Author: TSA Press

Despite
the
growing
list
of
African
nations
under
scrutiny,
South
African
passport
holders
remain
temporarily
exempt,
allowing
them
to
continue
traveling
to
the
U.S.
without
facing
these
new
limitations.
The
latest
moves
reflect
Washington’s
ongoing
efforts
to
enforce
immigration
compliance,
reduce
visa
overstays,
and
tighten
security,
while
diplomatic
and
trade
discussions
between
South
Africa
and
the
U.S.
continue
to
maintain
strong
bilateral
ties.

The
Trump
administration
has
intensified
its
visa
and
travel
restrictions,
yet
South
Africa
has
so
far
been
spared,
even
as
multiple
countries
across
sub-Saharan
Africa
face
tightened
entry
rules.

At
present,
holders
of
South
African
passports
can
continue
to
travel
to
the
United
States
without
being
subjected
to
the
new
restrictions
that
are
increasingly
affecting
other
African
nations.
This
temporary
exemption
comes
as
Washington
expands
its
efforts
to
scrutinize
travel
documentation
and
immigration
compliance
among
countries
perceived
to
pose
higher
risks.

In
June
2025,
the
administration
introduced
a
travel
ban
targeting
19
nations,
broadening
policies
initially
enacted
during
Trump’s
first
term.
Recent
developments
indicate
that
U.S.
authorities
are
considering
similar
measures
for
an
additional
36
countries,
most
of
which
are
located
in
Africa.
This
expansion
signals
the
administration’s
commitment
to
reducing
visa
overstays
and
tightening
the
screening
of
visitors
from
nations
with
perceived
gaps
in
immigration
enforcement.

A
directive
from
the
U.S.
State
Department
instructed
embassies
and
consulates
in
the
affected
nations
to
assess
their
governments’
willingness
and
capacity
to
improve
travel
documentation
systems.
It
also
asked
them
to
address
the
situation
of
nationals
living
in
the
United
States
without
proper
legal
authorization.
Countries
under
review
have
been
given
a
60-day
period
to
respond,
with
a
warning
that
failure
to
comply
could
result
in
their
addition
to
the
growing
list
of
restricted
nations,
which
currently
totals
12.
Out
of
the
36
countries
being
evaluated,
25
are
in
Africa,
reflecting
a
concentrated
focus
on
the
continent.

These
measures
are
part
of
a
broader
policy
initiative
by
the
Trump
administration
aimed
at
ensuring
the
United
States
maintains
strict
control
over
entry
and
stay
of
foreign
nationals.
President
Trump
has
repeatedly
asserted
that
certain
countries
lack
adequate
screening
systems,
fail
to
enforce
proper
documentation,
or
refuse
to
repatriate
citizens
who
violate
U.S.
immigration
laws.
The
administration
frames
these
actions
as
both
a
national
security
imperative
and
a
way
to
preserve
the
integrity
of
U.S.
immigration
policy.

Several
African
nations
are
already
experiencing
the
effects
of
these
new
rules.
The
U.S.
embassy
in
Zimbabwe,
for
example,
has
suspended
all
routine
immigrant
and
non-immigrant
visa
services,
with
exceptions
only
for
most
diplomatic
and
official
visas.
This
suspension
underscores
the
administration’s
increasing
scrutiny
and
signals
potential
challenges
for
Zimbabwean
travelers
planning
visits
to
the
United
States.

Similarly,
new
measures
have
been
introduced
for
Malawi
and
Zambia,
requiring
their
citizens
to
post
bonds
ranging
from
$5,000
to
$15,000
to
qualify
for
visitor
visas.
This
rule,
effective
from
20
August
2025,
applies
to
applicants
seeking
B1/B2
visas
who
meet
other
eligibility
criteria.
It
mandates
submission
of
a
Department
of
Homeland
Security
bond
agreement
along
with
online
payments
through
the
U.S.
Treasury’s
system.
Such
policies
demonstrate
the
administration’s
focus
on
financial
guarantees
and
accountability
as
conditions
for
entry.

In
contrast,
South
Africa
remains
outside
the
immediate
scope
of
these
restrictions.
Experts
suggest
that
the
country
is
not
currently
under
direct
scrutiny,
possibly
due
to
existing
administrative
and
diplomatic
arrangements.
Professor
Anthoni
van
Nieuwkerk
of
the
University
of
South
Africa
notes
that
South
Africa
appears
to
have
avoided
the
immediate
crosshairs
of
the
latest
travel
measures,
although
vigilance
remains
crucial.

