Author: TSA Press

Any
Costco
member
knows
that
the
store
offers
more
than
a
$1.50
hotdog
and
soda
special
and
rotisserie
chickens.
They
also
offer
quality
products
that
seem
very
similar
to
namebrand
goods
sold
at
a
much
higher
markup.
Who
hasn’t
heard
the
rumor
that

Costco’s
Kirkland
vodka
is
comparable
to
(if
not
better
than)
Grey
Goose
or
that

Kirkland
golf
balls
can
compete
with
Pro
V1s.
While
some
of
these
product
comparisons
send
members
running
to
Costco,
they
also
run
the
risk
of
Costco
being
taken
to
court.
Lululemon,
known
for
athleisure
wear
and

deliberately
being
named
in
a
way
that
makes
it
difficult
for
Japanese
speakers
to
pronounce,
is
taking
Costco
to
court
for
allegedly
ripping
off
their
IP.

Lululemon
Athletica
Inc.
is
accusing
Costco
Wholesale
Corp.
of
copying
its
apparel
designs
in
a
lawsuit
—
and
the
upscale
sportswear
company
shared
images
with
the
court
to
back
up
its
case…Lululemon
is
arguing
that
the
products
sold
at
Costco
entirely
replicate
the
design
of
their
apparel,
highlighting
silhouettes,
seamlines
and
accents
trademarked
by
Lululemon
in
the
visual
comparisons
provided
to
the
court.

Here’s
a
product
side
by
side
for
example:

Do
Costco
pants
have
some
special
anti-wrinkle
technology
going
on
in
the
fabric
or
is
Lululemon
just
terrible
at
picking
comparison
pictures?
Whatever
Lulu
representative
went
to
their
nearest
Costco
to
photograph
the
competition
should
have
bought
a
three
pack
of
irons
to
get
the
creases
out
of
the
pants
on
the
left.

While
we’re
on
the
topic
of
comparison
and
marketing,
this
lawsuit
runs
the
risk
of
adding
cash
to
the
Costco
coffers:

Yes,
my
first
reaction
is
seems
I
need
to
make
a
trip
to
Costco.

—
HelenT
(@helent4891)

July
3,
2025

lmao
not
only
are
they
different
enough
to
tell
but
WAYYYY
better
quality
imo.
I’ve
had
pairs
of
leggings
from
Costco
for
over
5
yrs
and
use
them
skiing,
hiking,
etc
and
they’re
still
the
same.
my
lulu?
dont
stay
up,
terrified
they’ll
rip
if
I
fall

https://t.co/jXUgwpKSPI

—
monie
⁷

saw
hobi!!
(@bearkive)

July
2,
2025

Costco
has
yet
to
respond,

but
they
generally
aren’t
ones
to
back
down.
While
I
doubt
they’ll
go
full
Steve
Madden…

Costco
will
probably
put
up
a
good
fight.

Don’t
get
me
wrong
—
it
is
generally
a
good
idea
to
defend
your
IP.
But
if
you
lose
the
suit
and
it
gets
out
that
your
competitor
is
selling
a
superior
product
at
a
much
lower
price,
you
may
have
been
better
off
resting
on
your
prestige
than
rooting
out
copycats.
Because
let’s
be
real
—
if
your
customer
base
is
already
caught
up
in
the
hype
of
Lululemon
and
its
product
peers
in
the
premium
athleisure
lifestyle,
they
aren’t
dismounting
their
Peleton
to
go
shop
at
Costco.
But
they
may
jump
ship
if
your
company
losing
big
in
court
starts
to
make
headlines.

Lululemon
Gets
Aggressive
About
Lookalikes
With
Costco
Lawsuit
[Insurance
Journal]

---

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:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.

Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.

Happy
First
Monday!

Hello
from Washington
DC,
where
we
celebrated
the
4th
of
July
and
our
wedding
anniversary
or,
as
we
call
it,
our
own
“Loving”
day.
(For
more
on
that,
see here –
gift
link.)
We
caught Beyoncé’s holiday
performance
on
Friday,
and
it
lived
up
to
all
of
the
strong
reviews.
From
the New
York
Times:

Beyoncé’s
Cowboy
Carter
Tour
remixes
American
history,
and
her
own.
The
superstar’s
new
stage
show
turns
reclamation,
personal
and
musical,
into
joyful
extravaganza.
…
Reverence
was
just
one
of
her
postures,
but
not
one
she
wore
for
long.
At
the
end
of
the
show,
a
huge
bust
of
the
Statue
of
Liberty
appeared
onstage
with
a
bandanna
covering
its
mouth,
as
if
protecting
itself.
One
video
sketch
found
a
giant
Beyoncé
stomping
past
the
White
House
—
wonder
who’s
hanging
out
in
there?
—
then
drawing
a
wink
from
the
Lincoln
Memorial.

Read
more here (gift
link).

It
was
a
busy
week
leading
up
to
the
holiday.
I submitted
comments in
response
to
the Supreme
Court
of
Texas’s order requesting
input
about
whether
to
maintain
ABA
accreditation
for
Texas
law
schools
or
pursue
alternatives.
Short
version:
keep
ABA
accreditation
but
also
authorize
licensed
paraprofessionals
and
community
justice
workers,
as
recommended
by
the
Texas
Access
to
Justice
Commission’s
Working
Group
on
Access
to
Legal
Services.
Read
my
full
statement here.
(Full
disclosure
–
I
served
on
the
Working
Group
and
I’m
slated
for
election
to
the
ABA
accrediting
body,
the
Council
of
the
ABA
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admission
to
the
Bar,
in
August.)

I
also
was
thrilled
to
join
the
first
meeting
of
the TEDLaw
Faculty
Advisory
Council.
Yes,
you
read
that
right.
TED
is
bringing
its
incredible
platform
for
inspiring
and
sharing
knowledge
to
legal
education.
The
effort
is
spearheaded
by TED
Conferences
General
Counsel Nishat
Ruiter.
Learn
more here.
Over
a
decade
ago,
a
few
of
us
at Michigan
State
University organized
a
series
of
TED-like
events
around
the
globe
in
London,
NYC,
Dubai,
and
Silicon
Valley
under
the
name ReInvent
Law. Those
conferences
helped
infuse
technology,
innovation,
and
entrepreneurship
into
law
school
programs
across
the
country.
(For
more
on
that
history, download
my
chapter
“The
ReInvent
Law
Archive” from
the
book Legal
Design:
Dignifying
People
in
Legal
Systems (Cambridge
University
Press
2024)
or scroll
through
these
memories captured
at LawSites).
I
can’t
wait
to
see
how
Nishat
and
her
TED
team
transform
teaching
across
the
law
school
curriculum.
Here’s
an introduction to
her
vision
for
TEDLaw and
a preview of
the
TEDLaw
Curriculum.
Stay
tuned
for
more
information
about
a
TEDLaw
Conference
coming
in
2026.
And
if
you
want
to
get
involved
now,
take
a
few
moments
to
provide
feedback
in
this survey.

---

Now,
let’s
get
started
with
the
headlines.
Don’t
forget
to
keep
scrolling
down
to
the
very
end
—
on
the
first
Monday
of
each
month,
you
get
a
longer
version
of
the
Roundup
with
reading
recommendations,
job
postings,
events,
and
other
features.
Enjoy!

