Author: TSA Press

The
contribution
will
assist
WFP
deliver
cereals,
pulses
and
vegetable
oil,
ensuring
that
families
have
access
to
basic
nutrition
during
the
January
to
March
lean
season,
the
time
between
harvests,
when
food
supplies
are
typically
at
their
lowest.

“The
Government
of
Japan
and
the
Embassy
of
Japan
in
Zimbabwe
are
very
concerned
about
the
food
insecurity
in
Zimbabwe,”
said
H.E.
Mr
Shinichi
Yamanaka,
the
Japanese
Ambassador
to
Zimbabwe.
“I
hope
that
this
food
assistance
will
help
these
vulnerable
people
to
overcome
the
lean
season.
We
will
continue
our
support
to
allow
all
Zimbabweans
to
meet
their
food
security
needs.”

WFP’s
Lean
Season
Assistance
response,
supporting
communities
in
the
most
food-insecure
districts,
is
in
line
with
the
Zimbabwe
Livelihoods
Assessment
(ZimLAC),
a
multi-stakeholder
body
responsible
for
conducting
regular
livelihood
assessments.

“Thanks
to
this
support
from
the
Government
of
Japan,
many
families
will
not
worry
about
their
next
meal
when
hunger
is
at
its
worst,”
said
Ms
Barbara
Clemens,
WFP
Zimbabwe
Country
Director
and
Representative.
“This
contribution
is
a
show
of
solidarity
with
the
people
of
Zimbabwe,
and
we
remain
resolute
in
ensuring
the
right
food
reaches
the
right
people
at
the
right
time.”

WFP
supports
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe’s
Food
Deficit
Mitigation
Strategy,
which
protects
the
most
vulnerable
individuals
from
worsening
food
insecurity.

“We
are
grateful
to
Japan
for
their
commitment
to
supporting
the
people
of
Zimbabwe,”
said Mercy
Dinha, Deputy Minister
of
Public
Service,
Labour,
and
Social
Welfare.
“This
contribution
reflects
our
continued
partnership
with
WFP
to
ensure
food
reaches
those
who
need
it
the
most
and
no
one
is
left
behind,
in
line
with
the
mandate
from
His
Excellency,
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa.”

The
Government
of
Japan’s
continued
support
highlights
the
strong
and
enduring
partnership
between
Japan,
WFP,
and
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe.
Between
2021
and
2015,
Japan
has
provided
food
assistance
through
WFP,
amounting
to
US$15.8
million.

#        #        #

The
United
Nations
World
Food
Programme
is
the
world’s
largest
humanitarian
organisation,
saving
lives
in
emergencies
and
using
food
assistance
to
build
a
pathway
to
peace,
stability
and
prosperity
for
people
recovering
from
conflict,
disasters,
and
the
impact
of
climate
change.

Post
published
in:

Agriculture

Check
Out
Milbank’s
Bonuses!:
Maybe
the
good
PR
will
overshadow
their
bending
backward
for
Trump!
Lessons
To
Learn
From
The
Bar
Exam:
Read
to
learn
what
the
bar
can
do
better
(and
to
find
the
NY
bar
taker’s
GoFundMe!)!
Private
Equity
Partners
Are
Staying
Put:
Not
everyone
is
swept
up
in
lateraling.
Applying
With
Clerkships
In
Mind:
These
schools
are
the
best
for
state
clerkships!
The
Nonequity
Partner
Suit
Against
Duane
Morris
Goes
To
The
Next
Step:
How
will
this
pan
out
for
the
industry?

When
we
last
covered
Meagan
Garland’s
discrimination
suit
against
Duane
Morris,
the
focus
was
on
where
the
lawsuit
would
take
place.
After
some
venue
changes,
the
case
landed
in
the
Northern
District
of
California.
The
merits
of
the
case
dealt
with
how
Duane
Morris
treated
their
nonequity
tier
of
partners
—
Garland
argued,
among
other
things,
that
nonequity
partnerships
were
being
used
as
a
way
for
the
firm
to
shift
business
expenses
and
tax
obligations
off
of

actual
equity
partners.
Big
claims,
but
for
allegations
like
that
to
have
any
actual
bite
to
them
they
have
to
make
it
past
a
motion
to
dismiss.
Guess
what?
The
teeth
are
sharp!