At
the
same
time,
South
African
authorities
are
closely
monitoring
trade-related
tensions
with
the
United
States,
particularly
in
relation
to
recent
import
tariffs.
President
Cyril
Ramaphosa
and
President
Trump
held
a
phone
call
on
Wednesday
to
discuss
the
trade
relationship,
with
a
specific
focus
on
tariffs
that
have
raised
concerns
among
South
African
exporters.
The
discussion
reportedly
highlighted
the
impact
of
these
tariffs
on
local
industries,
jobs,
and
the
overall
economy,
while
emphasizing
the
long-standing
partnership
between
the
two
nations.

Although
the
full
details
of
the
conversation
have
not
been
publicly
disclosed,
sources
close
to
the
matter
described
the
call
as
a
positive
step
toward
sustaining
strong
bilateral
relations
amid
rising
global
trade
tensions.
Analysts
believe
that
continued
dialogue
may
pave
the
way
for
reconsideration
of
tariffs
and
reinforce
South
Africa’s
position
as
a
reliable
trade
partner.

For
now,
South
African
travelers
can
continue
visiting
the
United
States
without
facing
the
stricter
visa
and
travel
bans
imposed
on
several
other
African
nations.
Meanwhile,
other
countries
across
the
continent
are
adjusting
to
the
new
requirements,
including
additional
documentation,
financial
bonds,
and
limited
access
to
visa
services.
The
broader
context
of
these
policies
reflects
the
administration’s
ongoing
emphasis
on
national
security,
regulatory
compliance,
and
stricter
immigration
oversight.

The
US
has
expanded
visa
and
travel
restrictions
targeting
Zimbabwe,
Malawi,
and
Zambia,
while
South
African
passport
holders
remain
temporarily
exempt.
These
measures
include
stricter
documentation
checks,
bond
requirements,
and
halted
visa
services
amid
heightened
immigration
scrutiny.

As
global
travel
and
migration
patterns
evolve,
South
Africa’s
current
exemption
provides
temporary
relief,
but
both
travelers
and
government
officials
remain
attentive
to
developments
that
may
alter
the
country’s
status.
The
interplay
between
diplomatic
engagement,
trade
negotiations,
and
immigration
policy
will
likely
determine
the
country’s
position
in
future
U.S.
visa
regulations.

Source:


US
Imposes
New
Visa
And
Entry
Restrictions
On
Zimbabwe,
Malawi,
And
Zambia,
With
South
Africa
Continuing
To
Enjoy
Unaffected
Travel
Access
–

Travel
And
Tour
World

Post
published
in:

Business

Staff
Layoffs
And
Retention
Bonuses:
Pick
a
struggle,
Willkie.
Washington
D.C.
Pushes
Back
Against
Militarizing
The
Police
Force:
Remember
when
Republicans
were
the
small
government
party?
What
Happens
To
A
Passing
Grade
Deferred?:
Three
more
test
takers
passed
the
February
California
Bar
after
score
changes.
Sandwich
Thrower
Caught
On
Video:
Must
see
TV
right
here!
Pick
Your
Fighter
Wisely:
Clients
usually
shouldn’t
use
multiple
firms
for
the
same
matter.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
data
tracked
by
Leopard
Solutions,
which
law
firms
scooped
on
the
most
attorneys
that
served
in
the
Biden
administration?

Hint:
Between
December
2024
and
July
2025,
they
tracked
~250
attorneys
from
the
White
House,
Main
Justice,
Federal
Trade
Commission,
and
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission;
three
firms
tied
for
picking
up
the
most
legal
talent
from
the
previous
administration
—
and
the
list
isn’t
terribly
surprising.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Even
when
a
drug
finishes
its
production
in
the
U.S.,
its
active
and
inactive
components
often
come
from
overseas.
While
pharmaceutical
companies
have
been
unveiling
plans
for

new
U.S.
manufacturing
plants
in
response
to
the
Trump
administration’s
threat
of
tariffs,
few
of
these
plans
mention
the
production
of
active
pharmaceutical
ingredients,
or
APIs.

The
Trump
administration’s
policy
goal
of
bringing
of
bringing
drug
manufacturing
back
to
the
U.S.
is
now
expanding
to
APIs
under
a

new
executive
order
signed
Wednesday.
The
administration
is
making
a
list
of
medicines
“especially
critical
to
the
health
and
security
interests
of
the
Nation.”
Based
on
that
list,
the
government
will
stockpile
APIs
for
these
drugs.