Highlights
from
Last
Week
–
Top
Ten
Headlines

#1 “Trump
Administration
Presses
On
With
Fight
to
Enforce
Law-Firm
Sanctions.” From
the Wall
Street
Journal:
“The
Trump
administration
isn’t
giving
up
its
legal
fight
to
enforce
punishing
sanctions
against
law
firms
following
a
string
of
resounding
defeats
in
court.
The Justice
Department on
Monday
filed
notice
that
it
was
appealing
a
ruling
that
struck
down
an
executive
order
against Perkins
Coie,
one
of
the
first
law
firms
to
be
targeted
by
a
sweeping
measure
that
directed
agencies
to
remove
access
to
federal
buildings
and
strip
its
clients
of
government
contracts. Judge
Beryl
Howell,
a
Barack
Obama-appointee,
ruled
in
May
that
the
order
was
unconstitutional.
She
is
one
of
four
judges
who
have
struck
down
similar
executive
orders
targeting
firms
that President
Trump perceived
as
being
at
odds
with
his
administration,
politics
or
him
personally.
The
latest
came
on
Friday
from Judge
Loren
AliKhan,
who
said
an
order
against Susman
Godfrey was
plagued
by
‘grave
constitutional
violations.’”
Read
more here.

#2 “‘We
Have
to
Speak
Up
for
Justice:’
Judges
from
the
US
and
Venezuela
Defend
the
Rule
of
Law.” From
the
CNN
show Amanpour,
anchor Bianna
Golodryga interviewed U.S.
District
Judge
Esther
Salas,
whose
son
was
murdered
in
an
attack
targeting
her,
and
Salas
observed:
“You
know,
a
lot
of
people
talk
about
this
being
political.
It
is
not
political
to
defend
the
rule
of
law.
In
fact,
there
is
a
Canon
that
guides
our
judicial
ethics,
Canon
4.
And
the
commentary
to
Canon
4
is
very
clear.
And
I
want
to
just
paraphrase
it,
but
it
says
that
judges
may
express
opposition
to
the
persecution
of
judges
or
lawyers
anywhere
in
the
world
if
the
judge
has
ascertained,
after
reasonable
inquiry,
that
the
persecution
is
occasioned
by
conflict,
emphasis
on
conflict,
between
the
persecuted
lawyer
or
judge,
and
the
policies
or
practices
of
the
relevant
government.
That
was
written
when
judges
were
traveling
internationally
to
speak.
I
don’t
think
that
commentary
was
written
to
be
used
necessarily
in
the
United
States
of
America,
but
I
do
think
it
is
a
Canon
that
judges
should
look
to
and
think
about,
because
there
is
at
least
reasonable
inquiry
now
and
proof
that
we
are
under
attack,
either
attacks
by
known
individuals
or
attacks
by
those
that
hide
in
the
shadows
and
send
us
death
threats
to
our
chambers
and
send
us
pizzas
to
our
homes
to
try
to
inflict
fear.”
Read
more
of
the
transcript here.
Watch
the
interview here.

#3 Financial
Consequences
for
Lawyers
and
Law
Students
Under
the
“One
Big
Beautiful
Bill
Act.” Two
headlines
for
#3. First,
from
the Daily
Journal:
“Litigation
Funding
Dodges
Tax
Bullet
in
Big
Beautiful
Bill.
A
controversial
excise
tax
on
litigation
funding
proceeds
—
once
feared
by
funders
and
lawyers
alike
—
has
been
left
out
of
the
Senate’s
final
tax
bill
for
now,
but
with
strong
industry
backing
and
future
legislative
interest,
it
may
yet
return
in
another
form.”
Read
more here. Second,
from Forbes:
“Unprecedented
Student
Loan
Overhaul
In
‘Big
Beautiful
Bill’
Passes
House,
Heads
To
Trump.
…
The
bill
eliminates
the
Graduate
PLUS
program,
a
federal
student
loan
option
that
helps
fund
attendance
at
graduate
and
professional
schools.
Increased
Stafford
loan
borrowing
limits
would
partially
offset
the
elimination
of
this
option,
but
with
lifetime
caps
of
$100,000
for
graduate
students
and
$200,000
for
professional
students,
it
may
simply
not
be
enough
to
cover
the
full
cost
of
expensive
advanced
degrees.
Critics
have
argued
that
some
prospective
students
may
turn
to
riskier
private
student
loans,
or
decide
against
going
to
medical
or
law
school
altogether,
which
would
make
existing
shortages
in
high-need
areas
…
even
worse.”
Read
more here.

#4 “Federal
Judges
are
Public
Officials
for
Defamation
Purposes,
Judge
Rules.” From Reuters:
“Federal
judges
are
public
officials
who
must
meet
a
higher
bar
to
sue
individuals
for
defamation,
a
federal
judge
concluded
as
he
dismissed
a
lawsuit
by
one
of
his
counterparts
against
onetime
members
of
a
Florida
condo
association’s
board. U.S.
District
Judge
Roy
Altman in
Fort
Lauderdale,
Florida,
reached
that
conclusion
in
an amended
opinion released
Monday
that
rejected
claims
by Senior
U.S.
District
Judge
Frederic
Block.
The
Brooklyn-based
judge
had
sued
two
former
condo
association
board
members,
alleging
they
tried
to
destroy
his
reputation
by
falsely
accusing
him
of
computer
hacking
during
a
years-long
feud
over
renovations.”
Read
more here.

#5
Nominee
for
New
Jersey’s
Permanent
U.S.
Attorney
Faces
Ethics
Investigations. Two
headlines
for
#7. First, from
the New
York
Times:
“President
Trump on
Tuesday
nominated Alina
Habba,
his
former
campaign
spokeswoman
and
personal
lawyer,
to
be
New
Jersey’s
U.S.
attorney
for
the
next
four
years,
a
move
that
would
remove
her
interim
status.
In
doing
so,
Mr.
Trump
endorsed
a
loyal
supporter
with
little
prosecutorial
experience
to
continue
leading
one
of
the
country’s
top
law
enforcement
offices.
…
Ms.
Habba
has
bucked
the
traditionally
nonpartisan
approach
of
U.S.
attorneys.
She
has
aggressively
carried
out
Mr.
Trump’s
wish
to
use
the
Justice
Department
to
target
his
enemies,
including
Democratic
elected
officials
who
oppose
the
president’s
immigration
agenda.”
Read
more here (gift
link). Second, from NOTUS:
“Alina
Habba,
once President
Donald
Trump’s personal
attorney
and
now
the
interim U.S.
attorney
for
New
Jersey,
has
quietly
been
under
investigation
by
the
state’s
professional
regulators
for
more
than
a
year
—
putting
her
license
to
practice
law
at
risk.
NOTUS
obtained documents detailing
the
investigation,
which
since
January
2024
has
been
probing
what
happened
when
a
young
waitress
at
Trump’s
Bedminster
golf
club
tried
to
sue
over
sexual
harassment
by
her
manager.”
Read
more here.

#6
“’We
Could
Not
Remain
Silent’:
The
Members
of
the
Legal
Profession
Pursuing
Ethics
Investigation
for
AG
Pam
Bondi.” An
op-ed
from Abbe
Smith (Georgetown)
and Ellen
Yaroshefsky (Hofstra)
in
the New
York
Law
Journal:
“Since Donald
Trump’s return
to
office,
every
agency
tasked
with
ethical
oversight
of
the
executive
branch,
including
the Office
of
Government
Ethics,
the Office
of
Special
Counsel,
and
the Justice
Department’s
Office
of
Professional
Responsibility has
been
shut
down
or
rendered
feeble.
This
rapid
descent
into
an
ethics-free
regulatory
environment
happened
in
less
than
five
months.
It
is
against
this
backdrop
that,
last
month,
three
civil
society
groups
and
70
prominent
lawyers,
law
professors,
and
judges
filed
a
complaint
with
the Florida
Bar
Association,
urging
it
to
investigate U.S.
Attorney
General
and
Florida
Bar
member
Pam
Bondi for
her
misuse
of
the
concept
of
‘zealous
advocacy’
to
pursue
the
Trump
Administration’s
objectives.
We
helped
draft
this
complaint
because
we
could
not
remain
silent
while
Bondi
violated
ethical
obligations
fundamental
to
the
legal
profession
by
repeatedly
firing
Justice
Department
lawyers,
or
giving
them
no
choice
but
to
resign,
when
those
lawyers
refused
to
act
unethically.”
Read
more here.