Law.com
has
coverage:

A
California
federal
judge
has
allowed
the
bulk
of
a
former
nonequity
partner’s
claims
that
Duane
Morris
systemically
misclassified
and
shifted
costs
of
business
onto
non-equity
partners
and
made
discriminatory
pay
decisions
based
on
her
race
and
gender
to
move
forward,
rejecting
most
of
the
firm’s
motion
to
dismiss
the
class-action
complaint.

The
order,
signed
by
U.S.
District
Judge
Cathy
Ann
Bencivengo
of
the
Southern
District
of
California
on
Friday,
allowed
Black
female
former
nonequity
partner
Meagan
Garland
to
proceed
with
a
broad
range
of
claims
against
the
firm,
including
allegations
of
fraud,
breach
of
contract
and
professional
negligence.
The
decision
paves
the
way
for
Garland
to
seek
discovery
into
the
firm’s
compensation
practices.

Garland’s
suit
has
several
prongs
to
it
—
one
of
them
accuses
Duane
Morris
of
discriminating
by
underpaying
her
in
comparison
to
her
white
male
peers,
but
the
widest
reaching
consequences
of
the
suit
could
come
from
bringing
to
light
the
rationale
behind
an
otherwise
black
box
compensation
system.
Once
a
fringe
firm
arrangement,
two-tiered
partnerships
have
become
so
wildly
adopted
in
the
industry
that
even
some
of
the
oldest
firms
have
adopted
the
trend.
While
it’s
still
too
early
to
call,
the
success
of
this
case
may
encourage
other
nonequity
partners
at
Biglaw
firms
to
launch
similar
cases.

Duane
Morris
Can’t
Escape
Former
Nonequity
Partner’s
Compensation
Class
Action
[Law.com]

Earlier:

Duane
Morris
Non-Equity
Partner
Lawsuit
Escalates
With
Forum
Shopping
And
Witnesses

Are
Nonequity
Partnerships
Part
Of
A
Biglaw
Tax
&
Discrimination
Scheme?

---

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.

Hot
off
the
presses
is
news
that
Francisco
Partners,
a
major
global
investment
firm
that
specializes
in
partnering
with
technology
businesses,
announced
plans
to
acquire
Elite,
a
legal
technology
company
that
specializes
in
financial
management
and
business
operations.

It
will
acquire
it
from
its
current
owners, TPG
Capital,
the
U.S.
and
European
private
equity
platform
of
global
alternative
asset
management
firm
TPG,
and
Thomson
Reuters.

The
acquisition
will
provide
Elite
with
a
new
financial
partner
to
help
the
company
capitalize
on
its
current
momentum
and
continue
to
drive
product
innovation
and
growth,
according
to
an
announcement
of
the
acquisition.

Terms
of
the
transaction
were
not
disclosed.

Founded
in
1947,
Elite
has
a
long
history
of
providing
technology
solutions
to
the
legal
industry,
with
a
particular
focus
over
the
past
several
decades
on
financial
and
practice
management
systems
for
large
and
mid-sized
law
firms.

Its
flagship
products
include
3E,
ProLaw,
eBillingHub,
and
MatterSphere,
which
help
automate
and
streamline
billing,
invoicing,
payments,
and
financial
reporting
for
many
of
the
world’s
leading
law
firms.

From
2003
until
June
2023,
Elite
was
owned
by
Thomson
Reuters.
In
2023,
a
majority
stake
in
Elite
was
acquired
by
private
equity
firm
TPG
for
approximately
$500
million,
making
Elite
an
independent
company.
Thomson
Reuters
retained
a
minority
stake
and
board
representation,
while
Elite
continued
to
maintain
integrations
with
Thomson
Reuters
products.

