence
no
matter
how
wrong
it
might
be.
Though
that’s
not
the
whole
story,
because
mansplaining
takes
a
condescending
tone
while
the
problem
with
these
bots
continues
to
be
their
overzealous
compulsion
to
give
the
user
the
results
they
want.
Standing
in
the
Gaylord’s
Belvedere
Lounge
last
week,
I
explained
that
it’s
more
like
the
guy
who’s
become
convinced
that
the
stripper
is
in
love
with
him.

The
medium
is
the
message,
as
McLuhan
would
say.
Legal
tech
vendors
expend
massive
resources
to
make
sure
AI
products
deliver
more
reliable
results,
but
they’re
fighting
a
constant
battle
against
a
public
AI
sales
pitch
telling
the
world
that
AI
isn’t
just
finding
evidence,
it’s
finding

answers.
Even
though

“the
answer”
is
often
what
the
lawyer
is
hired
to
get
around.
But
that’s
going
to
be
the
sales
pitch,
because
no
one
gets
megarich
promising
cautious
improvement,
they
have
to
drive
revolutionary
change…
whether
it’s
warranted
or
not.

Which
becomes
its
own
hallucination.
Do
we
have
a
word
for
industries
built
on
shared
illusions?

The
official
theme
at
ILTACON
was…
pirates.
Attendees
dressed
up
like
pirates,
trading
plastic
doubloons
for
free
drinks
and
snapping
pictures
around
the
impressive
Crow’s
Nest
at
the
end
of
the
exhibit
hall.
Nothing
says
“NOT
A
BUBBLE”
like
dressing
up
as
the
romantic
ideal
of
people
showering
themselves
in
stolen
wealth.

To
be
clear,
this
isn’t
to
say
the
legal
technology
sector
—
or
more
specifically
the
AI
component
of
it
—
is
a
bubble.
Vendors
outdid
themselves
this
year
in
developing
new
and
more
interesting
ways
to
deploy
AI
to
improve
the
legal
workflow.

Definely
launched
its
Cascade
product,
using
AI
technology
to
track
first,
second,
and
third-order
knock-on
effects
from
contract
changes
to
combat
negotiation
whack-a-mole.

Everlaw
showed
off
a
new

deep
dive
tool
to
allow
more
senior
attorneys
to
interrogate
their
document
sets
at
every
stage
of
the
litigation.
Both

NetDocuments
and

iManage
continue
finding
new
ways
to
automate
the
process
of
making
the
firm’s
own
data
be
more
useful.

Legal
AI
providers
may
not
be
a
bubble,
but
they
could
well
be
one
of
those
rainbow
swirls
shimmering
beautifully
on
the
surface
of
an
underlying
AI
bubble.

Most
of
the
AI
on
display
at
the
show
is
still
“building
off”
other
products
—
the
“foundational
models”
to
use
the
parlance
of
the
trade.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
a
lot
of
this
stuff
rests
on
the
energy
guzzling
backs
of
OpenAI,
Anthropic,
Gemini,
and

MechaHitler
(or
whatever
Grok
is
calling
itself
now).
Fawning
media
coverage
and

half-trillion-dollar
valuations
suggest
this
is
a
gravy
train
extending
decades
into
the
future,
but
can
this
really
hold
up?
To
quote

tech
industry
analyst
Ed
Zitron,
“by
the
end
of
2025,
Meta,
Amazon,
Microsoft,
Google,
and
Tesla
will
have
spent
over
$560
billion
in
capital
expenditures
on
AI
in
the
last
two
years,
all
to
make
around
$35
billion.”
What
happens
when
one
—
or
more
—
of
the
companies
behind
these
models
runs
out
of
cash
to
pay
the
bills?
The
fact
that
legal
tech
providers
are
building
stuff
on
top
that
can
actually
pay
the
bills
won’t
matter
much
if
the
foundational
bot
goes
dark.

“Pirates,
Be
Ye
Warned,”
that
we’re
a
lackluster
NVIDIA
earnings
call
from
a
precipitous
drop.

Seriously,
how
does
OpenAI
pay
off
a
$500+
billion
valuation?
How
is
this
revenue
supposed
to
arrive?
Tokens
are
the
coin
of
the
realm
in
AI,
and
unlike
groceries,
they’re
actually

getting
less
expensive.
A
massive
surge
in
users
isn’t
likely
barring
the
imposition
of
year-round
school
—
a
recent
study
shows
AI
subscriptions
plummet
when
students

don’t
need
it
to
write
papers
for
them
over
the
summer
—
it’s
hard
to
imagine
where
the
AI
world
expects
to
get
all
enough
volume
to
make
back
their
money.
It
sounds
crazy
to
suggest
a
half-trillion
would
just
disappear,
but
it
sounded
crazy
to
suggest
Lehman
Brothers
would
disappear
until
it
did.

Few
tech
observers
are
ready
to
embrace
a
notion
this
grim.
But
several
at
the
show
seemed
willing
to
acknowledge
this
risk,
even
if
they
wouldn’t
admit
it
out
loud.
When
I’d
suggest
the
possibility
of
a
foundational
model
provider
going
belly
up,
one
industry
insider
said
directly,
“I
think
that’s
very
possible.”

