Quantifying The Cost Of Retirement: It’s More In Your Control Than You Think – Above the Law

Does
this
sound
familiar?
Another
late
night
at
the
office.
It’s
9
p.m.
and
you’re
staring
at
another
stack
of
briefs.
Your
phone
buzzes
with
a
text
from
your
spouse
asking
when
you’ll
be
home.
Again.

The
thought
crosses
your
mind:

When
can
I
actually
retire
from
all
this?

If
you’re
like
most
lawyers
I
talk
with,
that
question
feels
overwhelming.
Between
law
school
debt,
lifestyle
creep,
and
the
constant
pressure
to
keep
up
with
your
colleagues’
big
houses
and
shiny
cars,
retirement
planning
gets
pushed
to
the
back
burner.
So
you
may
not
feel
prepared.

Then
there’s
the
question:

How
much
will
my
retirement
cost
anyways?

But
understanding
your
retirement
costs
isn’t
just
important.
It’s
your
biggest
lever
for
making
retirement
actually
work.
It’s
the
number
that
drives
all
the
rest
and
can
give
you
clarity
with
your
purpose
beyond
the
law.


Why
This
Math
Actually
Matters

I’m
going
to
be
brutally
honest
with
you.
The
difference
between
understanding
your
expenses
and
taking
a
wild
guess
could
cost
you
years
of
retirement
funding.

Let
me
show
you
what
I
mean
with
a
simple
example.
Take
a
hypothetical
example
of
a
$1,000,000
portfolio
growing
at
7%
annually.
If
you
withdraw
$7,000
monthly,
your
money
lasts
27
years.
Bump
that
up
to
just
$8,000
monthly?
You’re
looking
at
only
20
years.

That’s
right—$1,000
per
month
makes
a
seven-year
difference
in
the
depletion
rate
of
your
portfolio
throughout
your
retirement.

This
is
why
getting
super
clear
on
your
expenses
isn’t
just
helpful
financial
planning.
It’s
the
difference
between
a
comfortable
retirement
and
running
out
of
money
when
you’re
85.


Step
One:
Know
What
You’re
Actually
Spending
Today

Before
you
can
figure
out
what
retirement
will
cost,
you
need
to
know
what
you’re
spending
right
now.
And
no,
looking
at
your
bank
account
balance
and
shrugging
doesn’t
count.

You’ve
got
two
approaches
here,
and
I’ll
walk
you
through
both.


The
Top-Down
Approach
(My
Personal
Favorite)

This
is
perfect
for
busy
attorneys
who
want
answers
without
drowning
in
spreadsheets.
Here’s
how
it
works:

Grab
your
tax
return
and
your
401(k)
statements.
That’s
it.
(Well,
maybe
your
IRAs,
brokerage
accounts,
or
anywhere
else
you
save).

Take
your
gross
income,
subtract
what
you
paid
in
taxes,
then
subtract
what
you
put
into
retirement
accounts
and/or
savings.
What’s
left?
That’s
your
actual
lifestyle
spending.

For
example,
let’s
say
you
earned
$300,000
last
year.
You
paid
$90,000
in
taxes
and
saved
$60,000
for
retirement.
Your
lifestyle
spending
was
$150,000.

Is
this
method
perfect?
No.
But
it’s
quick,
and
it
gives
you
a
solid
starting
point
without
getting
bogged
down
in
the
weeds.


The
Bottom-Up
Approach
(For
the
Detail-Oriented)

Some
attorneys
prefer
tracking
every
expense
category.
You
know
who
you
are—the
ones
who
color-code
your
case
files
and
have
perfectly
organized
desk
drawers.

This
approach
means
listing
everything:
mortgage,
groceries,
insurance,
that
expensive
coffee
habit,
your
kid’s
soccer
cleats.
Everything.

The
upside?
You
get
a
detailed
picture
of
where
your
money
goes.
The
downside?
It’s
tedious,
and
people
often
forget
important
costs
anyway.
You’ll
remember
your
property
taxes
but
might
overlook
home
maintenance.
You’ll
include
health
insurance
but
miss
out-of-pocket
medical
costs.

If
you
go
this
route,
track
your
spending
for
at
least
three
months
first.
There
are
even
apps
that
can
help
with
the
heavy
lifting
here–You
link
your
accounts
and
watch
the
breakdown
of
your
spending
habits
appear.
But
don’t
get
hung
up
on
tech
as
a
spreadsheet
will
do
just
fine
if
getting
into
the
weeds
is
your
thing.


