The U.S. Is Minting A Thousand New Millionaires A Day: They’d Make Better Allies Than Antagonists – Above the Law

Contrary
to
popular
opinion,
the
economy
was
good
in
2024.
The
latest
evidence
of
that
is

a
new
study
from
UBS

which
concluded
that
the
United
States
minted,
on
average,
more
than
1,000
new
millionaires
every
single
day
last
year.

America
got
379,000
new
millionaires
in
2024
alone,
bringing
its
grand
total
to
about
23.8
million
millionaires.
The
United
States
has
approximately
40%
of
the
world’s
millionaires
despite
having
only

around
4%

of
the
world’s
population.

UBS
attributed
the
rise
in
the
number
of
new
members
in
the
seven-figure
club
primarily
to
strong
markets
and
a
stable
dollar.
In
2025,
we
may
see
a
slowdown
in
the
number
of
new
millionaires
created,
according
to
an
economist
at
UBS,
but
there
remains
potential
for
strong
growth.

Now
for
the
obligatory
“also
a
lot
of
people
were
struggling
last
year”
part:
at
last
count,
the
United
States
had

about
36.8
million
people

living
in
poverty.
The
headline
economic
problem
last
year

higher
than
normal
inflation

disproportionately
impacts
those
at
the
lowest
end
of
the
wealth
spectrum,
who
generally
must
allocate
a
much
higher
proportion
of
their
income
to
necessities.
Stock
ownership
is

most
concentrated
among
higher-income
Americans
,
so
the
less
well-to-do
also
often
miss
out
on
the
benefits
of
rising
financial
markets.

We
still
have
more
people
living
in
poverty
than
we
do
millionaires
here
in
the
United
States.
However,
while
the
poverty
rate
has
remained
stable
or
even
declined
slightly
in
the
past
several
official
measurements
from
the
U.S.
Census
Bureau,
the
rate
of
people
becoming
millionaires
for
the
first
time
has
jumped
significantly.
I’d
call
that
progress.

Of
course,
we
can
all
agree
that
even
one
child
raised
in
poverty
is
too
many
and
it
would
be
great
if
the
poverty
rate
was
falling
much
more
dramatically.
In
the
meantime,
though,
maybe
the
left
should
stop
pillorying
a
group
of
23.8
million
people
who
tend
to
be
voters
as
well
as
political
donors
and
who
didn’t
have
anything
to
do
with
creating
poverty
as
a
social
problem.

I
am
not
one
of
2024’s
new
millionaires,
because

I
became
a
millionaire
in
2023
.
While
I
am
certainly
not
complaining
about
having
a
bit
of
money
saved
up
and
invested,
it
was
not
exactly
a
cakewalk
to
get
to
that
point.
I
have
not
inherited
any
wealth:
I
clawed
my
way
into
a
six-figure
salary
working
a
60-hour-per-week
job
that
I
absolutely
loathed
for
nine
years,
and
made
a
lot
of
sacrifices
to
invest
a
huge
proportion
of
my
income.
This
was
not
all
some
vapid
quest
for
frivolous
status
symbols:
I
still
drive
a
2013
subcompact
car
with
a
piece
of
Gorilla
Tape
holding
the
front
bumper
in
place.
Rather,
I
set
out
to,
eventually,
buy
my
own
life
back,
which
seemed
to
me
to
be
a
relatively
noble
goal.

So,
I
do
get
a
little
cantankerous
these
days
when
I
see
the

“eat
the
rich”
rhetoric
thrown
about

at
protests
and
realize
they
are
talking
about
me
and
around
23.8
million
other
Americans,
the
vast
majority
of
whom
earned
their
money
legitimately,
never
knowingly
harmed
or
exploited
anyone,
and
are
actively
engaged
in
some
form
of
effort
to
improve
their
communities.
I
completely
agree
that
billionaires
need
to
be
reined
in,
that
the
top
marginal
income
tax
rate
should
be
quite
a
bit
higher,
and
that
the
estate
tax
exemption
should
be
quite
a
bit
lower.
I
suppose
“eat
the
super
rich”
simply
makes
for
too
wordy
a
sign,
though.