Since
its
spin-out,
Elite
has
sought
to
renew
its
focus
on
innovation,
including
a
refreshed
brand
and
new
AI-driven
features,
and
it
has
continued
to
expand
its
suite
of
cloud-based
solutions.
In
January
2025,
Elite
further
expanded
its
offerings
by
acquiring
Tranch,
a
payments
and
invoice
automation
platform
catering
to
large
law
firms.

According
to
the
announcement, Elite
currently
serves
about
2,000
law
firms,
including
75%
of
the
Am
Law
100
and
72%
of
the
Global
100.

“With
Francisco
Partners’
financial
support
and
extensive
legal
software
and
payments
expertise,
we
are
confident
they
are
the
right
partner
to
help
us
continue
to
deliver
our
transformative
products
to
the
legal
industry,”
said
Mark
Dorman,
CEO
of
Elite.
“Building
on
the
success
we
achieved
with
TPG,
this
next
phase
positions
Elite
to
scale
faster,
deepen
our
cloud
and
AI
capabilities,
and
help
law
firms
operate
with
greater
speed,
insight,
and
efficiency.”

Peter
Christodoulo,
partner
at
Francisco
Partners,
said:
“Elite’s
powerful,
cloud-based
platform
for
large
law
firms
positions
it
perfectly
for
long-term
growth.”

The
transaction
is
expected
to
be
completed
in
the
third
quarter
of
2025,
subject
to
customary
closing
conditions.

Francisco
Partners
has
invested
in
a
number
of
legal
tech
companies
over
the
years,
including
Aderant,
BARBRI,
LegalZoom
and
Paradigm.

For
years,
complex
legal
work
such
as
bet-the-company
litigation,
M&A,
and
regulatory
investigations
was
considered
too
unpredictable
to
scope,
price,
or
manage
outside
of
hourly
billing.
There
were
too
many
variables,
too
many
unknowns,
and
too
much
risk.

But
that
thinking
is
changing.

Predictability
isn’t
just
something
finance
wants
anymore;
it’s
the
baseline.
CFOs
require
it.
Boards
expect
it.
And
Legal
Ops
teams
are
showing
that
even
the
most
complex
matters
can
be
scoped,
structured,
and
aligned
with
business
goals
without
sacrificing
quality
or
outcomes.

So
what’s
behind
the
shift?

First,
legal
isn’t
operating
in
a
vacuum
anymore.
Every
other
function,
including
HR,
IT,
supply
chain,
and
marketing,
is
held
to
standards
for
forecasting
and
accountability.
Legal
no
longer
gets
a
pass.
Legal
Ops
is
stepping
up
with
better
vendor
management,
more
robust
data,
and
smarter
use
of
alternative
fee
models.
And
AI
is
finally
starting
to
deliver
real
efficiency
in
areas
that
used
to
be
considered
off-limits
to
automation.
Pricing
models
need
to
reflect
that.

The
departments
making
the
most
progress
aren’t
trying
to
turn
every
matter
into
a
flat
fee.
They’re
scoping
more
tightly,
breaking
matters
into
phases,
and
applying
a
mix
of
fixed
fees,
phased
pricing,
and
outcome-based
incentives.

Take
litigation:
Some
teams
use
fixed
fees
for
individual
motions
or
depositions,
phased
pricing
for
trial
prep,
and
a
success
fee
tied
to
the
result.

M&A
work
can
follow
a
similar
structure:
fixed
fees
for
documentation,
term
sheets,
and
negotiations,
with
incentives
tied
to
closing.

These
aren’t
just
cost-control
strategies.
They
create
transparency,
trust,
and
accountability
on
both
sides
of
the
table.
Legal
teams
gain
more
control
over
budgets
and
reduce
administrative
burden.
Law
firms
gain
clarity
on
scope
and
expectations.
Both
benefit
when
incentives
are
aligned.