Step
Two:
Factor
in
Inflation

Once
you
know
your
current
spending,
you
need
to
account
for
inflation
between
now
and
retirement.

Let’s
say
you’re
spending
$150,000
today
and
plan
to
retire
in
five
years.
With
3%
annual
inflation,
that
same
lifestyle
will
cost
about
$173,000
in
five
years.


How
Your
Expenses
Change
in
Retirement

Good
news:
Your
expenses
probably
won’t
stay
the
same
when
you
retire.
In
fact,
they’ll
likely
drop
more
than
you
think
assuming
a
similar
lifestyle.


Your
Tax
Bill
May
Shrink

You’ll
need
to
add
taxes
back
into
your
overall
need
for
retirement.
But

taxes
might
look
a
bit
different.

First,
you
wave
goodbye
to
FICA
taxes—that’s
7.65%
of
your
paycheck
right
off
the
top.
If
you
own
your
practice,
you’re
currently
paying
double
that
amount!

Social
Security
benefits
get
better
tax
treatment
than
your
salary
does.
Depending
on
your
other
income,
only
0%
to
85%
of
your
benefits
might
be
taxable.

Many
states
also
cut
retirees
a
break
with
special
tax
treatment
for
retirement
account
withdrawals
as
well.


Work
Expenses
May
Vanish

Think
about
all
the
costs
that
simply
disappear
when
you
retire:
malpractice
insurance,
bar
dues,
continuing
education,
professional
clothes,
daily
commuting,
business
lunches.
These
expenses
often
add
up
to
$10,000
or
more
every
year
for
many
attorneys.


The
Mortgage
Factor

Some
lawyers
reach
retirement
with
their
home
either
paid
off
or
close
to
it.
Since
housing
usually
takes
up
about
a
third
of
your
expenses,
eliminating
your
mortgage
payment
makes
a
huge
difference
in
how
much
you
need
each
month.

What
if
you
still
have
a
mortgage?
Perhaps
you’re
one
of
the
lucky
ones
still
holding
on
to
a
3%
mortgage.
Assuming
your
investments
are
positioned
to
earn
a
higher
rate
of
return,
it
could
make
sense
to
maintain
the
mortgage.
Just
account
for
the
eventual
drop
in
expenses
when
that
mortgage
is
fully
paid
off.


No
More
Saving
for
Retirement

This
one
surprises
people.
Those
big
chunks
of
money
you’ve
been
putting
into
retirement
accounts?
That
cash
was
never
part
of
your
spending
money
anyway.
Many
attorneys
in
their
peak
earning
years
have
the
capacity
to
put
away
$50,000
to
$70,000
annually
for
retirement.

Once
you
retire,
you
can
stop
saving
for
retirement
(obviously!),
which
means
you
need
less
income
to
maintain
the
same
lifestyle.


Putting
It
All
Together:
Your
Retirement
Portfolio
Target

Now
comes
the
fun
part—figuring
out
exactly
how
much
you
need
saved
to
make
this
whole
retirement
thing
work.

Let’s
walk
through
this
step
by
step
with
a
real
example.
Say
you’ve
determined
you’ll
need
$180,000
annually
to
maintain
your
lifestyle
in
retirement
(after
accounting
for
inflation).


Step
One:
Subtract
Your
Guaranteed
Income

First,
you
subtract
any
guaranteed
income
sources.
For
most
lawyers,
this
means
Social
Security
and
possibly
a
pension
if
you
worked
in
government
or
academia
early
in
your
career.
Don’t
forget
to
include
your
spouse’s
resources
here
as
well.

Let’s
say
Social
Security
will
provide
$48,000
annually
for
you
and
your
spouse
combined.
Your
annual
income
gap
becomes
$180,000

$48,000
=
$132,000.

This
is
the
amount
your
investment
portfolio
needs
to
generate
each
year.


Step
Two:
Calculate
Your
Portfolio
Target

Here’s
where
that
famous
4%
rule
comes
in
handy
as
a
starting
point.
If
you
need
$132,000
annually
and
plan
to
withdraw
4%
of
your
portfolio
each
year,
you’d
need
$132,000
÷
0.04
=
$3,300,000
in
total
savings.

Yikes,
right?
But
before
you
panic,
remember
what
we
talked
about
earlier—your
expenses
will
likely
be
lower
than
you
think,
and

the
4%
rule
isn’t
the
only
game
in
town
.