The
show
arrived
against
the
backdrop
of
GPT-5
arriving
with
a
general
“meh,”
which
certainly
didn’t
help
promote
the
sense
that
we
were
all
riding
AI
to
the
moon.
The
newest
OpenAI
model
didn’t
come
up
much
throughout
the
week,
surprising
for
an
announcement
with
so
much
hype,
and
it’s
prompting
the
broader
computer
science
community
to
ask
“What
If
A.I.
Doesn’t
Get
Much
Better
Than
This?”
(which,
as
a
title,

certainly
sounds
familiar…).
While
the
most
audience-friendly
take
on
that
question
deals
with
the
much
ballyhooed
“displacement”
and
whether
or
not
it
will
actually
place
every
human
in
a
Matrix-style
incubator
by
2027,
it’s
worth
realizing
that
without
an
exponential
step
improvement
for
AI,
the
only
displaced
humans
will
be
the
ones
working
for
the
foundational
model
providers.

Though
most
kept
a
positive
outlook
while
signaling
caution.

Lexis,
showing
off
their
new
AI-powered
legal
research
tool
stressed
that
they’re
constantly
evaluating
the
foundational
models
and
suggested
they
could
quickly
swap
to
another
model
as
necessary.
In
fact,
one
of
the
most
singularly
practical
features
of
the
new
Protégé
offering
is
the
option
of
using
general
AI
models
of
the
lawyer’s
choice
(4o,
3o,
5,
or
Claude
Sonnet)
from
within
the
Lexis
tool.
Questions
that
lawyers
might
otherwise
plug
into
these
consumer
facing
models
can
be
posed
within
the
secure
Lexis
environment.
The
purpose
was
empowering

choice,
but
it’s
also
useful
for
keeping
options
open.
Of
note,
GPT-5
failed
to
sufficiently
impress
Lexis
into
updating
the
melange
of
algorithms
they
use
for
different
purposes
within
its
Legal
AI
tool
—
another
interesting
dig
at
the
newest
model
heard
at
the
conference.

Thomson
Reuters
CEO
Steve
Hasker
underscored
the
company’s
commitment
to
the
large
language
models
we
all
know
and
love/hate,
but
interestingly
took
the
opportunity
to
heavily
tout
the
company’s
acquisition
of
Safe
Sign
Technologies.
Hasker
said
he
believed
the
Safe
Sign
scientists
“were
in
the
process
of
building
the
best,
small
language
models
for
the
legal
profession,”
and
that
Thomson
Reuters
is
investing
significantly
in
their
work.
As
a
strategic
matter,
the
decision
to
devote
resources
to
building,
for
lack
of
a
better
analogy,
an
American
DeepSeek
seems
like
the
powerful
hedge.
Even
if
none
of
the
big
providers
collapses
under
their
own
bloated
valuations
and
paltry
revenues
—
and
I
still
think
they
will
—
Thomson
Reuters
will
have
a
model
on-hand
that
can
be
thrown
at
problems
far
more
cheaply
and,
continuing
the
DeepSeek
analogy,
more
accurately
based
on
a

cleaner
training
regimen.
Some
firms,
he
said,
are
already
asking
about
bringing
instances
of
these
model
behind
their
firewalls.

Maybe
the
lasting
accomplishment
of
large
language
models
will
be
the
small
language
models
we
make
along
the
way.

Hang
around
National
Harbor
long
enough
and
the
cracks
become
apparent.
Illusions
only
last
so
long,
after
all.
The
bar
immediately
across
from
the
Gaylord
sat
abandoned
this
time
around,
a
particularly
jarring
development
considering
it
had
a
built-in
customer
base
of
sloppy
conventioneers.
It
certainly
seemed
unthinkable
that
one
of
these
curated
entertainment
experiences
could
fail.
Is
it
so
absurd
to
imagine
an
artificial
intelligence
behemoth
will
go
under
like
that
bar?
National
Harbor
carried
on
without
this
watering
hole,
of
course,
but
the
absence
served
as
a
reminder:
all
gin
joints
are
fleeting.
AI
is
too
powerful
to
disappear
from
the
legal
workflow,
but
strolling
the
conference
this
year,
it
seemed
as
though
providers
would
do
well
to
consider
the
possibility
that
one
or
more
of
the
models
underlying
all
this
progress
might
implode.
For
that
matter,
customers
need
to
make
sure
they’ll
be
covered.
Until
then,
the
band
plays
on,
the
rum
flows,
and
everyone
convinces
themselves
they’ll
be
holding
the
doubloons
when
the
lights
come
on.

---

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.

Convenience
and
laziness
go
hand
in
hand
like
great
power
and
responsibility.
We’ve
seen
the
consequences
of
lazy
lawyers
and
judges
using
widely
accessible
large
language
models
irresponsibly.
Citing
to
nonexistent
cases
can
get
your
cemented
in
the
annals
of
the
New
York
Times
and
on

Above
The
Law’s
Point
and
Laugh
Wall^TM.
Mike
Lindell’s
lawyers

earned
a
sanction
after
shoddy
LLM
use,
Alabama

lost
its
chosen
lawyers
over
fake
cases,
and
a
judge
took
the
time
to
(professionally)
mock
a
lawyer
whose
apology
for
using
AI

included
purple
prose
that
would
make
William
Faulkner
blush.
It
would
be
one
thing
if
it
were
just
lawyers
showing
poor
judgement,
but
judges
have
hopped
on
the
trend
too
—
one
trial
judge
managed
to
mail-in
their
job
so
hard
that

an
“AI
hallucination”
became
good
law
for
a
short
while.