As
a
white
dude,
I
don’t
even
get
to
take
credit
for
any
savvy
financial
maneuvering
without
being
swiftly
reminded
by
everyone
in
my
immediate
vicinity
that
I
have
to
chalk
it
up
to
my
vast
privilege.
I’m
not
discounting
that,
yet
I
can
also
guarantee
that
one
does
not
simply
sit
around
effortlessly
marinating
in
privilege
as
graduate
degrees
and
stacks
of
hundred
dollar
bills
pile
up
around
you.

Bernie
Sanders
sure
seems
down
with
bringing
millionaires
back
into
the
Democratic
fold.
He
has
been
one
of
the
most
remarkably
consistent
politicians
in
his
messaging
over
decades,
yet
he
made
one
pretty
significant
change
in
recent
years.
Sanders

used
to
rail
against

“millionaires
and
billionaires”
before
he
became
a
millionaire
himself.
Now
Sanders
mostly
keeps
his
criticism
to
“billionaires.”

Millionaires
are
doing
fine.
They
don’t
need
me
defending
them.
But
for
crying
out
loud,
the
political
left
is
already
asking
millionaires
to
vote
to
increase
their
own
taxes.
Do
they
really
also
need
to
make
us
feel
like
pieces
of
shit
while
they’re
at
it?

Millionaires
now
make
up
about
7%
of
the
U.S.
population.
With
more
than
a
thousand
new
millionaires
created
every
day
last
year,
millionaires
are
also
one
of
the
fastest
growing
demographic
groups
in
America.
Maybe
the
left
should
stop
pushing
them
away,
right
into
the
open
arms
of
the
Republican
Party.




Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of 
Your
Debt-Free
JD
 (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at 
[email protected].

Chewed Gum Under Courthouse Table Becomes Federal Case Because Of Course It Does – Above the Law

When
I
first
skimmed
this
order
from
Judge
T.
Kent
Wetherell
II,
I
thought
it
said
“Things
would
have
been
considerably
worse
for
Plaintiff
had
she
not
admitted
it
because
the
courtroom
security
video
clearly
shows
her
placing
the
GUN
under
the
table.”
How
could
a
judge
respond
to
someone
sneaking
a
firearm
into
a
courtroom
by
threatening
to
make
them
write
“I
will
not
do
it
again”
100
times
like
Bart
Simpson?
But
then
I
saw
it
was
the
Northern
District
of
Florida
and
thought,
“that
tracks.”

But
it
turns
out
the
event
behind
this
order
wasn’t
a
Second
Amendment
test
but
a
party
sticking
their
GUM
underneath
the
table
and
leaving
it
for
the
next
unsuspecting
litigant.

Less
bazooka
and
more
Bazooka
Joe.

And
now
the
incident
can
live
on
for
posterity,
to
be
dug
up
to
flesh
out
a
footnote
in
a
future
student
law
review
note:

Justice
Is
Hungry:
An
Postsemantic
Analysis
Of
The
Edible
Hermeneutics
Of
Food
Narratives
In
America’s
Courtrooms.

After
the
sentencing
hearing,
I
was
informed
that
the
Assistant
United
States
Attorney
(AUSA)
who
was
sitting
in
the
chair
in
which
Plaintiff
sat
during
the
morning
hearing
got
gum
on
her
skirt
when
she
brushed
her
leg
against
the
underside
of
counsel’s
table.
It
was
at
that
point
that
court
staff
determined
that
chewed
gum
had
been
stuck
under
the
table.

Look,
this
is
disgusting
and
contemptuous
but
also
something
that
could’ve
been
handled

forgive
me

under
the
table.
Send
a
letter
to
whoever
sat
there
earlier
and
maybe
assess
some
small
fine.
Not
everything
needs
to
be
enshrined
on
PACER.
Some
issues
can
die
in
silent
shame,
like
the
Blackberry.

The
gum
that
was
not
stuck
to
the
AUSA’s
skirt
was
still
stuck
to
and
hanging
down
from
the
table
after
the
incident.