Of
course,
not
every
matter
fits
neatly
into
a
model.
But
that
doesn’t
mean
legal
departments
shouldn’t
push
for
structure.
They
should
be
asking
better
questions:

•
How
is
this
work
scoped,
and
is
it
detailed
enough
to
reduce
ambiguity?
•
Where
can
we
fix
fees,
and
where
does
flexibility
make
sense?
•
How
are
efficiencies,
including
AI,
reflected
in
your
pricing?
•
What
incentives
are
built
in
for
successful
outcomes?

These
conversations
don’t
need
to
be
adversarial.
In
fact,
firms
that
are
open
to
them
often
become
the
strongest
partners.
Here’s
what
legal
departments
are
asking
today:

•
What
assumptions
are
baked
into
this
scope,
and
how
will
changes
be
handled?
•
What
have
you
done
with
similar
matters
to
manage
costs
and
improve
predictability?
•
Where
have
you
used
fixed
fees
or
other
structures
before,
and
what
worked?
•
How
are
your
internal
teams
thinking
about
AI
in
this
kind
of
work,
and
how
is
that
reflected
in
pricing?
•
How
are
incentives
aligned
between
your
team
and
ours?

The
goal
isn’t
to
squeeze
firms
on
price.
The
goal
is
to
build
accountability
and
transparency
into
the
process
from
the
start.
Legal
teams
that
do
that
are
seeing
better
results:
more
accurate
forecasts,
fewer
surprises,
and
stronger
relationships.

Because
high-stakes
legal
work
doesn’t
just
demand
expertise.
It
demands
clarity,
structure,
and
alignment.
That’s
what
leads
to
better
outcomes
and
stronger
partnerships.

---

Stephanie
Corey is
the
co-founder
and
CEO
of
UpLevel
Ops.
She
also
serves
as
the
Global
Chair
of LINK
x
L
Suite—a
premier
community
of
General
Counsel
and
Legal
Operations
leaders
united
to
transform
the
legal
industry
through
collaboration,
innovation,
and
strategic
insight. Stephanie co-founded LINK
(Legal
Innovators
Network),
a
legal
ops
organization
exclusively
for
experienced
in-house
professionals,
and
previously
founded
the Corporate
Legal
Operations
Consortium
(CLOC),
where
she
served
as
an
executive
board
member.
She
is
a
recognized
leader
in
legal
operations
and
a
frequent
advisor
to
corporate
legal
departments
on
scaling
operational
excellence. Please
feel
free
to

connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It
is
going
to
be
impossible
both
in
the
short
and
long
term
to
come
close
to
the
wealth
I
could
have
accumulated
for
myself
and
my
family
had
I
remained
in
[Biglaw].
I
was
fortunate
enough
to
be
able
to
just
barely
pay
off
my
student
loans
before
leaving.

—
Siunik
Moradian,
a
former
corporate
associate
at
Simpson
Thacher,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
his
career
plans
after
he
loudly
quit
the
firm
on
the
same
day
it
announced
making
a
deal
with
Trump.
“I
will
not
sleepwalk
toward
authoritarianism,”
Moradian
wrote
in
a

departure
memo
that
soon
went
viral.
Since
then,
he’s
decided
to
go
into
public
defense
“given
all
that
is
happening
to
the
degradation
of
fundamental
human
rights
in
the
US,
particularly
under
this
authoritarian
administration.”
He
went
on
to
compare
his
new
salary
to
his
Biglaw
salary,
remarking,
“I’m
hesitant
to
say
‘woe
is
me’
when
even
my
salary
as
a
public
defender
will
be
above
the
median
in
the
US.”

---

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.

If
you’ve
been
paying
attention
to
legal
tech
announcements
lately,
you’ve
probably
noticed
a
pattern:
the
legal
tech
industry
is
experiencing
an
unprecedented
wave
of
consolidation.

LexisNexis
and

Harvey
recently

announced
a
strategic
alliance
that
will
let
Harvey
and
LexisNexis
users
have
the
benefits
of
both
platforms.
The
practice
management
behemoth

Clio
last
month

announced
the
acquisition
of
the
legal
research
platform

vLex.
And
then
just
last
week,
the
premier
document
management
system
provider

NetDocuments
announced
partnerships
with
Harvey
and

Legora.
NetDocuments
also
announced
a
greater
integration
with
Microsoft. 