At
this
point,
the
general
public
would
benefit
if
someone
stepped
in
to
save
lawyers
and
judges
from
completely
outsourcing
their
jobs
to
LLMs.
Who
better
to
intervene
than
law
schools?

Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:

Incidents
of
AI-generated
errors
in
legal
citations
have
increased
the
pressure
on
law
schools
to
teach
responsible
use
of
the
technology.

The
University
of
Chicago,
University
of
Pennsylvania,
and
Yale
law
schools
are
among
those
augmenting
curricula.
In
new
or
updated
classes,
schools
are
training
their
students
to
understand
the
AI
tools’
limitations
and
to
check
their
work.

“You
can
never
give
enough
reminders
and
enough
instruction
to
people
about
the
fact
that
you
cannot
use
AI
to
replace
human
judgment,
human
research,
human
writing
skills,
and
a
human’s
job
to
verify
whether
something
is
actually
true
or
not,”
said
William
Hubbard,
deputy
dean
of
University
of
Chicago
Law
School.

This
is
an
amazing
heuristic
to
have.
One,
because
it
directly
counters
Elon
Musk’s
sentiment
that

feeding
Grok
all
prior
precedent
will
replace
judges,
but
also
because
it
refocuses
agency
back
on
what
matters
—
the
person
with
a
JD
responsible
for
advocating
on
their
client’s
behalf.
Language
like
“AI
Hallucinations”
does
a
phenomenal
job
of
covering
up
the
real
issue
behind
the
negligence
that
allows
errors
to
make
their
way
in
to
briefs
and
caselaw:

PEBCAK.
I’ll
admit
it
doesn’t
roll
off
of
the
tongue
quite
as
nicely
as
“AI
hallucination”
does,
but
it’s
a
better
alternative:

Remember:
bad
AI
cites
don’t
make
the
AI
look
nearly
as
bad
as
it
makes
you
look
lazy.
You,
and
your
school,
should
have
known
better
than
to
let
that
happen.

Top
Law
Schools
Boost
AI
Training
as
Legal
Citation
Errors
Grow
[Bloomberg
Law]

Earlier:

For
The
Love
Of
All
That
Is
Holy,
Stop
Blaming
ChatGPT
For
This
Bad
Brief

Trial
Court
Decides
Case
Based
On
AI-Hallucinated
Caselaw

T14
Law
School
Actually
Wants
You
To
Use
AI
In
The
Application
Process

---

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.

Just
because
you
know
somebody,
doesn’t
mean
you
appreciate
exactly
what
it
is
they
do
for
a
living.
Take
our
current
interviewee,
a
gentleman
married
to
one
of
my
wife’s
cousins
and
someone
who
I
have
known
for
at
least
20
years.
Yes,
we
have
gotten
to
speaking
a
lot
more
often
in
recent
years
when
he
and
his
family
relocated
from
Memphis
to
New
Jersey,
but
the
reality
is
that
other
than
knowing
he
was
a
lifelong
Saints
fan
and
native
New
Orleanian,
I
didn’t
really
know
much
about
his
professional
life.
That
started
to
change
when
he
would
check
in
from
time
to
time
on
a
random
copyright
question,
but
I
always
chalked
such
queries
up
to
the
fact
that
he
was
involved
in
online
marketing
of
some
sort.
Thankfully,
however,
we
recently
got
to
talking
more
in
depth
about
his
work,
including
the
fact
that
he
is
currently
building
a
website
for
a
leading
patent
litigation
boutique
firm.
Turns
out,
he
has
a
lot
to
share
with
respect
to
the
ever-important
issue
of
law
firm
marketing,
making
him
a
great
choice
for
an
interview
in
our
long-running
“3
Questions
For”
written
interview
series. 

So
let’s
meet
Jonathan
Blotner,
the
founder
and
owner
of

Blotner
Mass
Media,
a
full-service
marketing
and
advertising
agency
established
in
1994.
Through
Blotner
Mass
Media,
Jonathan
combines
cutting-edge
digital
strategies
with
time-tested
advertising
fundamentals
to
help
clients
grow,
compete,
and
lead
in
their
markets.
With
over
three
decades
of
experience
to
offer
his
clients,
Jonathan
has
built
a
reputation
as
a
trusted
consultant
and
strategist
across
multiple
industries,
with
particular
expertise
in
legal/law
firm
marketing,
medical
practice
marketing,
and
retail
and
eCommerce
marketing.
His
deep
knowledge
spans
both
traditional
and
digital
media.
He
specializes
in
TV
streaming
advertising
(CTV
&
OTT),
website
design,
SEO,
social
media
marketing,
content
development,
email
marketing,
and
full-scale
creative
services.
His
agency
also
continues
to
deliver
strong
results
in
traditional
advertising,
including
TV,
radio,
print,
and
direct
mail. 