#7
“Ex-Defender
Faces
Skeptical
Judges
in
Seeking
Case’s
Revival.” From Bloomberg
Law:
“An
appeals
court
seemed
skeptical
of
a
former
federal
public
defender’s
challenge
to
the
judiciary’s
procedures
for
handling
misconduct
complaints. Caryn
Strickland,
who
alleged
that
she
was
harassed
by
her
supervisor
at
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina’s
federal
defender’s
office,
argued
to
the
court
on
Monday
that
her
case
involves
the
right
of
other
judiciary
employees
to
be
in
a
workplace
free
from
harassment.”
Read
more here.

#8
Federal
Judges
Are,
Too
Often,
‘Above
the
Law.’
We
Can
Stop
It.” An
op-ed
from Aliza
Shatzman (Legal
Accountability
Project)
in
the Philadelphia
Inquirer:
“As
the
lawyer
leading
the
charge
against
workplace
misconduct
in
the
courts,
I’m
accustomed
to
criticizing
imperious
federal
judges
who
are
above
the
law.
I
don’t
mean
they
act
like
they
are
above
the
law
—
they
are
often
literally
above
the
laws
they
interpret.
Some
routinely
engage
in
workplace
misconduct
that
would
otherwise
be
illegal.
But
it’s
not,
because
the
tens
of
thousands
of
law
clerks
and
other
employees
who
work
for
federal
judges
lack
even
basic
protections
against
discrimination.
…
Judiciary
employees
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
and
ensure
justice
for
those
who
appear
before
the
courts,
all
while
lacking
justice
and
workplace
protections
themselves.
Judges
refer
to
clerks
as
‘idiots,’
treat
them
like
personal
assistants
rather
than
esteemed
law
graduates,
and
fire
them
for
no
reason.
And
even
when
judges
display
worrisome
signs
they
are
no
longer
able
to
serve,
they’re
protected
by
the
cloak
of
life
tenure,
and
pressure
staff
to
conceal
their
shortcomings.”
Read
more here.
(Full
disclosure:
I
am
a
member
of
the Legal
Accountability
Project’s
Advisory
Board).

#9 “ABA’s
Plan
to
Double
Hands-On
Credits
for
Law
Students
is
Rife
With
Flaws,
Deans
Say.” From Reuters:
“An
American
Bar
Association
proposal
to
double
the
hands-on
coursework
credits
for
law
students
is
facing
sharp
criticism
from
some
legal
educators
as
being
too
costly,
too
constraining,
and
an
overreach
in
controlling
curriculum.
Under
the
proposed
change
to
the
ABA’s
law
school
accreditation
standards,
the
number
of
credits
for
hands-on
classes,
known
as
experiential
learning,
that
students
must
take
would
increase
to
12
from
the
current
six.
Students
would
need
to
earn
at
least
three
of
those
credits
in
a
clinic
or
a
field
placement.”
Read
more here.

#10 “Fordham
Law
Helps
Launch
Global
Initiative
on
the
Legal
Profession.” From
a Fordham
Law
Press
Release:
“In
April,
Fordham
Law,
represented
by Professor
Bruce
Green,
joined
six
leading
law
schools
at
the
inaugural
meeting
of
the Global
Network
of
Centers
on
the
Legal
Profession,
a
new
global
organization
of
law
school
centers
focused
on
examining
the
legal
profession,
legal
education,
and
legal
ethics.
Green,
director
of
Fordham
Law’s
Stein
Center
for
Law
and
Ethics,
was
joined
by
faculty
members
from
the Harvard
Law
School
Center
on
the
Legal
Profession,
the
LawAhead
Center
at
IE
Law
School,
the
Bucerius
Center
on
the
Legal
Profession,
Georgetown
University,
King’s
College
London, and Tilburg
University,
for
the
day-long
session
at
IE
University
in
Madrid,
Spain.
The
goal
of
the
Global
Network
of
Centers
on
the
Legal
Profession
is
to
‘foster
collaborative
projects
among
institutions
dedicated
to
research,
dialogue,
and
training
in
the
legal
field,’
as
well
as
promoting
‘future
exchanges
and
collaborations
regarding
developments
in
the
legal
profession
internationally.’”
Read
more here.
(Side
note:
Efforts
like
this
are
part
of
the
agenda
I’ve
called
for
in
my
recently-published Cardozo
Law
Review article “Ethics
Accountability:
The
Next
Era
for
Lawyers
and
Judges.” Kudos
to
Fordham
and
the
others
leading
on
this
front.)

---

Recommended
Reading

Recommendation
#1: “How
a
Rule
23(b)(2)
Class
Action
Could
Save
Law
Firms
From
Trump” by Nora
Freeman
Engstrom (Stanford), Jonah
Gelbach (Berkeley),
and David
Marcus (UCLA).
From
the
abstract:

Donald
Trump
has
issued
numerous
Executive
Orders
attacking
leading
law
firms,
threatening
to
destroy
their
relationships
with
clients.
These
Executive
Orders
are
clearly
unlawful.
Yet,
several
targeted
firms
have
surrendered
without
a
fight,
while
several
others
even
surrendered
preemptively,
before
Trump
took
any
action
against
them.
As
stunning
as
this
acquiescence
to
President
Trump’s
abuse
of
power
is,
there’s
a
simple
economic
logic
to
it,
which
can
be
understood
via
the
dynamics
of
the
classic
Prisoners’
Dilemma.
All
law
firms
would
be
better
off
if
no
firm
capitulated.
But
a
firm
can
reap
short-term
individual
benefits
by
capitulating.
And,
for
a
host
of
reasons,
mustering
effective
collective
action,
where
all
firms
stand
shoulder-to-shoulder
against
Trump,
is
wickedly
difficult.
How
can
firms
overcome
this
collective
action
problem?
The
answer:
Rule
23(b)(2).
Indeed,
the
Rule
23(b)(2)
class
action
device
was
created
precisely
to
solve
the
type
of
collective
action
problem
that
Trump’s
onslaught
has
created.
In
this
short
Essay,
we
outline
how
a
Rule
23(b)(2)
class
action
for
injunctive
relief
could
be
brought
on
behalf
of
all
law
firms
in
Trump’s
crosshairs,
defend
it
as
the
right
strategy,
and
explain
why
both
precedent
and
history
support
its
use.

Download
from
SSRN here.