A
More
Realistic
Example

Let’s
get
super
clear
with
numbers
that
reflect
what
I
actually
see
with
most
attorneys.
Continuing
with
our
example,
this
is
the
step
where
we
begin
adjusting
different
variables
to
help
solve
for
the
retirement
goal.

After
learning
more
and
discussing
a
dynamic
withdrawal
strategy
(as
opposed
to
a
static
4%
withdrawal
rate),
the
couple
may
decide
they’re
comfortable
with
an
initial
withdrawal
rate
of
5%.
To
generate
$132,000
per
year,
they
would
need
$2,640,000
saved
($132,000
÷
0.05).

Still
a
big
number,
but
suddenly
more
achievable
than
$3.3
million.

As
a
safeguard
to
the
higher
withdrawal
rate,
they’ve
identified
key
portfolio
values
that
would
trigger
either
a
small
spending
decrease
or
increase
depending
on
the
performance
of
their
retirement
accounts–Income
guardrails.


The
Income
Gap
Reality
Check

This
exercise
often
reveals
something
important:
the
gap
between
what
you
have
and
what
you
need
might
be
smaller
than
you
thought.
Or
it
might
highlight
that
working
a
few
extra
years
could
make
a
dramatic
difference.
Either
way,
it
provides

actionable


direction

for
what
needs
to
happen
next
with
your
retirement
plan.

Need
to
save
more?
Better
to
know
5-10
years
out
from
retirement
than
at
retirement.

Realized
you
spend
more
than
you
thought?
Not
a
bad
thing–just
something
to
plan
around.
Money
is
meant
to
be
spent
after
all.

In
better
shape
for
retirement
than
you
realized?
Great!
Now
you
can
shift
your
mindset
towards

your
purpose
in
retirement
.


The
Dynamic
Spending
Strategy

At
this
point,
hopefully
you
can
see
the
impact
that
expenses
have
on
your
retirement.
However,
you
may
also
feel
a
little
bit
uneasy
since
everything
feels
so

precise.

But
this
next
part
may
help
you
breathe
a
bit–You
don’t
have
to
get
this
calculation
perfect
if
you’re
willing
to
make
adjustments
throughout
retirement.

Research
shows
that
most
retirees
don’t
increase
their
spending
with
inflation
every
year
anyway.
Instead,

spending
follows
more
of
a
“smile”
pattern
:
higher
in
early
active
years,
lower
in
the
middle
period,
then
rising
again
with
healthcare
costs
in
later
years.

I
find
this
true
in
practice.
Even
with
the
last
few
years
of
high
inflation,
most
of
my
retirees
have
taken
inflationary
bumps
to
their
withdrawals,
but
much
lower
than
the
actual
rate
of
inflation.

A
flexible
spending
strategy
means
adjusting
your
withdrawals
based
on
how
your
investments
perform.
Being
willing
to
reduce
spending
by
just
5-10%
during
major
market
downturns
can
let
you
start
with
a
higher
withdrawal
rate
and
still
make
your
money
last.
For
attorneys
used
to
unpredictable
income,
this
flexibility
comes
naturally.


Bottom
Line

Understanding
your
retirement
costs
isn’t
about
creating
a
perfect
budget
that
you’ll
follow
for
30
years.
It’s
about
getting
clear
on
what
you
actually
need
so
you
can
make
informed
decisions
about
when
and
how
to
retire–and
when
to
adjust
along
the
way.

The
math
might
seem
daunting
at
first,
but
remember
that
small
changes
in
your
expenses
can
add
years
to
how
long
your
money
lasts.
And
with
some
strategic
planning
around
taxes,
work
expenses,
and
flexible
spending,
you
might
find
that
retirement
is
closer
than
you
think.

Start
with
the
top-down
approach—grab
your
tax
return
and
retirement
statements.
Figure
out
what
you’re
really
spending
today.
Then
we
can
worry
about
fine-tuning
the
details.

After
all,
the
goal
isn’t
perfection.
It’s
confidence
that
you
can
maintain
your
lifestyle
without
the
pressure
of
billable
hours
and
court
deadlines.