In
the
order,
the
administration
states
that
nearly
two
in
five
prescription
drugs
are
finished
in
the
U.S.
But
by
volume,
only
about
10%
of
APIs
for
these
finished
products
are
made
in
the
U.S.
The
executive
order
builds
on
a
stockpiling
initiative
started
under
the
first
Trump
administration.
In
2020,
the
administration
created
the
Strategic
Active
Pharmaceutical
Ingredient
Reserve
(SAPIR)
to
stockpile
APIs.

According
to
the
order,
drug
procurement
and
stockpiling
did
not
increase
under
President
Biden
and
the
SAPIR
is
now
nearly
empty.
The
order
directs
the
Office
of
the
Assistant
Secretary
for
Preparedness
Response
(ASPR),
a
part
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
(HHS),
to
develop
a
list
of
about
26
critical
drugs.
The
order
also
directs
the
office
to
account
for
funds
that
can
be
used
to
stock
and
maintain
SAPIR,
maintaining
a
six-month
supply
of
APIs
for
these
medicines.

“Stockpiling
APIs
is
advantageous
as
APIs
are
generally
lower-cost
and
have
longer
shelf
lives
than
the
finished
drug
products
they
make,”
the
order
states.
“Filling
the
SAPIR
will
also
insulate
the
United
States
from
the
concentration
of
foreign,
sometimes
adversary,
nations
in
the
world-wide
supply
of
the
Key
Starting
Materials
used
to
make
APIs.
Moreover,
Government
purchases
of
APIs
to
fill
the
SAPIR
can
encourage
more
domestic
production
of
APIs.”

There
is
some
movement
in
domestic
API
production.
Ahead
of
the
executive
order,
AbbVie
this
week
announced
plans
to

invest
$195
million
in
an
existing
North
Chicago-based
facility
to
expand
its
API
manufacturing
capabilities.
The
announcement
is
part
of
more
than
$10
billion
in
capital
investments
planned
by
the
drugmaker.
Construction
of
the
API
facility
will
begin
later
this
year
and
is
projected
to
become
operational
in
2027.
When

Eli
Lilly
last
year
announced
plans
for
a
$5.3
billion
expansion
of
an
Indiana
site,
the
company
said
this
location
will
make
the
active
pharmaceutical
ingredient
in
its
metabolic
medicines
Mounjaro
and
Zepbound.
But
it’s
not
clear
that
such
products
would
make
the
cut
of
being
critical
or
essential
medicines.

In
2020,
the
Trump
issued
an

executive
order
directing
the
FDA
to
make
a

list
of
essential
medicines,
medical
countermeasures,
and
critical
inputs.
ASPR
later
narrowed
that
list
to
86
essential
medicines.
The
latest
executive
order
directs
ASPR
to
update
the
list
of
essential
medicines
and
provide
a
plan
for
obtaining
these
drugs,
with
a
preference
for
domestic
manufacturers.
SAPIR
will
also
maintain
a
six-month
supply
of
these
essential
medicines
(if
they
are
not
already
on
the
critical
drug
list).

It
doesn’t
appear
Trump
will
seek
new
Congressional
funding
for
the
stockpile.
The
order
states
that
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
will
help
HHS
facilitate
repurposing
of
available
funds,
consistent
with
the
law.
This
step
will
happen
within
the
next
30
days.
Within
120
days
of
the
order,
and
subject
to
the
availability
of
funding,
ASPR
will
prepare
SAPIR
to
receive
APIs.
The
order
also
calls
for
a
proposal
and
cost
estimate
for
opening
a
second
SAPIR
in
the
U.S.
within
one
year.

In
a
note
sent
to
investors,
Leerink
Partners
analyst
Puneet
Souda
said
it’s
hard
to
assess
the
order’s
impact
until
the
26
critical
drugs
are
selected.
He’s
also
awaiting
clarity
on
financial
details,
such
as
whether
the
administration
is
willing
to
pay
much
higher
prices
for
stockpiling
API
and
generics
that
are
manufactured
in
the
U.S.
when
cheaper
alternatives
are
available
from
other
countries,
mainly
India
and
China.