Recommendation
#2: “Kenneth
Chesebro
and
the
Ethics
of
Election
Subversion” by Sung
Hui
Kim (UCLA).
From
the
abstract:

This
Article
examines
the
role
of
attorney
Kenneth
Chesebro
in
orchestrating
the
“fake
electors
plot”
following
the
2020
U.S.
presidential
election.
It
traces
Chesebro’s
transformation
from
a
Harvard-educated
lawyer
with
Democratic
ties
to
a
key
architect
of
Donald
Trump’s
post-election
strategy
to
derail
the
transfer
of
power
to
Joseph
Biden.
Part
I
provides
a
detailed
chronology
of
Chesebro’s
activities
between
November
2020
and
January
2021,
revealing
how
his
legal
advice
evolved
from
preserving
legal
rights
in
Wisconsin
to
a
coordinated
plan
to
impanel
alternate
electors
across
multiple
battleground
states
as
a
pretext
for
the
Vice
President
to
intervene
unilaterally
in
the
Congressional
certification
of
the
national
election
on
January
6.
Part
II
analyzes
the
professional
discipline
case
against
Chesebro
under
Model
Rule
8.4(c).
It
examines
the
principal
elements
of
Chesebro’s
strategy
and
argues
that
his
conduct
appears
to
have
involved
dishonesty,
fraud,
deceit,
or
misrepresentation,
warranting
professional
discipline.
Part
III
interrogates
Chesebro’s
moral
culpability,
contending
that
his
actions
represent
not
merely
a
violation
of
professional
conduct
rules
but
a
profound
betrayal
of
public
trust
and
democratic
principles.
This
Article
concludes
that
Chesebro’s
moral
culpability
transcends
his
violations
of
the
professional
conduct
rules.
By
pursuing
increasingly
aggressive
strategies
to
overturn
Biden’s
legitimate
victory
without
evidence
of
outcome-changing
fraud,
by
offering
a
would-be
autocrat
with
a
blueprint
for
how
to
subvert
the
collective
will
of
the
voters
in
contravention
of
the
U.S.
Constitution,
federal
and
state
laws,
and
by
using
his
legal
expertise
to
peddle
implausible
theories
designed
to
exploit
procedural
leverage
to
advance
a
naked
power
grab,
he
demonstrated
a
mind-blowing
willingness
to
undermine
democracy
itself.
Chesebro
betrayed
the
public
trust
in
ways
that
existing
professional
conduct
rules,
which
lack
explicit
duties
to
preserve
democracy,
cannot
adequately
capture
or
address.

Read
the
full
article here.
(And
revisit last
week’s
LER for
news
of
Chesebro’s
DC
disbarment.)

Recommendation
#3: “The
Supreme
Court’s
Specious
Code
of
Conduct” by James
Sample (Hofstra).
From
the
abstract:

This
Article,
along
with
a
prior
article, The
Supreme
Court
and
the
Limits
of
Human
Impartiality,
publishedin
the Hofstra
Law
Review,
initially
developed
out
of
written
and
spoken
testimony
about
Supreme
Court
ethics,
transparency,
and
disclosure
before
the
Senate
Judiciary
Subcommittee
on
Federal
Courts,
where
Senator
Sheldon
Whitehouse
proposed
the
Supreme
Court
Ethics,
Recusal,
and
Transparency
Act
to
impose
and
enforce
a
code
of
ethics
for
the
Supreme
Court. … This
hearing
came
in
the
wake
of
an
investigative
report
by ProPublica that
raised
concerns
about
Justice
Clarence
Thomas’s
potential
failure
to
meet
financial
disclosure
requirements
after
he
received
trips
and
other
valuable
items
from
Republican
billionaire
donor
Harlan
Crow.
…
This
Article
seeks
to
build
on
the
prior
one,
particularly
with
an
eye
towards
critiquing
the
political,
judicial,
and
legal
ramifications
of
the
Court’s
unfortunately
ersatz
Code.

Read
the
full
article here.

Recommendation
#4: “Why
Courts
Should
Not
Discipline
Trump’s
Lawyers” by Rebecca
Roiphe (New
York
Law
School).
From
the
abstract:

After
the
first
Trump
administration,
there
were
multiple
coordinated
efforts
to
discipline
lawyers
in
highly
charged
political
cases.
For
example,
a
California
bar
court
recommended
that
John
Eastman
be
disbarred.
Eastman
helped
craft
the
legal
argument
that
then-Vice
President
Mike
Pence
had
the
right
to
delay
or
decline
to
certify
the
election
results,
and
the
disciplinary
case
concluded
that
he
lied
publicly,
in
his
memos
to
his
client
and
Pence,
and
to
courts.
This
Article
draws
on
Eastman’s
case
to
argue
that
disciplinary
charges
in
politically
charged
cases
are
often
unconstitutional
and
even
when
they
are
not,
they
are
unwise
and
counterproductive
because
they
chill
useful
advocacy
and
threaten
democratic
values.

Read
the
full
article here.

Recommendation
#5: “Are
There
Causes
and
Clients
Lawyers
Should
Not
Represent?” by Richard
Abel (UCLA).
From
the
abstract:

Lawyers
have
long
asserted
that
they
are
not
morally
responsible
for
the
clients
and
causes
they
represent.
Such
irresponsibility
is
predicated
on
a
political
philosophy
of
liberal
pluralism,
which
maintains
that
because
all
human
preferences
are
legitimate,
the
only
way
to
resolve
differences
is
through
agreed
processes
–
of
which
the
legal
system
is
preeminent.
We
have
reached
a
conjuncture,
however,
where
this
posture
is
no
longer
acceptable.
Climate
change,
caused
by
human
agency,
threatens
all
life
on
earth.
Autocrats
in
many
countries
seek
to
destroy
democracy.
And
growing
inequalities
of
wealth
and
income
render
representative
democracy
an
empty
charade.
Because
lawyers
are
centrally
implicated
in
each
of
these
existential
threats,
they
must
confront
their
own
moral
responsibility.

Read
the
full
article here.
And
read
responses
from Robert
Barrington,
Guy
Beringer,
Georgia
Garrod,
Ole
Hammerslev,
Brad
Wendel, and Iris
van
Domselaar here.

---

Legal
Ethics
Trivia

From
the Texas
Center
for
Legal
Ethics,
here’s
the
question
of
the
month:
“Are
law
firm
websites
considered
‘advertisements’?” Test
yourself
at
this
website where
you
can
read
a
short
hypothetical,
select
an
answer,
and
see
your
results.
So
far,
out
of
85
responses,
23%
have
gotten
it
right.
Will
you?