David
Hunter,
CFP®
is
a
CERTIFIED
FINANCIAL
PLANNER™
and
owner
of First
Light
Wealth,
LLC
 (Opens
in
a
new
window),
a
financial
planning
&
wealth
management
firm
with
a
unique
focus
on
serving
attorneys
nationwide.
David
has
over
a
decade
of
experience
helping
clients
build
financial
plans
and
has
been
featured
in
publications
such
as
Attorney
at
Work,
ThinkAdvisor,
MarketWatch,
Financial
Planning,
and
InvestmentNews.
David
also
writes
weekly
to
attorneys
in
his
popular Money
Meets
Law
 (Opens
in
a
new
window) newsletter.
For
more
about
David,
visit firstlightwealth.com/lawyers (Opens
in
a
new
window) or
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn (Opens
in
a
new
window).

Government Attorneys Now On Board With The Whole Secret Police Thing – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Michael
M.
Santiago/Getty
Images)

Masked
ICE
agents
are
only
the
start
of
the
assault
on
government
transparency.
Now,
government
attorneys
that
are
arguing
to
deport
immigrants
are
doing
so
in
secret.

The
Intercept

reports

on
two
separate
instances
immigration
judges
in
New
York
City
declined
to
identify
the
government
attorneys
for
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement.

In
the
first
case
Judge
ShaSha
Xu
said,
“We’re
not
really
doing
names
publicly.”
But
that’s
not
really
true.
Because
she
*did*
ID
the
immigrants
before
her
in
court
and
their
lawyers.
It
was
only
the
government
attorney
that
operated
anonymously

in
contravention
of
every
custom
of
the
legal
profession.

The
attorneys
arguing
against
the
nameless
agent
of
the
government,
Jeffrey
Okun
and
Hugo
Gonzalez
Venegas
in
separate
cases,
were
shocked
by
the
development.
Okun
called
it
“bizarre”
and
Gonzalez
Venegas
said
it
was
“a
terrible
lack
of
transparency
on
the
part
of
officers
of
the
court.” 

The
identity
of
the
government
attorney
was
revealed
to
the
attorneys
through
private
messaging.
And
Gonzalez
Venegas
identified
her
as
Cosette
Shachno.

Judge
James
McCarthy
was
also
spotted
declining
to
identify
government
ICE
attorneys
on
the
record,
instead
using
the
dystopian
moniker
“Department”
in
open
court.

And
it
could
even
get
worse:

“This
is
a
very
new
and
very
disturbing
turn
of
events,”
said
Daniel
Kowalski,
a
former
longtime
immigration
attorney
who
now
edits
the
legal
journal
Bender’s
Immigration
Bulletin
for
LexisNexis. 

“Where
does
it
stop?”
asked
Kowalski.
“Are
the
immigration
judges
going
to
be
unnamed?
Behind
a
screen?” 

According
to
another
immigration
judge,
Shirley
Lazare-Raphael,
there
is
no
formal
policy
directing
judges
to
anonymize
ICE
attorneys
on
the
record.
“It’s
up
to
the
judges
whether
or
not
they
want
to
do
it,”
she
said.
She
also
noted
some
ICE
attorneys
believe
it’s
“dangerous
to
state
their
names
publicly.”
Cue
the
eye
rolls.
That’s
the
same
tired
excuse
ICE
agents
are
using
to
conduct
masked
raids,
when
really
it’s
being
identified
with
the
controversial
and
harmful
“mass
deportations”
of
the
Trump
administration
that’s
the
issue.




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].

U.S. State Courts Cautiously Approach AI Despite Efficiency Promises and Staffing Crises

A
new
survey
of
state
courts
reveals
a
striking
paradox
in
the
American
judicial
system:
Even
though
courts
face
severe
staffing
shortages
and
operational
strain,
they
remain
reluctant
to
adopt
generative
artificial
intelligence
technologies
that
could
provide
significant
relief.

The
Thomson
Reuters
Institute’s

third
annual
survey
of
state
courts
,
conducted
in
partnership
with
the
National
Center
for
State
Courts
AI
Policy
Consortium,
found
that
68%
of
courts
reported
staff
shortages
and
48%
of
court
professionals
say
they
do
not
have
enough
time
to
get
their
work
done.

Despite
these
pressures,
however,
just
17%
say
their
court
is
using
gen
AI
today.

Courts
Under
Strain

The
survey,
which
gathered
responses
from
443
state,
county,
and
municipal
court
judges
and
professionals
between
March
and
April
2025,
paints
a
picture
of
courts
under
significant
strain.

Seventy-one
percent
of
state
courts
and
56%
of
county/municipal
courts
experienced
staff
shortages
in
the
past
year,
with
61%
anticipating
continued
shortages
in
the
next
12
months.