As
this
readership
knows,
a
cohesive
and
effective
marketing
strategy
is
a
must
for
every
IP-focused
practitioner
and
law
firm.
And
just
as
IP
practice
is
always
changing
in
response
to
technological
developments,
it
is
without
a
doubt
true
that
what
functions
as
effective
law
firm
marketing
today
is
very
different
that
what
worked
ten
or
even
five
years
ago.
Accordingly,
we
all
should
probably
be
thinking
about
marketing
more
often
than
we
do,
so
I
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
share
Jonathan’s
insights
with
this
audience.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
Jonathan’s
answer
to
my
first
question
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
his
answer
as
he
provided
it.

Gaston
Kroub: What
challenges
do
IP
lawyers
have
from
a
marketing
perspective
that
may
not
be
found
in
marketing
fields
of
law
like
personal
injury
and
medical
malpractice?

Jonathan
Blotner:
The
legal
industry
is
incredibly
specialized
—
especially
in
fields
like
patent
law,
where
there’s
often
a
niche
within
a
niche.
This
means
the
margin
for
generic
messaging
is
slim.
In
our
experience,
lawyers
—
especially
in
IP
—
value
precision,
credibility,
and
positioning
above
all
else.
Unlike
other
industries
where
storytelling
and
broad
appeal
may
take
center
stage,
legal
marketing
must
strike
a
balance
between
authority
and
accessibility.
A
well-designed
site
for
a
law
firm
needs
to
capture
a
prospective
client’s
trust
within
the
first
30
seconds
—
both
visually
and
substantively.

Marketing
IP
legal
services,
particularly
in
patent
law,
requires
navigating
a
complex
audience
with
highly
technical
needs.
Unlike
personal
injury
or
medical
malpractice,
where
emotional
appeals
or
client
testimonials
play
a
central
role,
IP
marketing
must
balance
legal
acumen
with
deep
subject-matter
expertise
—
often
across
science,
engineering,
and
software.
The
target
clients
—
startups,
in-house
counsel,
R&D
leaders,
and
inventors
—
are
discerning
and
expect
substance
over
slogans.
Furthermore,
the
confidentiality
of
ongoing
innovations
and
litigation
makes
it
harder
to
showcase
case
studies
or
results
publicly.
IP
lawyers
must
therefore
rely
on
thought
leadership,
speaking
engagements,
technical
content
marketing,
and
carefully
crafted
messaging
that
signals
credibility
without
overselling.
The
goal
is
to
establish
authority
in
both
law
and
technology
without
appearing
self-promotional
—
a
far
more
nuanced
challenge
than
in
consumer-facing
areas
of
law.

GK:
There
is
a
lot
to
like
in
Jonathan’s
answer,
but
the
point
that
I
find
most
interesting
is
his
astute
observation
that
the
confidential
nature
of
the
work
done
by
IP
attorneys
adds
complexity
to
marketing
their
achievements.
Perhaps
that
is
why
IP
trial
lawyers
focus
their
marketing
on
highlighting
big
verdicts
received,
or
cases
successfully
defended,
rather
than
on
the
amazing
work
they
did
helping
their
client
avoid
a
filed
case
in
the
first
place.
Likewise,
IP
prosecution
specialists
tend
to
focus
on
counting
stats
like
numbers
of
applications
filed
when
it
comes
to
marketing,
or
the
types
of
clients
they
represent
–
as
a
proxy
for
actually
discussing
the
quality
of
the
work
they
are
capable
of.
The
problem
is
perhaps
most
acute
for
IP
licensing
specialists,
who
very
rarely
get
to
brag
about
their
deft
negotiation
of
a
contractual
clause
in
a
public-facing
manner.
At
bottom,
Jonathan’s
answer
confirms
that
IP
firms
looking
to
refine
their
marketing
efforts
are
advised
to
work
with
marketing
professionals
in
tune
with
the
realities
of
IP
practice,
as
well
as
the
most
effective
way
of
presenting
an
IP
lawyer
or
firm’s
qualifications
to
the
target
audience.

We
will
continue
with
Jonathan’s
answers
to
questions
2
and
3
next
time,
which
will
center
on
both
his
work
developing
websites
for
IP
firms,
as
well
as
his
thoughts
on
how
IP
firms
should
be
marketing
their
facility
with
AI
tools
–
if
they
have
that
capability,
of
course..
In
the
meantime,
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
Jonathan
for
potential
solutions
to
any
marketing
issues
your
practice
is
facing…

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.

Biglaw
firms
continue
to
mandate
that
attorneys
have
a
physical
presence
in
the
office,
and
in
recent
times,
those
mandates
have
applied
firmwide,
not
just
to
specific
practice
groups.
One
of
the
last
times
that
particular
practice
groups
were
singled
out
to
spend
more
time
in
the
office
was
nearly
three
years
ago
—
but
for
one
top
firm’s
corporate
lawyers,
that’s
all
about
to
change.