“The
essential
medicines
list
published
by
FDA
in
2020
is
skewed
toward
generics
such
as
amoxicillin,
acetaminophen,
and
antibiotics,
i.e.,
low-cost,
high-volume
drugs,”
Souda
said.
“Manufacturing
such
APIs
in
the
U.S.
would
likely
increase
the
cost
per
pill
due
to
higher
labor,
energy,
and
compliance
costs.”

Photo:
Andrew
Harnik,
Getty
Images

The
legal
industry
had
an
“unexpectedly
prosperous”
second
quarter,
as
an
uptick
in
countercyclical
practices
like
litigation
offset
a
slowdown
in
M&A
demand
—
and
smaller
firms
gained
ground
on
the
Am
Law
100
—
according
to
a
new
report
by
Thomson
Reuters. 

The
Law
Firm
Financial
Index’s
quarterly
update,
dubbed
“The
Eye
of
the
Hurricane,”
states
that
the
average
demand
increased
1.6%
for
law
firms,
and
worked
rates
were
up
7.4%.

But,
as
the
report
states,
the
“picture
becomes
even
more
complicated
when
we
look
at
each
law
firm
segment.” 

The
Am
Law
100
saw
a
0.6%
decline
in
demand
growth,
with
the
downturn
most
notable
in
their
corporate
practices.
Meanwhile,
the
Second
Hundred
and
midsize
firms
“greatly
accelerated
their
demand
performance
across
most
practices,”
according
to
the
report.

Thomson
Reuters
notes
that
these
metrics
indicate
a
“potential
shift
in
client
preferences
towards
more
specialized
or
cost-effective
legal
solutions.”

Q2
2025
LFFI:
The
Eye
of
the
Hurricane
[Thomson
Reuters]

---

Jeremy
Barker
is
the
director
of
content
marketing
for
Breaking
Media.
Feel
free
to email
him with
questions
or
comments
and
to

connect
on
LinkedIn.

I
recently
wrote
a

piece
bemoaning
the
lack
of
critical
thinking
skills
among
younger
lawyers
in
the
age
of
GenAI
and
wondering
how
the
profession
can
hope
to
train
lawyers
to
have
these
skills.
I
wondered
whether
the
repetitive,
tedious
work
that
young
lawyer
traditionally
had
to
do
created
experienced
lawyers
who
could
recognize
patterns
and
solutions
due
to
the
exposure
to
multiple
situations
over
their
career.

I
also
wondered
what
would
happen
to
that
wisdom
through
experience
when
that
repetitive
work
was
done
by
GenAI
tools.
What
will
happen
to
the
ability
to
“think
like
a
lawyer”
in
a
world
where
so
many
tasks
are
now
done
with
GenAI
and
automation?

After
reading
a

recent
interview
of
the
economist

Tyler
Cowen,
I
believe
law
schools
need
to
play
a
greater
role
in
developing
GenAI
skills
to
facilitate
the
development
of
that
wisdom.
Cowen
is
a
professor
at
George
Mason
University.

Cowen’s
Arguments

Cowen
persuasively
argues
that
colleges
and
the
broader
education
system
are
simply
failing
to
adapt
to
the
demands
of
an
AI
world.
He
believes
that
education
should
focus
on
teaching
students
how
to
effectively
use
AI,
instead
of
thinking
of
ways
to
force
them
to
avoid
it.
He
also
thinks
in
the
future
those
without
AI
skills
will
have
a
difficult
time
getting
a
job
and
advancing.

In
particular,
Cowen
believes
educational
institutions
should
double
down
on
teaching
how
to
use
AI
tools
instead
of
focusing
on
things
like
rote
homework
(what
purpose
is
there
of
giving
homework
assignments
that
ChatGPT
can
do
instantaneously)
and
rote
memorizations
(I
thought
about
this
as
I
watched
my
grandson
struggle
with
doing
math
problems
when
the
answer
could
be
found
on
a
smart
phone
calculator).
Instead,
Cowen
says
we
should
prioritize

critical
thinking,
creativity,
adaptability,
and
individualized
guidance,
qualities
that
AI
cannot
replace
(yet).

As
an
example
of
this
kind
of
thinking,
OpenAI
recently
introduced

Study
Mode
that
instead
of
giving
students
answers,
forces
them
to
think
through
problems
and
come
up
with
answers.
It
employs
things
like
the
Socratic
method
and
personalized
hints
designed
to
guide
students
to
come
up
with
their
own
answers.
It
is
designed
to
teach
students
how
to
think
critically.