This
staffing
crisis
translates
into
demanding
work
schedules,
with
53%
of
respondents
saying
they
work
between
40
and
45
hours
a
week
on
average,
and
an
additional
38%
working
over
46
hours
a
week.

Perhaps
most
telling,
only
half
of
court
professionals
said
they
had
enough
time
to
get
their
work
done.

These
workload
pressures
are
only
getting
worse.
Nearly
half
of
respondents
(45%)
reported
an
increase
in
their
caseloads
compared
to
last
year
and
39%
said
the
issues
they
are
dealing
with
have
become
more
complex.

Meanwhile,
24%
of
respondents
reported
increases
in
court
delays,
compared
to
18%
who
reported
decreases.

AI
Adoption
Remains
Limited

Against
this
backdrop
of
operational
strain,
the
survey
reveals
a
cautious
approach
to
AI
adoption
that
seems
at
odds
with
the
technology’s
potential
benefits.

Currently,
only
17%
of
respondents
said
their
court
was
using
gen
AI,
and
an
additional
17%
said
their
court
was
planning
to
adopt
gen
AI
technology
over
the
next
year.

This
slow
adoption
occurs
despite
widespread
recognition
of
AI’s
transformative
potential,
with
55%
of
respondents
rating
AI
and
gen
AI
as
having
a
transformational
or
high
impact
on
courts
over
the
next
five
years.

The
survey
found
that
AI
and
gen
AI
is
the
highest-ranking
impactful
trend,
rated
as
transformational
or
high
impact
by
55%
of
respondents.

Court
professionals
clearly
see
the
efficiency
benefits
AI
could
provide.
Court
professionals
predict
that
in
the
next
year,
gen
AI
will
help
them
save
an
average
of
nearly
three
hours
a
week,
rising
to
nearly
nine
hours
a
week
within
five
years.

The
projected
time
savings
could
be
substantial:
Respondents
estimate
they
will
save
an
average
of
nearly
three
hours
every
week
in
the
next
year,
growing
to
nearly
six
hours
each
week
within
three
years
and
8.8
hours
each
week
within
five
years.

Barriers
to
AI
Implementation

So
what
is
keeping
courts
back?
The
survey
identifies
several
factors
contributing
to
courts’
cautious
AI
adoption.

Seventy
percent
of
respondents
said
their
courts
are
currently
not
allowing
employees
to
use
AI-based
tools
for
court
business,
and
75%
of
respondents
said
their
court
has
not
yet
provided
any
AI
training.

There
are
also
varied
but
significant
concerns
about
AI
implementation.

More
than
a
third
(35%)
are
worried
that
AI
will
lead
to
an
overreliance
on
technology
rather
than
skill,
while
a
quarter
have
concerns
about
malicious
use
of
AI,
such
as
counterfeit
orders
and
evidence.
Interestingly,
only
9%
were
worried
about
widespread
job
loss
resulting
from
AI.

Budget
constraints
may
also
play
a
role
in
limiting
technology
adoption.
The
survey
found
that
22%
say
their
budget
for
the
next
year
increased,
while
30%
said
budgets
decreased,
and
30%
say
budgets
stayed
the
same.

Current
Technology
Landscape

While
AI
adoption
lags,
courts
have
made
progress
implementing
other
technologies.
Most
courts
have
adopted
key
technologies,
including
case
management
(86%),
e-filing
(85%),
calendar
management
(83%),
and
document
management
(82%).

Video
conferencing
has
reached
near-universal
adoption
at
88%.

However,
some
technology
gaps
remain.
Beyond
gen
AI,
the
most
common
technologies
set
to
be
adopted
next
are
legal
self-help
portals,
online
dispute
resolution
and
document
automation.

Virtual
Hearings
Widely
Adopted

The
survey
shows
significant
adoption
of
virtual
hearings,
with
80%
of
respondents
saying
their
court
conducts
or
participates
in
virtual
hearings.

In
more
than
40%
of
all
jurisdictions,
virtual
hearings
are
available
for
first/initial
appearances,
preliminary/status
hearings
and/or
motion
hearings.

Virtual
hearings
appear
to
improve
court
efficiency
in
some
areas.
58%
of
respondents
reported
that
virtual
courts
decrease
failure
to
appear
rates,
and
84%
reported
that
virtual
courts
increase
access
to
justice.