Customer
Desires
and
Expectations

Why
all
these
combinations
now?
I
think
they
are
all
driven
by
AI.
Indeed,
when
you
look
at
what
these
vendors
are
doing
and
saying,
it’s
all
about
expanding
AI
capabilities
for
customers. 

So
why
all
this
activity?
Quite
simply,
it’s
because
customers
want
this
expanded
capability.
People
experience
the
ease
and
time
savings
of
AI
one
place
and
want
it
every
place. 

But
here’s
the
other
thing
customers
want:
simplicity.
The
fewer
tools
and
platforms
they
have
to
use
to
get
things
done,
the
better.
They
want
their
AI
tools
to
work
seamlessly
as
if
they
were
all
from
the
same
provider.
And
finally,
particularly
in
the
legal
environment,
they
need
assurance
that
their
work
can
be
done
securely. 

But
Why
Combine?

But
that
doesn’t
necessarily
explain
what
we
are
seeing
in
the
recent
combinations
and
acquisitions.
Those
events
are
driven
by
two
reasons.
Legal
tech
vendors
have
to
combine:
they
can’t
do
it
alone
and
only
other
legal
tech
vendors
can
offer
the
requisite
security.

Build
v.
Buy?

First,
providing
AI
everywhere
all
the
time
ain’t
easy.
It’s
particularly
difficult
if
your
business
model
is
based
on
supplying
good
but
limited
products
which
almost
every
tech
product
maker
does.
NetDocuments
is
more
or
less
limited
to
providing
an
excellent
document
management
system.
vLex
is
limited
to
legal
research.
Even
Clio,
large
as
it
is,
is
primarily
a
practice
management
system
provider.

So
it’s
a
classic
build
versus
buy
decision.
It
would
be
tough
for
a
document
management
system
provider
like
NetDocuments
to
become
an
AI-based
legal
research
provider.
Or
for
Clio
to
develop
an
AI
system
similar
to
what
vLex
has.
Harvey
started
as
a
legal
drafting
tool.
While
it
has
expanded
its
set
of
tools,
it
would
be
tough
for
it
to
develop
its
own
legal
research
tool
to
compete
with
LexisNexis.
Or
a
document
management
system
to
compete
with
NetDocuments.
vLex
is
a
great
legal
research
tool
but
for
it
to
develop
a
practice
management
system
to
compete
with
Clio
would
be
well-nigh
impossible. 

And
even
if
these
companies
could
develop
their
own
systems,
by
the
time
they
got
there,
their
competitors
would
be
way
ahead. 

But
the
other
option
to
meet
AI
demand
is
to
acquire
or
combine
with
those
who
can
provide
what
you
can’t
or
can’t
provide
very
well.
Hence,
we
see
these
combinations:
Harvey’s
strategic
alliance
with
LexisNexis
to
integrate
the
LexisNexis
legal
research
and
writing
capabilities.
Clio’s
acquisition
of
vLex
which
gives
both
platforms
something
the
other
one
lacks.
And
now
the
NetDocuments
alliance
to
bring
Harvey’s
drafting
capabilities
and
tools
to
NetDocuments
customers.
It’s
all
about
expanded
AI
capabilities
for
customers.

What
About
Security?

The
second
reason
for
the
recent
activity
is
the
need
to
better
assure
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
that
their
work
will
be
secure
so
as
to
meet
ethical
requirements.
By
necessity,
legal
tech
companies
have
to
combine
with
other
legal
tech
companies
who
understand
the
need
for
this
kind
of
security
and
can
provide
it.
An
integration
with
a
publicly
facing
company
like
ChatGPT
might
provide
a
tool
that
could
theoretically
do
what
customers
want
but
it
could
not
meet
the
security
requirements.