Sources
tell
us
that
DLA
Piper
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$4,239,832,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
3
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
has
increased
its
in-person
attendance
policy
to
four
days
for
its
U.S.
corporate
attorneys,
up
from
the
firm’s
three-day
mandate
that
was
instituted
last
year.
That
policy
gave
practice
group
leaders
discretion
to
adjust
attendance
requirements
based
on
current
needs.
Andrew
Gilbert,
the
firm’s
U.S.
corporate
practice
chair,
explained
his
rationale
for
the
move
in
an
email,
saying
that
the
increased
face
time
would
“support
our
culture
of
collaboration,
enhance
mentorship
opportunities,
and
strengthen
growth
and
development.” The
new
attendance
requirements
will
be
cited
in
associate
evaluations.

Frank
Ryan,
DLA
Piper’s
global
co-chair,
global
co-CEO,
and
Americas
chair,
told

Law.com
that
“[s]ome
of
it
is
associates
wanting
more
in-office
time,
some
of
it
is
just
work
levels.
For
the
corporate
group,
it
felt
like
a
good
time
to
do
this.”

It
is
unknown
at
this
time
whether
any
other
practice
groups
have
been
affected
by
this
new
attendance
mandate.

Quite
a
few
Biglaw
firms
are
now
requiring
four
days
in
the
office
firmwide,
including
the
likes
of Davis
Polk; Latham; Paul
Weiss; Ropes
&
Gray; Simpson
Thacher; Skadden; Vinson
&
Elkins; Weil
Gotshal; WilmerHale; White
&
Case; Sidley; Hogan
Lovells; A&O
Shearman;
and Covington. Sullivan
&
Cromwell has
taken
its
attendance
policy
one
step
further,
requiring
attorneys
to
work
from
the
office
five
days
each
week.

As
soon
as
you
find
out
about
office
attendance
plans
at
your
firm,
please email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Office
Reopening”)
or
text
us
at (646)
820-8477.
We
always
keep
our
sources
on
stories
anonymous.
There’s
no
need
to
send
a
memo
(if
one
exists)
using
your
firm
email
account;
your
personal
email
account
is
fine.
If
a
memo
has
been
circulated,
please
be
sure
to
include
it
as
proof;
we
like
to
post
complete
memos
as
a
service
to
our
readers.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
attach
as
a
picture
if
you
are
worried
about
metadata
in
a
PDF
or
Word
file.
Thanks.

DLA
Piper
Increases
In-Office
Requirement
for
US
Corporate
Lawyers
[Law.com]

---

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.

WASHINGTON
—
Depending
on
who
you
ask,
the

Department
of
Government
Efficiency
(DOGE)
has
either
been
a
radical
effort
that
has
saved
taxpayers
tens
of
billions
of
dollars,
or
a
wild
goose
chase
that
has
crippled
the
government
for
years
to
come. 

One
thing
that
many
can
agree
on,
however,
is
uncertainty
about
exactly
how
much
money
has
been
saved,
and
where.
That’s
true
especially
in
the
Pentagon,
where
numbers
thrown
around
by
different
officials
don’t
seem
to
line
up. 

Pentagon
Press
Secretary
Sean
Parnell

said
in
June
the
DoD
had
saved
“over
$10
billion.”
A
month
later,
the
Air
Force
said
in
a
statement
that
officials
“reviewed
over
500
contracts
and
50
business
systems,
realizing
savings
and
cost
avoidance
of
$10.4B.”
Then
earlier
this
month
the
Pentagon
released
a
budget
overview
for
fiscal
2026
[PDF]
that
identified
$13.8
billion
saved
“through
the
reduction
of
excess
bureaucratic
costs,”
but
that
was
only
part
of
“nearly
$30
billion
that
was
realigned”
from
some
DoD
projects
to
“higher
priority
programs”
following
“efficiency
reviews.” 

Amid
all
the
figures,
one
document
quietly
provided
some
black-and-white
clarity:
the

fiscal
2026
defense
budget,
which
listed
hundreds
of
cases
of
DOGE-related
savings
—
a
few
million
dollars
here,
a
few
thousand
dollars
there,
scattered
across
pages
and
pages.

No
total
amount
of
savings
was
originally
offered
in
the
budget
submission,
so
at
Breaking
Defense’s
request,
the
American
Enterprise
Institute
conducted
a
line-by-line
analysis
of
the
budget
to
determine
DOGE’s
impact
on
the
DoD
so
far. 

AEI’s
work
concluded
that
the
budget
documents
show
roughly
$11.1
billion
in
DOGE-related
cuts,
largely
through
workforce
reductions
across
a
number
of
Pentagon
programs.
Budget
documents
also
reflect
other
measures
to
reduce
spending
like
slashing
travel.

In
some
ways,
it’s
the
most
granular
accounting
put
on
paper
for
DOGE’s
time
at
the
Pentagon,
but
as
with
DOGE’s
work
elsewhere,
comes
with
a
host
of
caveats
and
no
small
amount
of
confusion.