However,
the
digital
divide
presents
ongoing
challenges.
Nearly
one
in
five
respondents
(19%)
feel
that
the
majority
of
litigants
are
experiencing
decreased
access
to
justice
because
they
lack
strong
technology
skills.

Court
access
for
people
with
lower
digital
literacy
and
fewer
technical
support
resources
were
ranked
as
the
top
challenges
for
litigants
involved
in
virtual
hearings.

Cybersecurity
Concerns

As
courts
increasingly
rely
on
technology,
cybersecurity
emerges
as
a
critical
concern.
The
survey
reveals
significant
variation
in
confidence
levels
regarding
IT
security.

While
57%
of
respondents
feel
highly
confident
in
their
IT
systems’
security,
an
alarming
22%
of
respondents
say
they
are
“not
at
all
confident”
in
the
security
of
their
IT
systems.

Generational
Workforce
Changes

The
survey
identifies
generational
workforce
shifts
as
another
major
factor
affecting
courts.
Baby
Boomers
and
Gen
Xers
exiting
the
workplace,
along
with
Gen
Zers
entering
the
workforce
and
Millennials
moving
into
leadership
positions,
are
trends
frequently
ranked
as
transformational
or
high
impact.

These
demographic
changes
have
important
implications
for
technology
adoption.
As
the
report
notes,
Gen
Zers
are
digital
natives
who
are
very
comfortable
using
technology
and
may
find
it
easier
to
manage
automated
workflows,
while
they
may
be
resistant
to
jobs
and
tasks
that
still
rely
heavily
on
manual
tasks.

Reducing
Operational
Errors

The
survey
provides
insights
about
task
efficiency
and
error
rates
in
court
operations.

Entering
and
updating
data
in
court
management
systems
was
rated
as
both
the
most
error-prone
task
by
a
wide
margin
and
also
as
the
second-most
inefficient
task.
This
finding
suggests
that
greater
use
of
automation
in
CMS
entry
could
yield
major
improvements
in
both
efficiency
and
error
rates.

The
survey
also
found
correlations
between
different
operational
challenges.
Tasks
that
are
more
stressful
are
also
correlated
with
causing
inconvenience
for
court
users,
suggesting
that
addressing
workflow
inefficiencies
could
simultaneously
improve
both
staff
satisfaction
and
user
experience.

A
Critical
Juncture
for
Courts

The
survey
suggests
that
courts
face
a
strategic
choice:
embrace
AI
technologies
that
could
significantly
alleviate
operational
pressures,
or
risk
falling
further
behind
as
staffing
challenges
intensify
and
workloads
continue
to
grow.

“We’re
facing
challenges

staff
don’t
think
they
have
enough
time
to
meet
their
demands,
and
they’re
working
more
hours
to
get
the
work
done,
and
that’s
leading
to
burnout,”
said
David
Slayton,
executive
officer
and
clerk
of
court
for
the
Superior
Court
of
Los
Angeles
County.

“It’s
incumbent
on
court
leaders
to
really
think
about
how
technology
can
help
us
with
this
problem.”

Mike
Abbott,
head
of
Thomson
Reuters
Institute,
underscored
the
urgency
of
the
situation.

“Courts
are
facing
an
unprecedented
convergence
of
change,
driven
by
generative
AI
and
generational
shifts
in
their
workforce,
at
the
same
time
as
they
continue
to
deal
with
staff
shortages,
backlogs
and
delays,”
Abbott
said.

“AI
literacy
can
empower
the
courts
to
understand
both
the
risks
and
the
opportunities
associated
with
the
technology,
enabling
them
to
identify
the
best
use
cases
which
help
them
focus
on
higher
value
work.”

New Bipartisan Bill from Rep. Carter Aims to Crack Down on PBMs – MedCity News

Rep.
Earl
L.
“Buddy”
Carter
(R-Georgia)
introduced
the

PBM
Reform
Act

last
week,
which
seeks
to
crack
down
on
pharmacy
benefit
manager
(PBM)
practices.

The
bill
has
bipartisan
support
and
was
co-sponsored
by
Representatives
Debbie
Dingell
(D-Michigan),
Greg
Murphy
(R-North
Carolina),
Deborah
Ross
(D-North
Carolina),
Jodey
Arrington
(R-Texas),
Diana
Harshbarger
(R-Tennessee),
Vicente
Gonzalez
(D-Texas),
Rick
Allen
(R-Georgia),
Raja
Krishnamoorthi
(D-Illinois),
John
Rose
(R-Tennessee),
Derek
Tran
(D-California),
and
Nicole
Malliotakis
(R-New
York).