As
Dan
Hauck,
Chief
Product
Officer
of
NetDocuments
puts
it
about
ndConnect,
the
product
that
will
integrate
with
Harvey
and
Legora,
“ndConnect
extends
our
unique
document
and
AI
capabilities
to
third
party
AI
vendor,
while
keeping
the
full
protection,
findability,
and
productivity
of
their
foundation
platform.” 

The
NetDocuments
press
release
reiterates
this
idea,
“ndConnect
is
NetDocuments
new
interoperability
program
designed
to
securely
and
seamlessly
integrate
third
party
AI
solutions
into
their
NetDocuments
environment”.

By
the
way,
note
the
concept
implicit
in
what
NetDocuments
is
saying.
It’s
not
just
talking
about
partnerships
with
Harvey
and
Legora
–
NetDocuments
is
talking
about
combinations
with
other
third
party
vendors.
In
other
words,
we
will
likely
see
more
of
this
in
future.

What
Does
the
Future
Hold?

Certainly,
economies
of
scale
may
be
part
of
these
moves.
But
AI
works
most
satisfactorily
when
it
can
be
used
everywhere
for
everything.
And
used
securely.
That’s
what’s
fundamentally
driving
this
wave
of
combinations
and
why
we
will
see
more
in
the
future.

Law
firms
should
be
aware
of
these
combinations
and
scrutinize
the
integrations
that
AI
providers
offer
to
make
sure
they
work
simply
and
securely.

---

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.

Biglaw
partners
are
on
the
move!
That’s

the
message
the
industry’s
received
from
data
crunchers,
but
not
everyone
is
included
in
that
wave
of
lateral
moves.
According
to
data
from
recruiting
firm
Macrae,
New
York
private
equity
partners
have
actually
seen
a
dip
in
their
lateral
numbers.
In
the
first
half
of
2025,
there
were
only
nine
partner
moves
for
that
group
—
less
than
50%
of
the
2024
total,
as
“cautious
and
deliberate”
becomes
the
mantra
for
hiring
PE
partners.

Macrae
partner
Ryan
Belville

told
Law.com
that
2024’s
slow
year
in
the
PE
market
makes
the
books
of
business
for
those
partners
look
less
enticing,
plus
you
know,
the
whole
what-the-hell’s-up-with-the-economy
thing
with
“geopolitical
uncertainty,
tariffs
and
interest
rates
being
sticky”
equals
cautious
hiring
decisions.
And
that’s
despite
total
value
of
deals
in
PE
up
28.7%
this
year,
and
even
total
number
of
deals
is
up
a
more
modest
8.7%.

With
partner
paydays

higher
than
ever,
firms
have
to
be

circumspect
about
who
they
add
to
their
ranks.
And
Belville
is
seeing
that
caution
in
the
PE
practices.
“Rates
are
skyrocketing
and
comp
packages
are
through
the
roof,”
Belville
said.
“In
private
equity,
firms
are
making
incredibly
significant
investments,
and
they’re
doing
so
with
some
uncertainty
—
both
uncertainty
that
relationships
will
port
and
uncertainty
that
the
sponsors
that
do
port
will
be
active
and
bring
revenue
in
the
door
in
the
first
couple
years
the
partner
is
there.”

Michael
Parrillo,
founder
and
principal
of
legal
recruiting
firm
Parrillo
Search
Group
in
New
York,
also
notes
that
the
aggressive
partner
hiring
over
the
last
four
years
means
the
pendulum
has
swung
the
other
way
into
that
“cautious
and
deliberate”
mentality.
But,
for
PE
partners
interested
in
making
a
lateral
move,
while
there
may
not
be
a
hiring
frenzy,
the
appetite
for
a
strong
PE
book
of
business
is
still
there.

---

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].

If
you
are
an
in-house
lawyer
and
haven’t
yet
taken
our Outside
Counsel
Survey,
there’s
still
time
to
weigh
in.

We
are
compiling
our
annual
list
of
the

top
outside
counsel,
and
we
rely
on
your
input.