“What
is
a
DOGE
cut
versus
a
program
reduction
versus
some
other
efficiency
initiative
that
may
have
been
going
on,”
said
AEI’s
Todd
Harrison,
a
longtime
budget
expert.
“So
it’s
a
little
hard
to
define,
but
they
are
at
least
claiming
credit
for
these
cuts
that
we
can
see
in
the
budget
request.
There
may
be
other
reductions
elsewhere
that
we
can’t
see.” 

What
The
Budget
Analysis
Shows

The
listing
of
DOGE-led
savings
are
somewhat
unique,
noted
AEI’s
Elaine
McCusker,
a
former
Pentagon
comptroller
who
served
during
the
first
Trump
administration. 

Whereas
most
administrations
in
their
first
year
are
eager
to
get
their
budget
on
Capitol
Hill
—
leaving
little
time
to
make
significant
changes
—
the
inaugural
budget
from
the
second
Trump
administration
reflected
tangible
efforts
to
reshape
military
spending.
And
while
the
savings
were
difficult
to
identify
and
compile
in
the
budget
documents,
“the
fact
that
they
did
it
at
all,
I
think,
is
interesting
and
commendable,”
she
said. 

McCusker’s
AEI
colleagues
cautioned
that
the
DOGE
savings
data
they
manually
extracted
may
have
some
inaccuracies
due
to
how
they
were
written
in
budget
documents,
which
at
times
showed
positive
or
negative
numbers,
misspellings
and
other
inconsistencies.
(One
Democratic
lawmaker

recently
chided
the
Pentagon
for
a
number
of
what
he
called
“big
mistakes”
in
the
DoD’s
budget
proposal.)

By
service,
the
Navy,
which
includes
the
Marine
Corps,
led
the
way
in
DOGE
savings
with
what
was
identified
as
nearly
$3.7
billion
in
cuts
across
its
spending
accounts,
according
to
AEI’s
analysis.
Close
behind
was
the
Army
with
$3.2
billion.
The
Air
Force,
which
includes
the
Space
Force,
followed
with
approximately
$2.3
billion
in
cost
reductions.
Defense-wide
savings
further
totaled
$1.9
billion. 

The
AEI
analysis
shows
a
clear
trend
toward
savings
found
primarily
by
targeting
two
types
of
civilian
workers:
employees
who
worked
directly
for
DoD
and
contractors.
Pentagon
civilians
were
targeted
through
various
layoffs
and
a

deferred
resignation
program
encouraging
exits.
Contractors
were
hit
with
contract
cancellations,
hitting
big-name
firms
and
federally
funded
research
and
development
centers
(FFRDCs). 

Many
of
the
savings
discussed
in
budget
documents
recycle
similar
language,
typically
pointing
to
one
of
two
DOGE-focused
executive
orders
—
one
on
“cost
efficiency”
and
another
on
“workforce
optimization”
—
to
justify
the
reductions. 

Take
the
Air
Force’s

KC-46
Pegasus
refueler
tanker.
Procurement
documents
list
a
roughly
$6.3
million
cut
to
the
program
“for
Advisory
and
Assistance
Services,”
which
the
description
says
was
carried
out
“to
promote
efficiencies
and
advance
the
policies
of
the
Administration
in
alignment
with
Executive
Order
14222,
‘Implementing
the
President’s
Department
of
Government
Efficiency
Cost
Efficiency
Initiative.’”

The
Navy’s

CH-53K
King
Stallion
heavy-lift
helicopter
procurement
similarly
saw
its
personnel
funding
reduced
via
DOGE,
this
time
by
about
$3.4
million.
The
service’s
budget
documents
say
the
cut
was
“for
civilian
personnel
to
optimize
the
workforce
in
compliance
with
Executive
Order
14210,
Implementing
the
President’s
Department
of
Government
Efficiency
Workforce
Optimization
Initiative.”
The
program’s
advisory
and
assistance
services
were
reduced
by
nearly
$1
million
as
well,
according
to
the
documents. 

Considering
the
cuts
to
staff
positions,
it’s
perhaps
no
surprise
that
the
Pentagon’s
operations
and
maintenance
(O&M)
account
came
in
first
among
DOGE
cuts,
with
over
$8.1
billion
in
savings.
The
Pentagon’s
research
and
development
account
came
in
a
distant
second
with
over
$1.8
billion
in
spending
cuts,
followed
by
procurement
that
saw
a
decrease
of
nearly
$1.1
billion.
Revolving
and
management
spending
rounded
out
the
DOGE
cuts
with
$11.9
million
reduced,
according
to
AEI’s
analysis. 

Travel
appeared
to
be
another
main
source
of
DOGE
savings,
with
no
number
too
small.
The
Army’s
O&M
budget
documents,
for
example,
show
that
along
with
workforce
cuts,
the
service
trimmed
roughly
$45,000
from
the
Industrial
Preparedness
subactivity
group
for
“discretionary
travel
funding
to
align
with
Executive
Order
14222,
‘Implementing
the
President’s
Department
of
Government
Efficiency
Cost
Efficiency
Initiative.’” 

What
The
Pentagon
Says
About
Its
Own
Numbers

Recently,
the
Pentagon
released
an
official
budget
overview
detailing
changes
to
the
DoD’s
spending
as
a
result
of
administration
initiatives,
which
announced
that
“efficiency
reviews”
yielded
“nearly
$30
billion
that
was
realigned
to
higher
priority
programs”
—
a
number
that
includes
$12.7
billion
in
program
changes
like
the

cancellation
of
the
E-7
Wedgetail
radar
plane,
among
other
categories. 