For
example,
instead
of
my
grandson
trying
use
pen
and
paper
to
solve
the
math
problem
of
what
is
7×8
through
memory,
it
would
ask
him
what
does
7
times
8
mean
in
words.
In
a
legal
context,
instead
of
asking
students
to
memorize
the
elements
of
negligence,
it
might
ask
them
to
identify
what’s
missing
from
a
fact
pattern
to
establish
a
prima
facie
case.”

It
is
exactly
this
kind
of
tool
Cowen
would
think
educational
institutions
need
to
apply.

Law
Schools

These
insights
have
particular
urgency
for
legal
education.
Indeed,
most
of
Cowen’s
criticisms
and
suggested
changes
need
to
be
front
and
center
for
law
school
leaders.
It’s
naïve
to
think
that
law
student
and
lawyers
aren’t
going
to
use
GenAI
tools
in
virtually
every
aspect
of
their
professional
and
personal
lives.
Rather
than
avoiding
the
subject
or
worse
yet
trying
to
stop
use
of
these
tools,
law
schools
should
make
GenAI
tools
a
fundamental
part
of
research,
writing
and
drafting
training.

They
need
to
focus
not
on
memorization
but
on
the
critical
thinking
skills
beginning
lawyers
used
to
get
in
the
on-the-job
training
guild
type
system.
As
I
discussed,
that
training
came
from
repetitive
and
often
tedious
work
that
developed
experienced
lawyers
who
could
recognize
patterns
and
solutions
based
on
the
exposure
to
similar
situations.
But
much
of
that
repetitive
and
tedious
work
may
go
away
in
a
GenAI
world.

The
Socratic
Method

As
OpenAI’s
Study
Mode
demonstrates,
the
Socratic
method
which
law
schools
have
leaned
into
for
years
could
be
ideal
for
just
this
type
of
training,
if
done
right.
Doing
it
right
in
the
age
of
GenAI
means
not
asking
for
the
regurgitation
of
facts
and
holdings,
but
asking,
for
example,
how
a
GenAI
summary
does
or
does
not
tease
out
the
critical
portion
of
a
case
and
the
nuance
of
the
holding.

Or
asking
students
to
generate
a
list
of
potential
issues
demonstrated
by
a
factual
scenario
using
GenAI
and
then
discussing
what
the
tool
got
right
and
what
it
may
have
gotten
wrong
and
why.
It’s
asking
students
to
generate
an
argument
using
ChatGPT
and
then
discussing
what’s
missing.
Law
schools
need
to
focus
on
requiring
students
to
disclose
and
explain
when
and
how
they
use
GenAI.
And
show
them
what
is
right
and
wrong
with
GenAI
outputs.

The
Role
of
Adjunct
Professors

But
to
do
this,
law
schools
need
to
better
partner
with
actual
practicing
lawyers
who
can
serve
as
adjunct
professors.
Law
schools
need
to
do
away
with
the
notion
that
adjuncts
are
second-class
teachers.

Practicing
lawyers
can
supply
that
additional
insight
that
full-time
professors
can’t
because
they
lack
the
experience.
Indeed,
in
the
publish
or
perish
world
of
law
school
tenure,
the
temptation
to
use
GenAI
to
create
law
review
tomes
could
lead
to
professors
doing
just
what
we
want
young
lawyers
to
avoid:
overreliance
on
GenAI
instead
of
critical
thinking
and
creativity.

It
is
the
experienced
lawyers,
those
with
the
accumulated
wisdom,
who
are
best
equipped
to
spot
things
GenAI
tools
may
have
missed.
Who
can
spot
flaws
in
a
chatbot’s
reasoning.
Who
can
separate
the
wheat
from
the
chaff.
By
working
with
and
mentoring
law
school
students
on
these
kinds
of
things,
they
can
begin
to
impart
these
abilities.

Certainly,
the
academia
v.
practical
debate
has
been
going
on
ever
since
I
was
in
law
school.
But
the
importance
of
the
practical
has
changed
with
the
advent
of
GenAI.
GenAI
provides
the
means
to
gain
access
to
information
in
ways
never
before
imagined.
The
trick
is
to
harness
that
information
and
that
requires
practical
guidance
not
esoteric
discussion.

But
Will
They?