Tell
us
which
law
firms
you
engage,
and
what
level
of
work
you
entrust
to
them.

As
always,
the
survey
is
both brief
and
anonymous.

As
the
bar
exam
itself
fades
into
the
rearview
mirror,
New
York’s
confused
handling
of
a
genuine
medical
emergency
shouldn’t.
In
case
you
missed
it
—
perhaps
because
you
were
taking
the
bar
exam
yourself
and
promptly
crawled
under
a
rock
for
the
last
week
—
an
applicant
taking
the
NY
bar
exam
at
the
Hofstra
location

went
into
cardiac
arrest.
While
other
applicants
called
out
for
help,
the
proctors
reportedly
responded
by
telling
people
to
be
quiet
and
keep
taking
the
test.
Some
witnesses
have
come
forward
to
say
the
administrators
seemed
reluctant
to
call
emergency
services
at
all.
The
test
was
not
stopped
until
the
scheduled
lunch
break
and
resumed
on
time
afterward.
The
bar
examiners
have
defended
their
actions…

and
witnesses
dutifully
called
bullshit.

Thankfully,
the
woman
survived
despite
the
delayed
medical
response.
One
of
her
classmates

has
set
up
a
GoFundMe
to
help
with
medical
costs.

But
what
lessons
should
we
take
away
from
this
debacle?
When
the
bar
examiners
sit
down
to
think
about
how
this
went
awry,
what
new
protocols
should
they
implement?
Or
does
the
problem
run
far
too
deep
for
quick
fixes?

1.
Emergency
medical
resources
on-site

A
former
Florida
bar
exam
proctor
reached
out
to
tell
me
that
they’ve
actually
thought
ahead
about
this:

City
firefighter
paramedics
are
on-site
from
8:00
am
from
when
the
test
takers
are
coming
in
until
all
have
left
at
the
end
of
the
day.
They
are
in
uniform,
with
a
full
gurney
with
their
orange
medicine
and
equipment
boxes,
defibrillator,
etc.
set
on
the
gurney
in
the
area
right
outside
the
entrance
to
the
main
hall.
Their
ambulance
is
parked
outside.
Fortunately
I’ve
never
seen
them
called
to
a
situation,
but
they
are
always
there
and
could
be
anywhere
needed
within
seconds. 

How
is
it
possible
that
FLORIDA
is
better
prepared
to
deal
with…
anything?
Florida’s
top
policymakers
are
passed
out
drunk
and
naked
on
the
floor
of
a
Waffle
House
getting
sniffed
by
a
live
gator
and
yet
somehow
they
figured
out
that
EMTs
should
be
on
hand
whenever
tons
of
people
are
crammed
into
a
venue.
Concerts
have
paramedics,
why
wouldn’t
a
bar
exam?

2.
More
testing
locations

This
might
seem
to
conflict
with
the
idea
that
the
exam
should
pony
up
for
two
days
worth
of
paramedics,
but
it’s
an
alternative
solution.
If
the
examiners
persist
in
the
delusion
that
stopping
the
test
for
thousands
of
test-takers
to
deal
with
an
emergency
is
too
onerous,
then
don’t
have
a
location
with
more
than
50
examinees.
If
we
have
to
pretend
that
every
single
test
must
be
collected
before
temporarily
suspending
the
test
to
deal
with
someone

maybe
dying
then
have
more,
small
locations
that
make
it
easier
to
collect
tests.

3.
Proctor
flexibility

The
key
reason
why
proctors
appeared
befuddled
is
that
they’re
handed
a
rulebook
by
the
bar
examiners
—
influenced
by
the
NCBE’s
nonsense
rules
about
preserving
the
purity
of
their
precious
test
—
and
told
never
to
deviate.
Medical
emergencies
should
be
covered
in
those
rules,
but
also
proctors
need
to
be
free
to
improvise
when
the
unexpected
should
arise.