That
same
overview
claims
the
Pentagon’s
FY26
budget
cuts
$13.8
billion
“through
the
reduction
of
excess
bureaucratic
costs
by
reshaping
and
optimizing
the
civilian
workforce,
reducing
contracts
for
advisory
and
assistance
services,
and
reducing
travel
costs.” 

Of
those
claimed
figures,
$6.8
billion
was
saved
by
“workforce
optimization/working
capital
fund
efficiencies,”
whereas
$5.5
billion
was
cut
from
advisory
and
assistance
service
contracts
and
FFRDCs.
Workforce
optimization
primarily
refers
to
civilian
employees,
while
advisory
and
assistance
services
cover
contracted
work.
The
document
then
says
$1.1
billion
was
saved
on
travel
and
$400
million
from
“other
reforms.”

The
overview
doesn’t
attribute
these
personnel
savings
specifically
to
DOGE,
saying
only
that
the
efficiency
reviews
were
performed
to
“implement
executive
orders,”
though
the
budget
documents
show
that
labor
cuts
were
justified
by
the
DOGE-related
executive
orders.
A
section
in
the
overview
that
bears
the
title
of
DOGE
“identified
savings”
doesn’t
list
a
dollar
value,
but
does
read
that
“390
contracts
and
grants
have
been
terminated
or
adjusted
by
DOGE
efforts,
and
Department-wide
reviews
are
continuing
to
scrutinize
over
400,000
open
contracts
and
grants
for
additional
savings
in
FY
2026
and
beyond.”
DOGE-driven
“efficiency
efforts,”
the
document
adds,
“are
multi-layered
and
will
be
enacted
over
multiple
budget
cycles.”

But
those
aren’t
the
only
figures
the
Pentagon
has
put
out.
Earlier
this
year,
Defense
Secretary
Pete
Hegseth
directed
the
military
services
to
collectively

free
up
$50
billion
that
could
be
directed
to
new
priorities
in
FY26,
and
the
lines
between
DOGE-specific
cuts,
general
priority
reviews
and
other
administration
initiatives
can
be
somewhat
hazy. 

It’s
further
unclear
exactly
how
those
differing
figures
match
up
with
what
is
in
the
FY26
budget
documents.
A
spokesperson
for
the
Pentagon
said,
“The
Secretary
continues
to
actively
pursue
the
President’s
agenda
by
ridding
out
the
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse
in
the
Department
and
reallocating
the
savings
to
fund
different
parts
of
the
critical
war
fighting
ability,”
but
declined
to
respond
on
the
record
to
specific
questions
about
DOGE
savings
in
the
budget
request.
The
Army
and
Navy
did
not
respond
to
a
request
for
comment. 

An
Air
Force
spokesperson
told
Breaking
Defense
in
July
that
the
Department
of
the
Air
Force
“conducted
efficiency
reviews”
which
“achieve[d]
cost
savings
or
avoidance
on
contracts”
by
“descoping,
reducing
the
contract
ceiling,
terminating,
or
declining
to
exercise
contract
option
periods.” 

As
one
example,
the
spokesperson
said
officials
“terminated
or
descoped
the
Air
Force
Strategic
Transformation
Support
Contract
which
yielded
approximately
$4.8B
in
cost
savings/avoidance,”
noting
that
duties
under
the
contract
“will
be
performed
by
our
highly
skilled
DoD
workforce.”
The
FY26
budget
documents
“do
not
reflect
comprehensive
DOGE
savings,”
they
added.

Considering
the
volume
of
cuts
touted
by
the
Air
Force,
it’s
possible
that
savings
detailed
in
budget
documents
overlap.
It’s
unclear
what
programs
exactly
are
involved
in
the
Strategic
Transformation
Support
contract,
but

government
notices
say
the
contract
vehicle
is
for
“advisory
and
assistance
services,”
the
same
type
of
activity
that
budget
documents
list
as
cut.
Exact
figures
and
their
links
to
programs
remain
difficult
to
parse
without
further
clarity
from
the
Pentagon.

Confusion
Remains
About
DOGE
Impact

John
Ferrari,
a
retired
two-star
Army
general
and
AEI
analyst,
praised
DOGE
“for
the
actual
cuts
they
did,”
but
cautioned
that
officials
should
avoid
“overstating”
them. 

Noting
the
disparity
between
the
$13.8
billion
figure
in
the
overview
and
the
$11.1
billion
identified
in
AEI’s
analysis,
Ferrari
remarked
the
two
numbers
are
“remarkably
close,”
and
that
the
analysis
appeared
to
be
“fairly
accurate”
as
a
result.
He
added
that
the
Trump
administration
should
be
“commended”
for
the
summary
providing
DOGE’s
impact,
but
pointed
out
that
the
overview
arrived
well
after
the
budget
was
unveiled.
Additionally,
he
noted
the
overview
doesn’t
track
DOGE’s
changes
to
individual
programs
—
making
it
more
difficult
for
some
officials,
like
congressional
staffers,
to
see
specific
effects.  