---

Get
Hired

Did
you
miss
the
150+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

• 
  Assistant
  Ethics
  Counsel,
  North
  Carolina
  State
  Bar
  —
  Raleigh,
  NC/Hybrid. From
  the
  posting:
  “The
  North
  Carolina
  State
  Bar
  is
  hiring
  a
  licensed
  North
  Carolina
  attorney
  to
  serve
  as
  assistant
  ethics
  counsel.
  This
  is
  a
  unique
  opportunity
  to
  work
  at
  the
  intersection
  of
  legal
  ethics,
  public
  service,
  and
  legal
  education.
  In
  this
  role,
  you’ll
  provide
  guidance
  to
  attorneys
  on
  ethics
  issues,
  support
  the
  Ethics
  Committee,
  and
  help
  shape
  the
  ethical
  landscape
  of
  the
  legal
  profession
  in
  North
  Carolina
  by
  contributing
  to
  the
  development
  of
  formal
  ethics
  opinions
  and
  amendments
  to
  the
  Rules
  of
  Professional
  Conduct.
  You’ll
  also
  deliver
  CLE
  presentations,
  conduct
  legal
  research,
  and
  support
  the
  State
  Bar’s
  efforts
  in
  protecting
  the
  public
  through
  the
  regulation
  of
  the
  legal
  profession.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.
• 
  Assistant
  Ethics
  Counsel,
  Virginia
  State
  Bar
  —
  Richmond,
  VA. From
  the
  posting:
  “The
  Virginia
  State
  Bar
  has
  an
  immediate
  opening
  for
  an
  experienced
  attorney
  to
  work
  as
  an
  Assistant
  Ethics
  Counsel.
  The
  VSB
  Ethics
  department
  attorneys
  advise
  bar
  members,
  judges,
  and
  out-of-state
  attorneys
  through
  the
  ethics
  hotline
  on
  a
  variety
  of
  professional
  regulation
  issues,
  including
  legal
  ethics,
  lawyer
  advertising,
  and
  unauthorized
  practice
  of
  law.
  They
  also
  develop
  and
  present
  CLEs,
  interpret
  statutes
  and
  rules
  relating
  to
  legal
  ethics,
  draft
  legal
  ethics
  opinions
  and
  rule
  amendments,
  and
  provide
  counsel
  and
  support
  to
  assigned
  committees,
  task
  forces
  and
  work
  groups.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.
• 
  Associate
  Director
  and
  Counsel,
  Global
  Compliance
  Investigations, Pratt
  &
  Whitney
  —
  East
  Hartford,
  CT/Hybrid. Responsibilities
  include:
  “Investigating
  allegations
  of
  potential
  violations
  of
  ethics
  and
  compliance
  laws/policies
  and/or
  certain
  global
  security
  matters,
  including
  coordination
  of
  matters
  with
  global
  ethics
  &
  compliance
  functions;
  acting
  as
  compliance
  counsel,
  supporting
  non-attorney
  investigators
  in
  ethics
  and
  compliance
  investigations,
  including
  assisting
  in
  responding
  to
  governmental
  subpoenas
  and
  managing
  document
  collection,
  custodian
  and
  record
  identification
  and
  responsiveness
  reviews.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.
• 
  Conflicts
  Attorney,
  Wilson
  Elser
  LLP
  —
  Washington,
  DC/Remote. From
  the
  posting:
  “We
  are
  seeking
  a
  detail-oriented
  and
  analytical Conflicts
  Attorney to
  join
  our
  General
  Counsel’s
  office.
  This
  individual
  will
  be
  responsible
  for
  identifying,
  analyzing,
  and
  resolving
  potential
  legal
  and
  business
  conflicts
  of
  interest
  related
  to
  new
  business
  intake,
  lateral
  attorney
  hiring,
  and
  firm
  operations.
  The
  ideal
  candidate
  will
  bring
  a
  strong
  understanding
  of
  legal
  ethics
  and
  professional
  responsibility
  rules,
  along
  with
  excellent
  judgment
  and
  communication
  skills.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.
• 
  Ethics
  Attorney/Sr.
  Associate/Associate,
  Cha
  Law
  Ethics
  —
  Remote
  (with
  CA
  Bar
  License). From
  the
  posting:
  “We
  are
  seeking
  a
  Senior
  Ethics
  Attorney
  to
  join
  our
  fully
  remote
  team.
  This
  role
  involves
  representing
  attorneys
  and
  law
  students
  in
  various
  legal
  ethics
  matters,
  including
  State
  Bar
  investigations,
  legal
  malpractice
  defence,
  reinstatements,
  and
  admissions.
  The
  ideal
  candidate
  will
  have
  a
  strong
  background
  in
  legal
  ethics,
  excellent
  communication
  skills,
  and
  the
  ability
  to
  work
  independently
  in
  a
  remote
  setting.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.
• 
  Senior
  Conflicts
  Counsel
  Manager,
  Dinsmore
  LLP
  —
  Cincinnati,
  OH. From
  the
  posting:
  “Dinsmore
  is
  seeking
  a
  full-time
  Senior
  Conflicts
  Counsel
  Manager
  to
  lead
  Dinsmore’s
  conflicts
  attorney
  group
  in
  identifying
  and
  resolving
  ethical
  and
  business
  conflicts
  for
  the
  firm’s
  new
  clients
  and
  matters
  as
  well
  as
  assisting
  in
  conflict
  clearance
  and
  client
  and
  matter
  intake
  for
  lateral
  attorneys.
  The
  Senior
  Conflicts
  Counsel
  Manager
  also
  researches
  and
  advises
  the
  firm’s
  lawyers
  on
  risk
  management
  issues
  and
  the
  rules
  of
  professional
  conduct
  in
  the
  states
  in
  which
  Dinsmore
  operates.
  The
  person
  in
  this
  role
  will
  also
  help
  oversee
  the
  management
  of
  the
  firm’s
  conflicts
  database
  and
  assist
  in
  other
  key
  conflicts
  and
  ethical
  issues
  for
  the
  firm.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.
• 
  Senior
  In-House
  Lawyer
  –
  Conflicts
  A
  &O
  Shearman
  —
  New
  York
  City/Hybrid. From
  the
  posting:
  “The
  role
  of
  the
  Senior
  In
  House
  Lawyer
  –
  Conflicts
  is
  to
  be
  a
  trusted
  adviser
  to
  the
  business,
  providing
  high
  quality,
  proactive
  business-focused
  support
  and
  solutions
  to
  colleagues
  on
  a
  variety
  of
  commercial
  and
  complex
  regulatory
  issues,
  focused
  mainly
  on
  conflicts
  of
  interest
  and
  other
  business
  acceptance
  matters.
  It
  requires
  an
  individual
  with
  the
  ability
  to
  develop
  strong
  working
  relationships
  to
  be
  a
  “go
  to”
  and
  accessible
  person
  for
  queries
  and
  concerns
  from
  around
  the
  world.
  These
  queries
  come
  from
  stakeholders
  of
  all
  levels
  from
  business
  teams
  and
  fee
  earners,
  including
  practice
  group
  heads
  and
  senior
  management.
  The
  Senior
  In
  House
  Lawyer
  –
  Conflicts
  is
  given
  a
  high
  level
  of
  autonomy
  and
  expected
  to
  take
  responsibility
  for
  identifying
  solutions
  and
  driving
  them
  forward.
  In
  addition,
  the
  Senior
  In
  House
  Lawyer
  –
  Conflicts
  will
  participate
  in
  strategic
  projects
  and
  be
  part
  of
  the
  horizon-scanning
  team,
  inputting
  into
  the
  strategic
  direction
  of
  the
  firm’s
  regulation.”
  Learn
  more
  and
  apply here.

Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

2025

• 
  Help
  TED
  Shape
  the
  Future
  of
  Legal
  Education. From
  TED:
  “Known
  for
  spreading
  ideas
  that
  spark
  change,
  TED
  is
  now
  applying
  its
  global
  platform,
  network
  of
  changemakers,
  and
  educational
  innovation
  to
  the
  legal
  field—developing
  a
  new
  learning
  tool
  that
  brings
  together
  TED
  Talks,
  real-world
  insights
  from
  GCs
  and
  practitioners,
  and
  research-based
  frameworks
  to
  help
  legal
  education
  evolve.
  Our
  focus
  is
  on
  five
  essential
  impact
  areas:
  critical
  thinking,
  AI
  adaptability,
  cross-cultural
  and
  generational
  fluency,
  collaborative
  leadership,
  and
  creative
  problem-solving.
  This
  isn’t
  about
  replacing
  traditional
  legal
  instruction—it’s
  about
  complementing
  it
  with
  human-centered,
  story-driven
  tools
  that
  reflect
  the
  world
  lawyers
  are
  entering.
  We’re
  asking
  GCs,
  lawyers,
  and
  legal
  practitioners
  around
  the
  world
  to share
  their
  perspectives
  about
  the
  way
  our
  industry
  should
  be
  trained
  through
  a
  short
  survey (10–15
  minutes).”
  Complete
  the survey
  here.
• 
  July
  21.
  Call
  for
  Papers
  Deadline:
  The
  Role
  of
  AI
  in
  Legal
  Education
  –
  Preparing
  the
  Next
  Generation
  of
  Lawyers
  at
  Westminster
  Law
  School,
  London. This September
  11 event
  will
  bring
  together
  academics,
  legal
  professionals,
  students,
  and
  industry
  stakeholders
  to
  examine
  how
  AI
  is
  reshaping
  law
  degrees,
  particularly
  in
  areas
  such
  as
  curriculum
  design,
  assessment,
  teaching
  methods,
  and
  graduate
  employability.
  Keynote
  Speakers
  include Lisa
  Webley (University
  of
  Birmingham), Dan
  Hunter (King’s
  College
  London),
  and Luke
  Mason (University
  of
  Westminster).
  Submit here (funding
  support
  for
  early
  career
  academics
  available).
• 
  August
  1.
  Call
  for
  Papers
  Deadline:
  Association
  of
  American
  Law
  Schools New
  Voices
  Call
  for
  Papers
  Deadline. The
  AALS
  Section
  on
  Professional
  Responsibility
  invites
  submissions
  for
  its
  New
  Voices
  panel
  at
  the
  Annual
  Meeting,
  January
  2026
  in
  New
  Orleans,
  LA.
  Submissions
  are
  invited
  from
  junior
  faculty
  (those
  who
  are
  pre-tenure
  or
  otherwise
  with
  five
  or
  fewer
  years
  of
  experience),
  along
  with
  others
  who
  are
  new
  to
  writing
  in
  the
  field
  of
  Professional
  Responsibility.
  Those
  submitting
  work
  must
  be
  full-time
  faculty
  members
  (including
  full-time
  VAPs
  or
  fellows)
  at
  AALS
  member
  law
  schools.
  Work
  that
  has
  already
  been
  published
  (or
  will
  be
  published
  prior
  to
  the
  conference)
  is
  ineligible
  for
  consideration.
  Interested
  faculty
  should
  submit
  their
  work
  for
  consideration
  to Sarah
  Cravens [email protected] no
  later
  than
  5:00pm
  Central
  Time
  on
  Friday,
  August
  1,
  2025,
  with
  “PR
  New
  Voices
  Submission
  –
  2026
  Annual
  Meeting”
  in
  the
  subject
  line
  of
  the
  email.
• 
  August
  7-9.
  Association
  of
  Professional
  Responsibility
  Lawyers
  Annual
  Meeting
  in
  Toronto. Learn
  more here.
• 
  August
  12,
  2-3PM
  Eastern. Measuring
  What
  Matters:
  Evaluating
  the
  Impact
  of
  InnovationsA
  Webinar
  Series
  on
  Judicial
  Innovation
  and
  Leadership. Building
  on
  the
  momentum
  of
  the Advancing
  Innovation
  National
  Summit,
  IAALS and
  the Berkeley
  Judicial
  Institute are
  thrilled
  to
  present
  this
  dynamic
  webinar
  series
  designed
  to
  equip
  judges
  with
  the
  practical
  tools
  and
  insights
  needed
  to
  drive
  meaningful
  innovation
  in
  the
  courts.
  The
  series
  will
  go
  beyond
  theory
  and
  dive
  deep
  into
  strategies
  that
  will
  empower
  judges
  to
  navigate
  change,
  build
  trust,
  and
  foster
  a
  more
  accessible
  justice
  system
  for
  all.
  This
  series
  is
  open
  to
  all
  judges
  seeking
  to
  become
  catalysts
  for
  positive
  change
  in
  the
  legal
  system.
  Learn
  more
  and
  register here.
• 
  August
  13,
  8AM-6PM,
  University
  of
  Houston
  Law
  Center.
  AALS
  Southwest
  and
  Big
  12
  Law
  Faculty
  Pre-Recruitment
  Workshop:
  “So,
  You
  Want
  to
  Be
  a
  Law
  Professor.” Panel
  discussions
  and
  interview
  opportunities
  for
  future
  law
  professors.
  Participating
  law
  schools
  include:
  Arizona
  State
  University,
  Sandra
  Day
  O’Connor
  College
  of
  Law,
  Baylor
  Law
  School,
  SMU
  Dedman
  School
  of
  Law,
  St.
  Mary’s
  University
  School
  of
  Law,
  Texas
  A&M
  University
  School
  of
  Law,
  Tulane
  Law
  School,
  University
  of
  Arkansas
  School
  of
  Law,
  University
  of
  Arkansas
  at
  Little
  Rock
  William
  H.
  Bowen
  School
  of
  Law,
  University
  of
  Cincinnati
  College
  of
  Law,
  University
  of
  Kansas
  School
  of
  Law,
  University
  of
  Mississippi
  School
  of
  Law,
  University
  of
  Oklahoma
  College
  of
  Law,
  University
  of
  Utah
  S.J.
  Quinney
  College
  of
  Law.
  Learn
  more
  and
  register here.
• 
  October
  9-10.
  Complex
  Litigation
  Ethics
  Conference,
  Center
  for
  Litigation
  and
  Ethics,
  UC
  Law
  SF. Learn
  more here.

2026

• 
  January
  6-9. Association
  of
  American
  Law
  Schools
  Annual
  Meeting,
  Section
  on
  Professional
  Responsibility
  Events. Learn
  more here.
• 
  December
  2-4.
  International
  Legal
  Ethics
  Conference
  at
  the
  University
  of
  Houston.
  Learn
  more here.

---

Keep
in
Touch

• 
  News
  tips?
  Announcements?
  Events? A
  job
  to
  post? Reading
  recommendations? Email [email protected] –
  but
  be
  sure
  to
  subscribe
  first,
  otherwise
  the
  email
  won’t
  be
  delivered.

---

Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social. 

Politicians
like
the
idea
of
eliminating
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse.  

It’s
free
money!

Want
to
spend
an
extra
half
trillion
on
defense? That
would
bust
the
budget. But
“I’ll
save
a
half
trillion
at
the
same
time
by
eliminating
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse.” Oh! It’s
budget
neutral. Go
right
ahead.

See
what
I
mean?

That’s
why,
for
example,
Ronald
Reagan
campaigned
for
president
on
the
idea
that
eliminating
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse
in
government
spending
—
while
simultaneously
cutting
taxes
and
increasing
military
spending
—
could
lead
to
a
balanced
budget. Really. I’m
not
kidding.

But
this
is
bipartisan.

Bill
Clinton
highlighted
his
administration’s
efforts
to
eliminate
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse
in
programs such
as
Medicare. Clinton
at
least
occasionally
achieved
a
budget
surplus.

Barack
Obama’s
“Campaign
to
Cut
Waste”
set
a
goal
to
reduce
improper
payments
by
$50
billion
before
the
year
2012. Obama
achieved
a small
part of
his
goal,
and
the
campaign
was
later
largely
abandoned.

Now
Donald
Trump
(aided
by
his
trusty
sidekick,
Elon
Musk)
was
going
to
save
$1
trillion
—
or
maybe $2
trillion!
—
by
eliminating
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse
in
government.

I’m
sure
that
every
previous
president
was
wrong,
and
Trump
alone
can
eliminate
vast
amounts
of
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse.

Remember
that
any
sensible
definition
of
“waste,
fraud,
and
abuse”
means
“waste,
fraud,
and
abuse”
—
not
mere
differences
in
policy
choices. If,
for
example,
I
oppose
space
exploration,
I
might
say
that
the
entire
budget
for
NASA
is
“waste”
—
but
it’s
not
really
waste;
it’s
just
that
I
disagree
with
Congress
about
how
money
should
be
spent. So,
too,
if
I
were
a
pacifist
and
insisted
that
the
whole
military
budget
was
waste,
or
if
I
were
a
pure
capitalist
and
insisted
that
the
entire
government
safety
net
—
welfare
and
unemployment
insurance
—
constituted
waste. You
could
cut
those
programs,
but
you
wouldn’t
be
eliminating
waste;
you’d
just
be
spending
according
to
my
policy
preferences
instead
of
Congress’s.