See

Doc.
51
at
3
(post-incident
picture).
The
court
custodial
staff
then
had
the
unenviable
task
of
removing
the
remainder
of
the
gum
from
the
table,
which
they
dutifully
did.

Why
is
there
a
picture
on
the
docket?
We
believed
you!
And
I
don’t
want
to
downplay
the
hard
work
custodial
staff
bring,
but
the
order
makes
it
sound
like
they
were
handling
vials
of
Sarin
Gas
when
they
probably
ran
a
putty
knife
over
it
and
then
rubbed
it
down
with
Fabuloso.

Court
staff
and
I
inferred
that
the
gum
had
to
have
been
stuck
under
the
table
at
some
point
during
the
morning
hearing
because
there
had
been
no
hearings
in
that
courtroom
since
Tuesday,
and
the
gum
was
still
fresh
and
stringy.
Thus,
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
the
incident,
I
ordered
Plaintiff
to
“file
a
notice
identifying
who
stuck
the
chewed
gum
under
the
table
and
show
cause
why
the
Court
should
not
impose
appropriate
sanctions
on
the
person
who
did
so.”

It’s
like
Encyclopedia
Brown
but
thankfully
the
judge
didn’t
have
to
send
that
goon
Sally
out
to
break
someone’s
legs
off
stage.

The
plaintiff
in
the
civil
matter
fessed
up
in
a
written
apology,
promising
it
won’t
happen
again.
Presumably
because
someone
turned
her
on
to
Altoids.
Her
lawyer
vouched
for
her.
The
judge
forwarded
it
to
the
affected
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
for
potential
dry-cleaning
restitution,
and
decided
“a
simple
admonishment
will
suffice.”

No
kidding.
It’s
appropriate
that
the
judge
didn’t
try
to
stack
a
penalty
atop
someone
who
already
agreed
to
pay.
You
don’t
want
to
punish
someone
twice…
that
would
be
Double(Mint)
Jeopardy.

Even
though
this
ends
this
chapter,
the
judge
has
ideas
if
this
comes
up
again:

That
said,
if
anything
like
this
happens
again,
I
will
come
up
with
sanctions
that
are
commensurate
with
the
schoolchild-nature
of
the
violation—maybe
sitting
in
the
courtroom
under
the
supervision
of
a
court
security
officer
handwriting
“I
will
not
stick
my
gum
under
a
courtroom
table
again”
100
times
on
notebook
paper;
an
afternoon
of
helping
the
court
custodial
staff
clean
the
courtroom
and
adjacent
public
areas;
and/or
a
couple
hours
of
scraping
gum
off
the
sidewalk
in
front
of
the
courthouse.

Real
“disgruntled
vice
principal”
energy.

Again,
this
is
disgusting
and
it’s
entirely
appropriate
to
admonish
the
party
responsible

if
not
necessarily
publicly.
But
this
is
Florida.
It’s
hard
not
to
feel
a
touch
of
vertigo
watching
the
judiciary
leap
into
action
over
Juicy
Fruit
while
the
legal
system
has
a
“get
out
of
murder
free
card”
if
the
killer
can
prove
they
were
scared
enough
and
libraries
purge
Heather
Has
Two
Mommies
like
it’s
a
national
security
threat.
It’s
not
Judge
Wetherell’s
fault

he’s
just
trying
to
keep
his
courtroom
a
step
above
the
floor
of
a
Greyhound

but
there’s
something
to
a
system
that
elevates
the
little
things
while
bigger
injustices
thrive.

Something
to
chew
on.

Ugh.


(Check
out
the
order
on
the
next
page…)


HeadshotJoe
Patrice
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky

if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

Introducing The 2025 Legal Marketing Decision-Makers Survey! – Above the Law

Getty
Images

In
early
2025,
the
Legal
Marketing
Association
and
Above
the
Law
set
out
to
provide
benchmarking
insights
CMOs
could
rely
on
to
guide
their
decision-making.