4.
Get
over
yourselves

This
is
a
more
fundamental
issue
but…
if
the
difference
between
passing
and
not
passing
is
a
trip
to
the
bathroom,
then
your
test
sucks.
Any
good
educator
will
tell
you
that
the
goal
is
to
develop
a
test
where
the
students
either
know
it
or
they
don’t.
If
there’s
an
insight
they
can
gain
in
60
seconds
that
alters
their
outcome
on
the
test,
then
it’s
not
doing
its
job.
Or,
conversely,
just
let
examinees
do
research
during
the
test
since

researching
legal
questions
is
what
actual
practicing
attorneys
do.
Either
way,
stop
acting
like
the
sanctity
of
the
test
is
the
highest
value.

5.
End
the
bar
exam

It’s
a
generalist
memory
test
for
a
profession
that
lacks
generalists
and
where
working
from
memory
would
amount
to
malpractice.
Bar
exam
supporters
claim
it
“protects
the
public”
and
yet
there’s
no
difference
in
the
number
of
disciplinary
issues
in
states
with
the
bar
exam
and
those
without.
Because
protecting
the
public
from
an
unscrupulous
litigator
does
not
turn
on
making
sure
they
know
the
Rule
Against
Perpetuities.
The
dumbest,
most
unethical
lawyer
you
know…
passed
a
bar
exam.

The
exam
is
also
the
tool
that
enables
destructive
diploma
mill
practices.
Law
schools
are
incentivized
to
collect
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
and
turn
people
loose
knowing
that
the
bar
exam
will
filter
out
—
maybe
—
the
people
incapable
of
practicing.
If
law
schools
were
held
to
stricter
guidelines
and
benchmarking,
we
could
trust
that
anyone
who
passed
three
years
of
iterative
testing
is
ready
to
practice
(and
pay
off
their
loans).

Make
optional
practice-area
specific
certification
exams
if
the
state
wants
to
provide
more
guidance
to
the
public.
If
a
tax
lawyer
wants
to
bill
themselves
as
a
certified
expert,
they
can
take
the
affirmative
step
of
taking
and
passing
a…
tax
law
exam.
That
does
a
lot
more
to
communicate
to
the
public
that
their
lawyer
is
(a)
competent
for
the
task
and
(b)
confident
enough
to
have
taking
the
extra
step
of
getting
certified.

Conclusion

All
of
these
suggestions
boil
down
to
a
single
philosophical
problem.
Bar
examiners
consistently
fail
in
viewing
examinees
as
actual
humans.
It’s
why
we
always
have
stories
of
examinees

facing
religious
harasment,
or

forced
to
sit
in
their
own
urine,
or
screwed
over
because
they’re

menstruating
or
lactating
during
the
exam.
There’s
just
no
minimum
contacts
between
the
exam
cultists
and
humanity.

Interpersonal
Shoe,
if
you
will.

But
it’s
why
no
one
thinks
of
EMTs.
Or
the
practicalities
of
a
testing
site.
Or
why
the
humanity
of
the
examinees
matters.
It’s
all
tradition
and
the
uncritical
acceptance
of
the
exam
as
a
false
idol.

As
of
this
writing,
the
GoFundMe
has
just
passed
two-thirds
of
its
goal
and
the
classmate
who
organized
the
fundraiser
told
me
“I
am
thankful
for
the
support
so
far.”
The
most
consistent
question
I
received
from
readers
over
the
weekend
was
if
we
knew
of
any
way
they
could
contribute
to
help
out.
Which
is
the
ray
of
hope
in
this
mess.
While
bar
examiners
offer
bland
statements
without
acknowledging
how
the
refusal
to
give
up
on
putting
the
test
first
could’ve
ended
in
tragedy,
the
normal,
rank-and-file
lawyers
out
there
are
stepping
up
and
helping
out.
Because
lawyers
are,
ultimately,
humans.

Most
of
them
anyway.

Earlier:

Bar
Exam
Taker
Suffers
Apparent
Heart
Attack

Bar
Applicants
Call
B.S.
On
Examiner’s
Account
Of
Test-Taker
Suffering
Cardiac
Arrest