Cowen
makes
one
other
disturbing
point:
he
fears
educational
institutions
will
continue
through
inertia
to
employ
traditional
outmoded
methods
that
don’t
prepare
students
for
the
brave
new
world.
I
fear
that
these
concerns
are
magnified
when
it
comes
to
law
schools.
Law
schools,
like
most
lawyers,
are
slow
to
change.
Law
schools
have
a
developed
system
that
focuses
more
on
academic
questions,
scholarship,
and
prestige
than
practicality.
 

But
GenAI
is
here
to
stay
and
we,
as
a
profession,
have
to
teach
ourselves
and
younger
lawyers
how
to
practically
use
the
tools
and
still
think
crucially.
Adopting
these
approaches
at
the
law
school
level
would
better
assure
all
lawyers
understand
how
to
effectively
use
these
tools,
not
just
those
lawyers
who
go
to
work
at
a
big
firm
which
has
the
resources
to
do
this
type
of
training.

Indeed,
some
law
schools
are
recognizing
these
various
facts
and
offering
courses
on
using
AI,
how
to
teach
legal
reasoning
to
AI
models,
and
the
like.
But
the
effort
needs
to
integrate
GenAI
in
every
law
school
class.
Law
schools
should
start
by
requiring
AI
literacy
courses
for
all
first-year
students
and
mandating
that
every
course
syllabus
include
assignments
that
explicitly
incorporates
AI
tools.
In
the
age
of
AI,
there
is
no
course
that
should
not
include
training
and
adoption
of
the
tools
with
a
look
toward
the
future.

GenAI
gives
the
concept
of
training
law
students
to
think
like
a
lawyer
a
whole
new
meaning.
Law
schools
have
a
responsibility
to
their
students
to
play
a
crucial
role
in
this
evolution.
They
can’t
shuck
it
off
for
old
times’
sake.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

The
motto
“Taxation
Without
Representation”
could
soon
have
a
whole
new
meaning.
If
it
were
up
to
Trump,
Washinton
D.C.
wouldn’t
even
be
represented
by
its
own
police
force.
The
federal
takeover
of
local
police
power
is
an
extreme
action
that
should
only
be
invoked
with
good
cause,
and
the
city
is
pushing
back
against
Trump’s
power
grab.

Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:

Washington
DC
is
asking
a
federal
court
to
immediately
block
the
Trump
administration’s
effort
to
take
over
the
city’s
police
force,
saying
that
the
move
is
illegal
and
risks
public
safety.
…
The
complaint,
which
was
filed
in
Washington
federal
court,
alleged
that
Trump
exceeded
the
authority
granted
by
Congress
in
taking
those
steps.
City
officials
also
asked
a
judge
Friday
to
block
the
federal
government
from
assuming
control
of
the
metropolitan
police
force
or
issuing
any
further
orders.
A
hearing
on
the
issue
is
set
for
2
pm.

The
truth
of
the
matter
is
that
DC
crime
is
going
“up”
in
the
same
way
that

prices
were
supposed
to
go
down
since
Trump’s
first
day
in
office:

It
is
worth
saying
that
someone
on
Trump’s
team
has
enough
sense
to
back
up
some
of
his
hyperbole
on
the

White
House
website
that’s
complete
with
a
polemic
tone,
red
scare
and
gratuitous
comparisons
to
places
with
Muslim
sounding
names:

Snopes
recently
fact
checked
the
claim
that
violent
crime
in
Washington
D.C.
was
at
an
all
time
low

and
found
it
to
be
true.
What
I
will
say
in
the
spirit
complete
transparency
is
that
I
hold
a
degree
in
law,
not
statistical
analysis.
That
said,
I
do
know
that
it’s
a
little
like
textualism
in
that,
if
you
set
your
mind
to
it,
you
can
brush
away
good
faith
analysis
and
use
a
pool
of
data
to
walk
away
with
whatever
biases
or
justifications
you
were
looking
to
find:

Questions
of
statistical
interpretation
aside,
who
needs
woke
nonsense
like
“data”
when
you
can
invoke
personal
anecdotes?
The
administration’s
given
reason
for
putting
the
former
reality
TV
star
in
control
of
the
police
force
is
because
of
“[an]
emergency
that
has
arisen
in
our
nation’s
capital
as
a
result
of
failed
leadership.”
A
little
reading
between
the
lines
lands
you
on
some
recent
ball
busting.
Remember
Big
Balls
—
the
kid
Elon
Musk
hired
as
part
of
the
effiency
chainsawing

that
saved
less
than
5%
of
what
they
purported
to?
He
got
his
ass
beat
in
an
alleged
car
jacking
and
Trump
is
trying
to
use
it
as
a
basis
for
a
state
of
exception:

Will
be
interesting
to
read
history
books
of
the
future
explain
how
the
President
federalized
American
cities
because
a
kid
named
Big
Balls
was
allegedly
car
jacked.

pic.twitter.com/sjFUx4CTaJ

—
Shannon
Watts
(@shannonrwatts)

August
10,
2025

To
stay
informed
on
the
content
of
the
hearing,
make
sure
to
keep
tabs
on
Kyle
Cheney’s
coverage
of
the
emergency
bid:

AND
WE’RE
UNDERWAY:
Judge
Reyes
has
taken
the
bench
to
consider
DC’s
emergency
bid
to
block
Trump’s
takeover
of
the
city’s
police
department.

—
Kyle
Cheney
(@kyledcheney)

August
15,
2025

Washington
DC
Sues
Trump,
Calling
Police
Takeover
Illegal
(3)
[Bloomberg
Law]

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

We
can
expect
to
see
an
improved
demand
environment
in
our
full-year
numbers
and
a
decent
end
to
the
year.

—
Gretta
Rusanow,
managing
director
and
head
of
advisory
services
at
Citi’s
Law
Firm
Group,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
the
data
found
in
the
group’s
latest
report.
Law
firm
revenue
is
up
11%,
while
demand
grew
is
up
1%
compared
to
six
months
ago.
Inventory
(i.e.,
bills
to
be
collected)
is
12.1%
in
the
first
half
of
2025,
indicating
strong
growth
for
the
rest
of
the
year.

---

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.

Sometimes,
it
is
absolutely
necessary
for
clients
to
use
multiple
law
firms
for
a
single
matter. For
instance,
if
a
client
wants
their
usual
counsel
to
appear
in
a
lawsuit
in
a
jurisdiction
where
their
typical
counsel
is
not
licensed
to
practice,
they
may
also
need
to
engage
local
counsel. In
addition,
sometimes
a
matter
might
require
litigation
and
ancillary
proceedings
that
cannot
be
handled
by
a
single
firm. However,
when
clients
use
multiple
law
firms
for
the
same
matter,
certain
inefficiencies
may
arise
that
can
be
avoided
if
the
client
uses
just
one
law
firm
to
handle
the
legal
work.

When
I
was
a
Biglaw
associate,
I
worked
on
a
large
litigation
matter
on
behalf
of
one
of
our
clients. I
was
perplexed
to
discover
that
the
client
had
hired
both
our
firm
and
another
large
law
firm
to
represent
them
in
this
matter. I
still
am
not
sure
why
the
client
decided
to
go
with
two
law
firms
to
handle
this
lawsuit.
Perhaps
the
client
believed
the
lawsuit
was
too
large
for
just
one
law
firm?
This
did
not
seem
reasonable
since
both
firms
had
hundreds
of
attorneys
each. I
suspect
that
some
kind
of
internal
politics
compelled
the
hiring
of
two
law
firms
—
perhaps
to
please
different
factions
of
the
client’s
legal
department.

In
any
case,
working
on
a
matter
with
a
different
law
firm
created
administrative
challenges. Firstly,
the
other
law
firm
and
our
law
firm
needed
to
spend
significant
time
deciding
who
would
handle
various
tasks
related
to
the
lawsuit
and
conveying
information
that
was
discovered
by
one
law
firm
that
might
not
have
been
learned
by
the
other. In
addition,
since
the
client
wanted
both
firms
to
sign
off
on
significant
parts
of
the
representation,
we
would
review
the
other
firm’s
work,
and
they
would
review
our
work,
which
likely
added
to
the
fees
billed. This
might
have
enhanced
the
work
product,
but
it
is
unclear
if
this
was
worth
the
increased
legal
fees.

Other
inefficiencies
were
created
since
our
firm
tried
at
every
step
of
the
process
to
show
that
we
were
doing
a
better
job
than
the
other
firm
or
that
the
other
firm
had
made
mistakes
in
the
tasks
it
was
assigned
to
handle. Partners
at
our
firm
likely
wanted
to
put
themselves
in
a
better
position
to
receive
additional
work
from
this
client,
so
they
tried
to
undermine
the
other
shop
at
every
turn. I
remember
I
once
drafted
a
memo
specifically
outlining
mistakes
that
the
other
firm
had
made
on
a
particular
project
so
that
the
partner
could
use
this
as
ammunition
when
communicating
about
the
deficiencies
of
the
other
shop. I
cannot
be
entirely
sure,
but
I
have
to
believe
that
attorneys
at
the
other
firm
were
doing
everything
they
could
to
undermine
our
firm
so
that
they
too
could
better
position
themselves
to
receive
additional
work
from
the
client.