When
Musk
eliminates
USAID,
he
hasn’t
eliminated
waste. He’s
eliminated
a
program
that
Congress
thought
was
valuable,
and
Musk
disagreed. So,
too,
with,
for
example,
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
programs: You
might
agree
or
disagree
with
the
value
of
these
programs,
but
they’re
not
what’s
typically
considered
to
be
waste.

Not
only
that: After
Congress
authorizes
spending,
it’s
not
clear
that
Trump
or
Musk
have
the
power
to
choose
not
to
spend
the
appropriation. Congress
generally
controls
spending.
If
you
disagree
with
spending
choices,
take
it
up
with
Congress;
don’t
instruct
people
not
to
spend
congressionally
approved
appropriations.

This
is
not
to
say
there’s
no
waste
in
government. Of
course
there
is. Any
entity
that
spends
huge
amounts
of
money,
and
is
administered
by
human
beings,
contains
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse.

Spending $400
for
a
hammer is
waste. Spending
$7,600
for
a
coffee
maker
is
waste. Spending $10,000
on
a
toilet
seat
cover is
waste.

If
it
were
really
true
that
people
who
were 150
years
old were
receiving
Social
Security
payments,
that
would
be
waste.
But
of
course
they
weren’t.

“Fraud”
and
“abuse”
are
even
worse
than
mere
waste.
If
someone
is
defrauding
the
government,
I’d
sure
like
the
government
to
sue
—
or
maybe
even
prosecute
—
that
person
for
fraud. Fraudsters
should
get
the
fate
they
richly
deserve. Of
course,
I
haven’t
yet
heard
a
peep
about
DOGE
(or
anyone)
suing
the
recently
discover
fraudsters.

So,
too,
with
the
abusers.

Is
it
possible
that
DOGE
didn’t
cut
anything
that
is
legitimately
called
“fraud”?

How
much
did
Musk
and
the
DOGE
crew
actually
save
America
by
eliminating
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse?

We
have
no
clue.

First,
many
things
that
DOGE
cut
were
simply
agencies
that
Musk
disapproved
of. Eliminating
those
agencies
may
reduce
federal
spending,
in
ways
that
may
be
good
or
bad,
but
that’s
not
eliminating
waste,
or
fraud,
or
abuse.

Second,
many
of
the
federal
workers
who
lost
their
jobs
to
DOGE’s
axe
will
ultimately
be
reinstated,
so
you
can’t
count
the
savings
attributed
to
those
workers.

Third,
the
process
of
sorting
through
the
legality
of
Musk’s
various
actions
requires
a
ton
of
time
by
government
lawyers,
both
to
investigate
what
Musk
was
doing
and
to
litigate
any
improprieties. You’d
have
to
subtract
the
government’s
cost
in
legal
fees
from
any
amount
DOGE
claimed
to
have
saved. 

Fourth,
Musk
and
his
gang
never
conducted
anything
like
a real
audit,
so
no
one
knows
even
what
Musk
could
legitimately
claim
to
have
saved.

Perhaps,
years
from
now,
someone
will
calculate
whether
Musk’s
theatrics
saved
taxpayers
even
a
penny.

Lastly,
the
icing
on
the
cake. 
Trump
recently tweeted:

Additionally,
Medicaid,
Medicare,
and
Social
Security
Benefits
are
not
being
cut,
but
are
being
STRENGTHENED
and
PROTECTED
from
the
Radical
and
Destructive
Democrats
by
eliminating
Waste,
Fraud,
and
Abuse
from
those
Programs.

In
his
signing
speech
for
the
Big,
Beautiful
Bill,
Trump repeated
the
point:

The
largest
spending
cut
—
$1.7
trillion,
and
yet
you
won’t
even
notice
it.
It’s
just
waste,
fraud,
and
abuse.

If
I
were
you,
I’d
take
that
with
a
grain
of
salt.

And
remember
to
deduct
the
cost
of
the
shaker.

---

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

It’s
been
about
two
years
since
Biglaw’s
last
salary
increase,
and
that
surely
means
associates
are
due
for
another
one
soon…
right?
The
Cravath
scale
currently
ranges
from
$225,000
to
$435,000,
and
unfortunately,
it’s
looking
more
and
more
like
lawyers
may
need
to
lower
their
expectations
for
a
compensation
hike.
Not
only
is
there

“less
pressure
on
firms
to
increase
salaries
in
order
to
remain
competitive,”
but
the
M&A
market
—
Biglaw’s
lifeline
—
is
sputtering,
leading
industry
insiders
to
cast
even
more
doubt
upon
raises
for
associates
in
2025.

As
noted
by

Bloomberg
Law,
the
timing
doesn’t
seem
to
be
right
for
raises.
Here
are
some
additional
details:

M&A
work
is
“the
engine
of
the
[Biglaw]
firms,”
said
Michelle
Fivel,
partner
and
co-founder
at
search
firm
Hatch
Henderson
Fivel.
It’s
also
a
bellwether
for
associate
hiring
across
firms,
even
in
seemingly
unrelated
practices
like
litigation.

Deals
activity
ticked
up
by
nearly
19%
in
the
first
half
of
the
year
compared
to
the
same
time
last
year,
but
not
nearly
at
the
rate
expected
when
President
Donald
Trump
won
a
return
trip
to
the
White
House.
Trump’s
tariff
wars
and
global
unrest tamped
down earlier
expectations
for
an
M&A
boom.

“New
deal
flow
is
not
what
had
been
hoped
for
with
a
Republican
administration
coming
into
the
White
House
and
doing
the
things
that
traditionally
are
seen
as
business
friendly,”
Fivel
said.
“That
is
kind
of
a
disappointment,
and
frankly,
a
surprise,”
she
said.

This
M&A
malaise
is
just
one
of
the
things
that
led
Ru
Bhatt,
a
New
York-based
recruiter
for
Major
Lindsey
&
Africa,
to
say,
“I
don’t
think
that
this
is
probably
the
year
that
there
will
be
any
sort
of
raises
when
it
comes
to
base
pay.”

Even
if
one
firm

does
decide
to
make
a
salary
move
in
a
down
market,
other
firms
will
surely
match
—
but
not
all
will
be
able
to
do
so,
says
Summer
Eberhard,
a
California-based
legal
recruiter
at
Lateral
Link.
“While
[Biglaw]
firms
want
to
be
competitive
on
compensation,
some
face
genuine
constraints
due
to
their
rate
structures,
client
mix,
and
financial
position.
For
some,
matching
may
not
be
viable,
regardless
of
their
intention
to
remain
competitive
for
top
talent.”

With
the
talent
wars
over
and
the
markets
unpredictable,
bigger
salaries
may
not
be
on
the
table,
but
that
doesn’t
necessarily
mean
bigger
bonuses
won’t
happen.
“I
wouldn’t
be
surprised
if
a
firm
comes
out
and
decides
to
share
a
little
bit
more
of
that
wealth,”
Bhatt
said.
“But
at
the
same
time,
there’s
a
lot
of
uncertainty
and
people
are
being
really
cautious
in
the
market.”

What
do
you
think
will
happen
come
year
end
in
terms
of
salaries
and
bonuses?
Cross
your
fingers,
associates!

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

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

Associate
Salaries
Plateau
as
Big
Law
Grapples
With
Listless
M&A
[Bloomberg
Law]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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.