The
bill
will
ban
spread
pricing
in
Medicaid.
This
is
when
a
PBM
charges
payers
more
than
they
pay
the
pharmacy
for
a
medication
and
then
keeps
the
difference
as
profit.
It
also
seeks
to
“delink”
PBM
compensation
from
the
cost
of
medications
under
Medicare
Part
D.

In
addition,
it
will
require
semi-annual
reporting
on
drug
spending,
rebates
and
formulary
determinations.
It
will
also
mandate
that
the
Centers
for
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Services
enforce
“reasonable
and
relevant”
contract
terms
in
Medicare
Part
D
pharmacy
contracts
and
address
violations.

The
introduction
of
the
bill
comes
as
the
big
three
PBMs

CVS
Caremark,
UnitedHealth
Group’s
Optum
Rx
and
Cigna’s
Express
Scripts

control
80%
of
the
prescription
drug
market.

“It’s
time
to
bust
up
the
PBM
monopoly,
which
has
been
stealing
hope
and
health
from
patients
for
decades.
As
a
pharmacist,
I’ve
seen
how
PBMs
abuse
patients
firsthand,
and
believe
that
the
cure
to
this
infectious
disease
is
transparency,
competition,
and
accountability,
which
is
exactly
what
our
bipartisan
package
provides,”
Carter
said
in
a
statement.

Carter’s
comments
were
echoed
by
Dingell
of
Michigan.

“For
too
long,
pharmacy
benefit
managers
have
been
allowed
to
operate
unchecked,
raising
prices
and
preventing
many
patients
from
getting
the
medications
they
depend
on,”
Dingell
said
in
a
statement.
“I
hear
from
too
many
Michiganders,
especially
seniors,
who
can’t
conveniently
access
the
prescriptions
they
need,
due
to
exploitative
PBM
practices
complicating
access
to
their
local
pharmacies.
Their
harmful,
aggressive
tactics
are
only
getting
worse,
and
we
must
take
action
now
to
protect
pharmacies
and
lower
patient
costs.
I
remain
committed
to
working
with
my
colleagues
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
to
get
this
across
the
finish
line.”

Numerous
other
efforts
have
been
taken
targeting
PBMs.
The
state
of
Arkansas
recently

created

a
law
banning
PBMs
from
owning
and
operating
pharmacies
in
the
state,
prompting
CVS
Caremark
and
Express
Scripts
to
file
separate
lawsuits
challenging
the
law.
In
December,
Senators
Elizabeth
Warren
(D-Massachusetts)
and
Josh
Hawley
(R-Missouri)

introduced

a
bipartisan
bill
that
would
also
ban
PBMs
from
owning
pharmacies.


Photo:
z_wei,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket: 07.17.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
fires
Epstein
and
Diddy
prosecutor.
So…
did
Trump
go
to
some
freak
offs?
It
also
happens
to
be
James
Comey’s
daughter
so

watch
your
seashells
!
[CNN]

*
ICE
lawyers
refusing
to
be
identified
in
public
proceedings.
Everyone
wants
to
be
the
secret
police
as
long
as
they
get
to
stay
secret.
[The
Intercept
]

*
Schulte’s
COVID
rent
case
rejected.
[Reuters]

*
Who,
What,
When,
Where…
but
WHY?!?
Why
did
was
it
crossing
the
road?
[WKRC]

*
Jane’s
Addiction
move
fight
to
courtroom.
[Law360]

*
Meta
board
tried
to
keep
Zuck
shielded
in
the
metaverse
during
privacy
scandals.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
“What
AI
Is
Already
Doing
to
the
Legal
Industry.”
Yeah,
we
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
stories
about
fake
cases
and
sanctions.
[Bloomberg]

Morning Docket: 07.17.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
fires
Epstein
and
Diddy
prosecutor.
So…
did
Trump
go
to
some
freak
offs?
It
also
happens
to
be
James
Comey’s
daughter
so

watch
your
seashells
!
[CNN]

*
ICE
lawyers
refusing
to
be
identified
in
public
proceedings.
Everyone
wants
to
be
the
secret
police
as
long
as
they
get
to
stay
secret.
[The
Intercept
]

*
Schulte’s
COVID
rent
case
rejected.
[Reuters]

*
Who,
What,
When,
Where…
but
WHY?!?
Why
did
was
it
crossing
the
road?
[WKRC]

