Author: TSA Press

Where
does
America
stand
when
it
comes
to
its
political
views?
The
results
of
yesterday’s
primary
for
New
Jersey
governor
may
give
us
some
insights.

Democratic
Rep.

Mikie
Sherrill
—
the
only
woman
in
the
race
for
governor
—
blew
away
the
crowded
competition
by
leaps
and
bounds,
relying
upon
her
true
law
and
order
background
in
the
polls.
She
served
as
a
Navy
pilot
for
nearly
a
decade,
and
later
went
on
to
graduate
from
Georgetown
Law.
Sherrill
then
began
a
career
in
Biglaw,
where
she
worked
as
a
litigator
at
Kirkland
&
Ellis
for
several
years
before
reentering
public
service
as
a
federal
prosecutor.
She
worked
at
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
for
the
District
of
New
Jersey
for
about
four
years
before
deciding
to
run
for
office,
winning
a
seat
in
the
U.S.
House
of
Representatives,
where
she’s
represented
New
Jersey’s
11th
congressional
district
since
2018.

This
fall,
Sherrill
will
face
off
against
Trump-endorsed
Jack
Ciattarelli,
a
former
state
assemblyman.
As
noted
by
the

New
York
Times,
she’s
already
got
her
eyes
on
the
prize.

“I’m
going
to
protect
our
rights
—
including
a
right
to
an
abortion,”
Ms.
Sherrill
told
supporters
gathered
in
Morristown,
N.J.,
to
celebrate
her
victory.
As
for
Mr.
Ciattarelli,
she
said,
“I
am
ready
to
shake
up
the
status
quo,
and
Jack
is
the
status
quo.”

She
added,
“He’s
not
change,
he’s
a
rerun.”

Best
of
luck
to
Mikie
Sherrill
in
November
as
she
attempts
to
hold
on
to
the
New
Jersey
governor’s
office
for
Democrats.

---

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.

Paul
Weiss
fancied
itself
clever
when
it
offered
Trump
pro
bono
payola
in
exchange
for
dropping
an
illegal
executive
order.
Instead,
it

keeps
hemorrhaging
senior
lawyers
with
more
departing
to
join
the

recent
rainmaker
spinoff
and
associates
reportedly
high
on
the
new
firm’s
wish
list.
While
litigators
are
largely
driving
defections
from
surrender
firms,
at
what
point
does
a
hollowed
out
litigation
department
start
to
impact
the
firm
as
a
whole?
Harvard
Law
Review
found
itself
harassed
by
the
government
and
it
looks
like
the
reason
might
be

a
snitch
burrowed
into
the
White
House.
And
the
one-track
partnership
model
took
more
hits
with

Ropes
&
Gray
and

Debevoise
agreeing
to
add
nonequity
tiers.

Donald
Trump
began
his
second
(and
hopefully
last)
term
by
attacking
Biglaw
firms
and

the
rule
of
law.
Trump
nominally

used
Biglaw’s
commitment
to
DEI
as
a
pretext
to
pursue
his

personal
vendettas,
even

using
the
EEOC
to
further
his
goals.

Nine
yellow-bellied
Biglaw
firms
(Paul
Weiss,
Skadden,
Willkie
Farr,
Milbank,
Cadwalader,
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
Latham
&
Watkins,
Simpson
Thacher,
and
A&O
Shearman)
capitulated
to
the
demands
of
Trump
allowing
him
to
amass
a
nearly $1
billion
war
chest of pro
bono
payola.
Both sides
of
the
political
spectrum
see
it
as
a black
eye
on
the
profession) —
a
move
that sells
out the
very
principle
of
the rule
of
law.

Now
Kirkland
&
Ellis
—
a
firm
that
shamefully

led
the
charge
to
bend
a
knee
to
Trump
—
is
making
cuts
to
its
DEI
staff,
replacing
global
inclusion
director
Joi
Bourgeois
with
associate
director
of
firmwide
inclusion
Grace
Geronimo
and
eliminating
some
positions.

According
to
Law.com:

The
cuts
mark
a
reduction
in
the
size
of
Kirkland’s
DEI-focused
staff,
although
it
was
not
clear
at
press
time
whether
they
were
related
to
the
Trump
administration’s
scrutiny
of
the
law
firm’s
DEI
practices.
One
source
familiar
with
the
firm
said
the
cuts
were
tied
to
a
firmwide
staff
reorganization
that
began
before
the
November
presidential
election.

I
mean….
I
think
I
speak
for
most
observers
when
I
say
I
am
highly
skeptical
the
cuts
are
unrelated
to
Donald
Trump’s
war
on
DEI
—
and
perhaps
more
accurately,
to
Kirkland’s
capitulation
to
Trump’s
demands.
And
if
it
isn’t,
the
firm
simply
must
be
aware
that
is
the
perception
that
would
permeate
the
industry
when
they
made
the
cuts
*now*.
This
is
the
world’s
richest
law
firm;
they
made
$8.8
billion
is
gross
revenue
last
year.
So
it’s
not
like
these
cuts
are
essential
to
the
firm’s
financial
well-being
—
if
they
wanted
to
assure
the
industry
they
stand
behind
DEI,
they
would.

But
that’s
not
the
statement
Kirkland
is
making
in
2025.

---

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].