Opus
2,
named
ILTA
Solution
Provider
of
the
Year,
is
excited
to
share
its
latest
innovations
at
ILTACON
2025.

These
include
AI
Workbench,
which
is
seamlessly
built
into
its
award-winning
legal
case
management
software,
as
well
as
a
new
issue
management
and
order-of-proof
feature.

(Book
a
meeting
with
the
Opus
2
team.)

Here,
the
company
discusses
its
plans
for
ILTACON,
its
views
of
what
the
legal
tech
industry
could
improve,
and
how
lawyers
can
be
more
tech-savvy.

ATL:
In
a
few
words,
please
introduce
your
company
and
what
sets
you
apart?

Opus
2
transforms
how
legal
professionals
work
by
offering
an
AI-enhanced,
collaborative
solution
for
case
management,
preparation,
and
strategy.
Named
ILTA
Solution
Provider
of
the
Year,
we
provide
legal
teams
with
all
the
capabilities
they
need
to
manage
the
information
and
workflows
surrounding
case
projects
in
one
software
solution
—
throughout
the
lifecycle
of
every
dispute.

By
streamlining
the
collaborative
processes
that
connect
the
entire
litigation
team
and
engage
clients,
Opus
2
empowers
practitioners
to
more
efficiently
prepare
for
cases,
analyze
documents
and
transcripts,
identify
evidentiary
patterns,
develop
winning
case
strategies,
and
improve
overall
legal
service
delivery.

Opus
2
also
recently
won
the
Gold
Medal
in
the
American
Business
Awards,
also
known
as
the
Stevie®
Awards,
for
Best
Legal
Solution
and
the
CODiE
Award
for
Best
Legal
Solution.

Can
you
provide
some
more
detail
on
the
problems
you
solve
and
the
benefits
you
provide?

Commercial
disputes
are
only
growing
more
complex
—
as
are
the
documents
and
data
that
need
to
be
organized,
analyzed,
and
leveraged
under
the
pressure
of
tight
deadlines
and
rising
client
expectations.
For
litigators,
the
challenge
isn’t
just
managing
the
case,
it’s
quickly
connecting
the
dots
to
build
a
clear,
compelling
narrative
that
wins.

That’s
where
Opus
2
comes
in.
From
client
instruction
through
to
resolution
and
beyond,
we
provide
a
single,
secure
environment
where
legal
teams
collaboratively
build
their
case
strategy
from
the
ground
up.

All
of
the
key
data
and
hot
documents
are
there
for
litigation
teams
to
surface
relevant
facts,
evidence,
and
insights;
connect
them
with
witnesses,
events,
and
timelines;
and
identify
issues
and
structure
what
needs
to
be
proven.

And
at
every
step,
Opus
2’s
AI
is
integrated
into
workflows
to
help
make
sense
of
it
all.
For
example,
it
helps
teams
accelerate
case
understanding,
sense-check
facts
and
identify
gaps,
and
improve
strategic
decision-making.

This
is
the
future
of
litigation
work
—
collaborative,
insight-driven,
and
AI-enabled.
Many
of
the
world’s
leading
firms
are
already
delivering
better
outcomes
by
using
Opus
2
to
craft
strategy,
align
their
teams,
and
gain
a
decisive
edge.

Is
there
anything
new
you’re
showcasing
at
ILTACON
this
year?
Anything
on
the
horizon
you’d
like
to
spotlight?

At
ILTACON
2025,
Opus
2
is
showcasing
our
latest
advancements,
including
AI
Workbench.

We’ll
also
share
a
new
issue
management
and
order-of-proof
feature
that
bolsters
our
case
strategy
capabilities,
which
help
lawyers
and
litigation
teams
make
smarter,
aligned
decisions
throughout
the
lifecycle
of
a
case.

From
client
instruction
through
resolution,
its
purpose
is
to
give
partners
and
lead
litigators
a
winning
edge.

What
do
you
think
the
legal
tech
industry
is
doing
well?
And
what
might
it
be
missing?

The
legal
tech
industry
is
doing
well
in:

•
Embracing
AI:
There’s
clear
momentum
in
integrating
AI
into
legal
solutions,
moving
beyond
speculation
to
real-world
applications
that
drive
efficiency
and
value.

•
Focusing
on
efficiency
and
automation:
Many
solutions
are
successfully
tackling
the
problem
of
labor-intensive,
lower-value
tasks,
freeing
up
legal
professionals
for
more
strategic
work.

•
Improving
collaboration:
Cloud-based
platforms
are
enabling
better
communication
and
teamwork,
especially
for
distributed
legal
teams.

What
the
legal
tech
industry
might
be
missing:

•
Deeper
integration
beyond
basic
AI
functionality:
While
many
vendors
are
adding
AI
features,
some
may
only
be
scratching
the
surface.
The
industry
needs
to
ensure
AI
is
deeply
integrated
to
provide
truly
valuable
and
comprehensive
solutions,
rather
than
just
superficial
additions.

•
Addressing
change
management
challenges:
Technology
adoption
is
only
half
the
battle.
The
industry
could
do
more
to
help
firms
overcome
resistance
to
change,
educate
lawyers
on
AI’s
capabilities
and
limitations,
and
establish
effective
firm-wide
AI
policies.

•
Comprehensive
solutions
over
fragmented
tools:
While
there
are
many
point
solutions,
the
market
still
benefits
from
platforms
that
offer
a
holistic
approach,
reducing
the
need
for
firms
to
stitch
together
disparate
technologies.

What’s
one
thing
lawyers
can
do
to
be
more
tech-savvy?

One
crucial
thing
lawyers
can
do
to
be
more
tech-savvy
is
to
actively
engage
with
and
experiment
with
new
legal
tech
tools,
especially
those
offering
AI
capabilities.
The
legal
tech
landscape
is
rapidly
evolving,
and
a
“wait-and-see”
approach
can
result
in
being
left
behind.
By
hands-on
exploration,
lawyers
can
better
understand
how
these
tools
solve
problems,
enhance
their
workflows,
and
ultimately
deliver
better
client
service.

What
can
ILTACON
attendees
expect
when
they
stop
by
your
booth?

When
ILTACON
attendees
stop
by
the
Opus
2
booth
(#800),
they
can
expect
to:

•
Discuss
case
management,
preparation,
and
strategy
best
practices

•
Get
an
inside
look
the
latest
AI
innovation
with
our
expert
team

•
Discover
how
our
complete,
award-winning
solution
fits
into
your
tech
stack

•
Set
1:1
time
with
our
team
to
focus
on
what
matters
most
to
you

Is
there
anything
else
you’d
like
ILTACON
attendees
to
know
about
you?

We
are
looking
forward
to
participating
in
a
few
sessions
at
ILTACON.
Join
us
for
our
company
update
session
on
Wednesday,
August
13
at
4
p.m.
in
the
Cherry
Blossom
Ballroom,
and
the
panel
session,
“Traveling
Circus:
Challenges
of
Case
Teams
on
the
Road”
on
Tuesday,
August
12
at
3:30
p.m.
in
National
Harbor
2/3.

Will
you
be
seeing
the
sights
in
National
Harbor
this
year?

While
most
of
our
time
will
be
spent
at
National
Harbor,
our
team
is
planning
a
trip
across
the
Potomac
River
to
visit
Old
Town
Alexandria
for
a
relaxing
dinner.

(ILTA
attendees
–

feel
free
to
book
a
meeting
with
Opus
2
here,
and
please
join
their
company
update
session
on
Wednesday,
August
13
at
4
p.m.
in
the
Cherry
Blossom
Ballroom.)