*
Jane’s
Addiction
move
fight
to
courtroom.
[Law360]

*
Meta
board
tried
to
keep
Zuck
shielded
in
the
metaverse
during
privacy
scandals.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
“What
AI
Is
Already
Doing
to
the
Legal
Industry.”
Yeah,
we
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
stories
about
fake
cases
and
sanctions.
[Bloomberg]

Morning Docket: 07.17.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
fires
Epstein
and
Diddy
prosecutor.
So…
did
Trump
go
to
some
freak
offs?
It
also
happens
to
be
James
Comey’s
daughter
so

watch
your
seashells
!
[CNN]

*
ICE
lawyers
refusing
to
be
identified
in
public
proceedings.
Everyone
wants
to
be
the
secret
police
as
long
as
they
get
to
stay
secret.
[The
Intercept
]

*
Schulte’s
COVID
rent
case
rejected.
[Reuters]

*
Who,
What,
When,
Where…
but
WHY?!?
Why
did
was
it
crossing
the
road?
[WKRC]

*
Jane’s
Addiction
move
fight
to
courtroom.
[Law360]

*
Meta
board
tried
to
keep
Zuck
shielded
in
the
metaverse
during
privacy
scandals.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
“What
AI
Is
Already
Doing
to
the
Legal
Industry.”
Yeah,
we
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
stories
about
fake
cases
and
sanctions.
[Bloomberg]

Morning Docket: 07.17.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
fires
Epstein
and
Diddy
prosecutor.
So…
did
Trump
go
to
some
freak
offs?
It
also
happens
to
be
James
Comey’s
daughter
so

watch
your
seashells
!
[CNN]

*
ICE
lawyers
refusing
to
be
identified
in
public
proceedings.
Everyone
wants
to
be
the
secret
police
as
long
as
they
get
to
stay
secret.
[The
Intercept
]

*
Schulte’s
COVID
rent
case
rejected.
[Reuters]

*
Who,
What,
When,
Where…
but
WHY?!?
Why
did
was
it
crossing
the
road?
[WKRC]

*
Jane’s
Addiction
move
fight
to
courtroom.
[Law360]

*
Meta
board
tried
to
keep
Zuck
shielded
in
the
metaverse
during
privacy
scandals.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
“What
AI
Is
Already
Doing
to
the
Legal
Industry.”
Yeah,
we
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
stories
about
fake
cases
and
sanctions.
[Bloomberg]

Morning Docket: 07.17.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
fires
Epstein
and
Diddy
prosecutor.
So…
did
Trump
go
to
some
freak
offs?
It
also
happens
to
be
James
Comey’s
daughter
so

watch
your
seashells
!
[CNN]

*
ICE
lawyers
refusing
to
be
identified
in
public
proceedings.
Everyone
wants
to
be
the
secret
police
as
long
as
they
get
to
stay
secret.
[The
Intercept
]

*
Schulte’s
COVID
rent
case
rejected.
[Reuters]

*
Who,
What,
When,
Where…
but
WHY?!?
Why
did
was
it
crossing
the
road?
[WKRC]

*
Jane’s
Addiction
move
fight
to
courtroom.
[Law360]

*
Meta
board
tried
to
keep
Zuck
shielded
in
the
metaverse
during
privacy
scandals.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
“What
AI
Is
Already
Doing
to
the
Legal
Industry.”
Yeah,
we
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
stories
about
fake
cases
and
sanctions.
[Bloomberg]

Morning Docket: 07.17.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
fires
Epstein
and
Diddy
prosecutor.
So…
did
Trump
go
to
some
freak
offs?
It
also
happens
to
be
James
Comey’s
daughter
so

watch
your
seashells
!
[CNN]

*
ICE
lawyers
refusing
to
be
identified
in
public
proceedings.
Everyone
wants
to
be
the
secret
police
as
long
as
they
get
to
stay
secret.
[The
Intercept
]

*
Schulte’s
COVID
rent
case
rejected.
[Reuters]

*
Who,
What,
When,
Where…
but
WHY?!?
Why
did
was
it
crossing
the
road?
[WKRC]

*
Jane’s
Addiction
move
fight
to
courtroom.
[Law360]

*
Meta
board
tried
to
keep
Zuck
shielded
in
the
metaverse
during
privacy
scandals.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
“What
AI
Is
Already
Doing
to
the
Legal
Industry.”
Yeah,
we
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
stories
about
fake
cases
and
sanctions.
[Bloomberg]