We
surveyed
nearly
100
marketing
and
business
development
decision-makers,
who
shared
their
insights
on
AI,
law
firm
management,
winning
new
clients,
and
a
number
of
other
topics.

We’re
pleased
to
share
their
insights
in
this
detailed
new
survey
report. 

Download
the
report
here
to
explore:


The
strategic
priorities
of
law
firms

How
CMOs
are
leveraging
technology
including
artificial
intelligence

How
CMOs’
budgets
are
evolving

CMOs’
business
development
advice
for
attorneys

The
most
and
least
effective
marketing
and
business
development
tools


Introducing The 2025 Legal Marketing Decision-Makers Survey! – Above the Law

Getty
Images

In
early
2025,
the
Legal
Marketing
Association
and
Above
the
Law
set
out
to
provide
benchmarking
insights
CMOs
could
rely
on
to
guide
their
decision-making.

We
surveyed
nearly
100
marketing
and
business
development
decision-makers,
who
shared
their
insights
on
AI,
law
firm
management,
winning
new
clients,
and
a
number
of
other
topics.

We’re
pleased
to
share
their
insights
in
this
detailed
new
survey
report. 

Download
the
report
here
to
explore:


The
strategic
priorities
of
law
firms

How
CMOs
are
leveraging
technology
including
artificial
intelligence

How
CMOs’
budgets
are
evolving

CMOs’
business
development
advice
for
attorneys

The
most
and
least
effective
marketing
and
business
development
tools


Vault ‘Quality Of Life’ Rankings: The Best Law Firms To Work For In America (2026) – Above the Law

Last
week,
Vault
released
the
2025
edition
of
its closely
watched
law
firm
rankings
,
proving
that
money

in
the
form
of
Cravath’s
perennially
competitive
pay
scale

can
buy
prestige.

But
can
that
money
buy
happiness?

In
a
companion
ranking
to
the
Vault
100,
associates
were
asked
to
rank
their
own
law
firms
based
on
categories
most
relevant
to
their
overall
quality
of
life,
including
satisfaction;
firm
culture;
hours;
compensation;
quality
of
work;
business
outlook;
career
outlook;
associate/partner
relations;
transparency;
formal
and
informal
training;
pro
bono;
and
overall
inclusion.

Fifty
firms
were
ranked
for
Vault’s
2026
Best
Law
Firms
to
Work
For
survey,
which
was
conducted
from
January
2025
through
March
2025,
so
we’re
getting
a
bird’s
eye
view
of
life
at
many
of
these
firms
after
the latest
round
of
bonuses
and
special
bonuses
 were
first
seen
in
paychecks
(and
just
before
Trump’s
revenge
tour
against
Biglaw
and
lawyers
writ
large).
This
may
be
surprising
for
some,
but
none
of
the
firms
that
made
the
Top
10
list
for
being
the
most
prestigious
made
the
Top
10
list
for
being
a
best
firm
to
work
for.

There
was
a
huge
amount
of
movement
in
the
Top
10
this
year.
Which
firms
made
the
cut?
Without
any
further
ado,
here
are
the Top
10
Best
Law
Firms
to
Work
For
 based
on
Vault’s
Annual
Associate
Survey
for
2026:

1.
O’Melveny
&
Myers
(no
change)
2.
Morgan
Lewis
&
Bockius
(no
change)
3.
Clifford
Chance
US
(no
change)
4.
McDermott
Will
&
Emery
(no
change)
5.
Eversheds
Sutherland
(up
from
#13)
6.
Gunster
(up
from
#12)
7.
Sheppard
Mullin
(up
from
#11)
8.
Mayer
Brown
(up
from
#37)
9.
Fried
Frank
(down
from
#6)
10.
Warner
Norcross
+
Judd
(down
from
#8)