In
many
instances,
two
heads
are
better
than
one,
and
clients
tend
to
get
better
work
product
if
more
attorneys
are
reviewing
papers
and
conducting
research
on
behalf
of
the
client.
However,
clients
should
not
create
inefficiencies
in
a
representation
by
providing
incentives
that
give
lawyers
a
reason
to
expend
time
and
resources
on
anything
else
than
best
serving
a
client. 
Accordingly,
it
rarely
makes
sense
to
hire
two
law
firms
to
handle
the
same
matter
on
behalf
of
a
client. In
most
situations,
a
client
will
be
best
served
by
hiring
one
law
firm
to
handle
an
entire
legal
matter
so
that
clients
do
not
need
to
deal
with
the
administrative
issues
associated
with
multiple
law
firms
handling
one
matter.

---

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.

In
this
episode
of
“Be
That
Lawyer,”
I
sat
down
with
researcher
and
strategist
Matt
Dixon
to
explore
what
today’s
top
rainmakers
are
doing
to
earn
trust,
deliver
value,
and
build
long-term
client
loyalty.

We
discussed
how
mindsets
are
evolving
in
the
legal
space,
and
what
truly
sets
the
most
successful
professionals
apart
from
the
rest. 

Lead
to
Your
Value 

Matt
shared
that
the
best
rainmakers
don’t
lead
with
their
résumé.
They
don’t
start
with
their
credentials,
degrees,
or
accolades.

Instead,
they
lead
to
those
things,
starting
the
conversation
with
insights
their
clients
care
about.
That
might
mean
new
ways
to
mitigate
risk,
grow
market
share,
or
achieve
business
objectives.

By
offering
perspective
and
framing
the
issue
in
a
client-centric
way,
lawyers
position
themselves
as
strategic
partners,
not
just
service
providers.
That
shift
changes
how
clients
perceive
your
value
from
the
very
first
interaction. 

Diagnose
Before
You
Prescribe 

One
of
Matt’s
favorite
sayings
is,
“Prescription
before
diagnosis
is
malpractice.”
It
applies
just
as
much
to
lawyers
as
it
does
to
doctors.

The
best
rainmakers
are
those
who
slow
down,
ask
smart
questions,
and
understand
the
client’s
situation
before
offering
a
solution.

This
mindset
comes
from
Matt’s
research
in

The
Challenger
Sale
and

The
Activator
Advantage,
where
he
highlights
the
importance
of
guiding
clients
with
tailored
advice,
not
canned
pitches.

For
lawyers
selling
themselves
and
their
expertise,
this
approach
builds
credibility
and
trust
from
the
start. 

Reach
Out
With
Purpose 

Many
lawyers
hesitate
to
reach
out
to
clients
unless
there’s
an
urgent
need,
afraid
of
seeming
pushy.
But
Matt’s
research
shows
that
clients
often
feel
neglected,
not
over-contacted.

General
Counsel
and
business
leaders
say
their
biggest
complaint
is
not
hearing
from
their
lawyers
enough.
They
want
professionals
who
act
as
a
window
into
the
market,
bringing
them
ideas,
trends,
and
insights
they
wouldn’t
hear
elsewhere.

Even
a
short,
thoughtful
outreach
can
cut
through
the
noise
and
remind
clients
why
you’re
the
one
they
trust. 

This
episode
is
a
must-listen
for
lawyers
who
want
to
rethink
how
they
approach
business
development.
Matt’s
insights
show
exactly
how
top
rainmakers
build
trust,
create
value,
and
earn
loyalty
in
a
world
where
competition
is
only
getting
tougher.

Learn
more
about
Matt
here. 

Listen
to
the
full
episode
here.

Catch
our
latest
“Be
That
Lawyer”
episode
here. 

And
if
you’re
serious
about
growing
your
practice,
don’t
miss
my
new
book,
now
on
Amazon.

Check
it
out
here.

---

Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
“Be
That
Lawyer”
Podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin/.