“They
need
to
come
up
with
a
better
way
for
next
year”
to
illustrate
the
DOGE
cuts,
he
said.  

The
questions
about
what
exactly
is
being
“saved”
and
where
also
runs
into
concerns
about
whether
the
DOGE
cuts
are
helping
the
Pentagon’s
core
mission.

The
Trump
administration
has
emphasized
the
staff
reductions
carried
out
across
the
federal
government
have
increased
efficiency
by
simply
doing
the
same
work
with
fewer
workers.
But
the
nature
of
how
those
cuts
were
carried
out
raises
questions
about
whether
that
goal
was
really
achieved,
said
AEI’s
Harrison.

“I
think
the
way
you
make
the
reduction
matters
a
whole
lot,”
Harrison
said,
pointing
to
DOGE’s
aggressive
campaign
to
shrink
the
federal
government.
“I
have
serious
questions
and
concerns
about
how
they
went
about
making
these
DOGE
reductions,
you
know,

the
‘Fork
in
the
Road’
email,
the
bullying
tactics,”
adding
those
measures
“could
be
very
counterproductive
to
efficiency.” 

He
later
added
that
“you
can
save
a
lot
of
money
by
cutting
personnel,
but
if
you
don’t
cut
the
work
that
has
to
be
done,
you’re
just
gonna
end
up
paying
those
costs
in
a
different
way.”

The
Pentagon’s
budget
overview
paints
a
particularly
stark
picture.
According
to
a
table
included
in
the
overview,
the
FY26
budget
cuts
over
5
percent
of
the
department’s
civilian
workforce,
amounting
to
more
than
40,000
full-time
positions.

The
Department
of
the
Army
led
the
way
with
a
planned
nearly
11
percent
reduction,
whereas
the
Department
of
the
Air
Force,
which
includes
the
Space
Force,
came
in
second
with
over
4
percent.
Defense-wide
personnel
reductions
came
in
third
at
about
3.6
percent,
and
the
Department
of
the
Navy
rounded
out
the
list
at
about
3.4
percent
in
cuts.
(The
summary
lists
Full-Time
Equivalents,
or
FTEs,
which
measure
the
workload
of
a
full-time
employee,
since
many
workers
may
be
part-time
or
temporary.)

    Source:
DoD
budget
overview

“That
much
of
a
reduction
in
one
year?”
Harrison
asked.
“That
is
highly
unusual,
if
not
unprecedented.”

Harrison
did
a
deep
dive
in
the
FY26
budget
documents
on
the
impacts
on
Space
Force
personnel,
calculating
that
the
service
axed
roughly
400
to
450
civilian
workers,
an
approximate
10
percent
reduction
in
its
workforce.
Another
1,000
or
so
contracted
personnel
were
also
let
go,
at
a
time
the
Space
Force’s
responsibilities
are
growing
and
ambitious
new
projects
like
the
Golden
Dome
missile
defense
scheme
are
taking
shape. 

“For
the
Space
Force,
that’s
pretty
significant,”
he
said. 

Some
DOGE
savings
may
be
somewhat
illusory.
For
example,
a
contract
could
be
canceled
well
short
of
its
ceiling
value
—
as
was
the
case
in
the
Air
Force’s
Strategic
Transformation
Support
contract
—
which
Harrison
noted
may
never
be
reached
anyway.
Some
of
those
cuts
could
be
better
understood
as
cost
avoidance,
rather
than
a
saving.
Many
of
the
cuts
in
the
budget
documents
reflect
workforce
reductions
and
slashed
travel,
meaning
that
they
could
measure
up
to
true
savings,
though
it
appears
the
DoD
reinvested
those
dollars
instead
of
pocketing
them.
Considering
the
DoD
is
actively
culling
its
workforce,
it’s
likely
many
cuts
are
already
being
realized. 

Despite
Elon
Musk’s
unceremonious
exit
from
the
Trump
administration,
officials
have
said
DOGE’s
work
will
continue.
About
154,000
federal
workers
took
the
administration’s
offer
for
a
deferred
resignation,
according
to
the

Washington
Post,
and
in
July,
the
Supreme
Court
cleared
the
way
for

more
mass
layoffs.
A

government-wide
hiring
freeze,
with
some
exceptions,
means
many
of
those
vacant
positions
may
not
be
filled
any
time
soon. 

“DOGE’s
work
as
the
department
is
not
going
to
stop,
that
is
absolutely
for
certain.
We
are
committed
to
cutting
government
waste
and
bureaucracy
wherever
we
can,”
DoD
spokesperson
Kingsley
Wilson
said
in
a
gaggle
with
reporters
on
Aug.
7.
“At
the
end
of
the
day,
we
want
to
make
sure
our
warfighters
are
equipped
to
do
their
jobs,
and
that
relies
on
a
department
that
is
functioning
efficiently.” 

AEI
Research
Assistant
Dillon
Prochnicki
and
interns
David
Glick
and
Evangelina
Meyer
contributed
analysis
for
this
story.
Breaking
Defense’s
Ashley
Roque
contributed
reporting.