In
happy
news
for
associate
quality
of
life,
O’Melveny
and
Morgan
Lewis
duked
it
out
this
year,
competing
to
really
impress
their
associates.
As
noted
by
Eric
Stutzke,
SVP
and
General
Manager
of
Vault,
“We
saw
a
close
race
for
the
Best
Overall
Law
Firm
to
Work
For
title
between
O’Melveny
and
Morgan
Lewis,
two
firms
that
always
perform
well
in
this
ranking.”
O’Melveny
took
the
No.
1
spot
in
the
overall
ranking
for
two
major
categories
(Overall
Best
Law
Firm
to
Work
For
and
Overall
Best
Summer
Associate
Program),
while
Morgan
Lewis
too
the
No.
1
spot
in
the
final
major
category
(Overall
Inclusion).
Both
of
the
firms
placed
in
the
top
10
for
every
quality
of
life
category,
with
each
snagging
the
No.
1
or
No.
2
spot
in
nearly
every
other
ranking.

Congratulations
to
each
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
the
Vault
Best
Firms
to
Work
For
rankings,
and
a
huge
congratulations
to
O’Melveny
and
Morgan
Lewis
for
scoring
incredibly
well.
How
did
your
firm
do? Email
us
,
text
us
at (646)
820-8477
,
or
tweet
us @atlblog to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.


Best
Law
Firms
to
Work
For
(2026)
 [Vault]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Morning Docket: 06.25.25 – Above the Law

*
DOJ
files
suit
in
the
District
of
Maryland
against
every
judge
in
the
District
of
Maryland.
CHECKMATE!
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
Court
agrees
that
using
copyrighted
material
to
train
AI
is
fair
use.
[Washington
Post
]

*
Judiciary
tells
Congress
that
PACER
poses
a
cyber
risk.
Maybe
if
they’d
modernized
it
with

all
those
fees
they
collected
instead
of
redesigning
their
offices
,
hm?
[Law360]

*
Lawyers
copied
brief
from
another
law
firm,
including
all
the
arguments
that
already
lost.
[ABA
Journal
]

*
Law
firms
struggling
to
keep
pace
with
the
Trump
administration’s
changing
list
of
banned
words.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Emil
Bove’s
judicial
nomination
will
provide
opportunity
to
ask
about
DOJ
management,
including
report
that
Bove
encouraged
open
defiance
of
court
orders.
See,
a
savvy
administration
might
have
not
nominated
him
to
avoid
this…[Reuters]

*
Stephen
Miller
may
have
a
financial
stake
in
the
company
he’s
having
ICE
use
to
deport
people.
[Rolling
Stone
]

What’s The Bonus For A Third-Year Biglaw Assassin? — See Also – Above the Law

Biglaw
Partner
Thought
He
Was
Running
The
Continental
From
John
Wick:
In
fairness,
Biglaw
would
be
a
lot
more
interesting
if
they
replaced
all
the
associates
with
“assassins.”
Don’t
Play
Lawyerball
With
The
Referee:
Supreme
Court
majority
tried
to
give
“deporting
people
to
war
zones”
the
Drive-Thru
treatment,
but
Justice
Sotomayor
turned
the
tables.
Certainly
No
One
Cares
About
Mindlessly
Pursuing
Status
In
*Checks
Notes*
D.C.:
The
top
law
firms
in
Washington
ranked!
Emhoff
Class
Is
In
Session:
Maybe
the
Willkie
lawyer
is
looking
for
an
employer
that
isn’t
planning
to
sell
itself
off
to
Trump.
Ma’am
This
Is
An
Arby’s
(If
The
Arby’s
Was
A
Contract
Claim):
Penn
Law’s
Amy
Wax
brought
her
First
Amendment
argument
to
a
contract
dispute
and
it
went
about
as
you’d
expect.
How
To
Get
Clients
Beating
A
Path
To
Your
Door:
Turns
out,
making
clients
feel
at
ease
has
to
begin
before
they’re
even
on
board.

This State Is In Desperate Need Of Legal Assistance – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


According
to
a
recent
study
by Spartacus
Law
Firm
,
which
state
is
the
most
“legally
anxious,”
that
is,
they
ask
Google
the
most
legal
questions
per
capita?


Hint:
The
most
common
legal
question
in
this
state
is,
“do
I
need
a
lawyer,”
which…
by
the
time
you’re
asking
that
question,
the
answer
is
probably
“yes.”



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.