The
Trump
administration’s
cancellation
of
$766
million
in
contracts
to
develop
mRNA
vaccines
against
potential
pandemic
flu
viruses
is
the
latest
blow
to
national
defense,
former
health
security
officials
said.
They
warned
that
the
U.S.
could
be
at
the
mercy
of
other
countries
in
the
next
pandemic.

“The
administration’s
actions
are
gutting
our
deterrence
from
biological
threats,”
said
Beth
Cameron,
a
senior
adviser
to
the
Brown
University
Pandemic
Center
and
a
former
director
at
the
White
House
National
Security
Council.
“Canceling
this
investment
is
a
signal
that
we
are
changing
our
posture
on
pandemic
preparedness,”
she
added,
“and
that
is
not
good
for
the
American
people.”

Flu
pandemics
killed
up
to

103
million
people
worldwide
last
century,
researchers
estimate.

In
anticipation
of
the
next
big
one,
the
U.S.
government
began
bolstering
the
nation’s
pandemic
flu
defenses
during
the
George
W.
Bush
administration.
These
strategies
were
designed
by
the
security
council
and
the
Biomedical
Advanced
Research
and
Development
Authority
at
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
among
other
agencies.
The
plans
rely
on
rolling
out
vaccines
rapidly
in
a
pandemic.
Moving
fast
hinges
on
producing
vaccines
domestically,
ensuring
their
safety,
and
getting
them
into
arms
across
the
nation
through
the
public
health
system.

The
Trump
administration
is
undermining
each
of
these
steps
as
it
guts
health
agencies,
cuts
research
and
health
budgets,
and
issues
perplexing
policy
changes,
health
security
experts
said.

Since
President
Donald
Trump
took
office,
at
least
half
of
the
security
council’s
staff
have
been
laid
off
or
left,
and
the
future
of
BARDA
is
murky.
The
nation’s
top
vaccine
adviser,
Peter
Marks,

resigned
under
pressure
in
March,
citing
“the
unprecedented
assault
on
scientific
truth.”

Most
recently,
Trump’s
clawback
of
funds
for
mRNA
vaccine
development
put
Americans
on
shakier
ground
in
the
next
pandemic.
“When
the
need
hits
and
we
aren’t
ready,
no
other
country
will
come
to
our
rescue
and
we
will
suffer
greatly,”
said
Rick
Bright,
an
immunologist
and
a
former
BARDA
director.

Countries
that
produced
their
own
vaccines
in
the
covid-19
pandemic
had

first
dibs
on
the
shots.
While
the
United
States,
home
to
Moderna
and
Pfizer,
rolled
out
second
doses
of
mRNA
vaccines
in
2021,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
in
countries
that
didn’t
manufacture
vaccines
died
waiting
for
them.

The
most
pertinent
pandemic
threat
today
is
the
bird
flu
virus
H5N1.
Researchers
around
the
world

were
alarmed
when
it
began
spreading
among
cattle
in
the
U.S.
last
year.
Cows
are
closer
to
humans
biologically
than
birds,
indicating
that
the
virus
had
evolved
to
thrive
in
cells
like
our
own.

As
hundreds
of
herds
and
dozens
of
people
were
infected
in
the
U.S.,
the
Biden
administration
funded
Moderna
to
develop
bird
flu
vaccines
using
mRNA
technology.
As
part
of
the
agreement,
the
U.S.
government
stipulated
it
could
purchase
doses
in
advance
of
a
pandemic.
That
no
longer
stands.

Researchers
can
make
bird
flu
vaccines
in
other
ways,
but
mRNA
vaccines
are
developed
much
more
quickly
because
they
don’t
rely
on
finicky
biological
processes,
such
as
growing
elements
of
vaccines
in
chicken
eggs
or
cells
kept
alive
in
laboratory
tanks.

Time
matters
because
flu
viruses
mutate
constantly,
and
vaccines
work
better
when
they
match
whatever
variant
is
circulating.

Developing
vaccines
within
eggs
or
cells
can
take
10
months
after
the
genetic
sequence
of
a
variant
is
known,
Bright
said.
And
relying
on
eggs
presents
an
additional
risk
when
it
comes
to
bird
flu
because
a
pandemic
could
wipe
out
billions
of
chickens,

crashing
egg
supplies.

Decades-old
methods
that
rely
on
inactivated
flu
viruses
are
riskier
for
researchers
and
time-consuming.
Still
the
Trump
administration

invested
$500
million
into
this
approach,
which
was
largely
abandoned
by
the
1980s
after
it
caused
seizures
in
children.

“This
politicized
regression
is
baffling,”
Bright
said.

A
bird
flu
pandemic
may
begin
quietly
in
the
U.S.
if
the
virus
evolves
to
spread
between
people
but

no
one
is
tested
at
first.
Indeed,
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention’s
dashboard
suggests
that
only
10
farmworkers
have
been
tested
for
the
bird
flu
since
March.
Because
of
their
close
contact
with
cattle
and
poultry,
farmworkers
are
at
highest
risk
of
infection.

As
with
many
diseases,
only
a
fraction
of
people
with
the
bird
flu
become
severely
sick.
So
the
first
sign
that
the
virus
is
widespread
might
be
a
surge
in
hospital
cases.

“We’d
need
to
immediately
make
vaccines,”
said
Angela
Rasmussen,
a
virologist
at
the
University
of
Saskatchewan
in
Canada.

The
U.S.
government
could
scale
up
production
of

existing
bird
flu
vaccines
developed
in
eggs
or
cells.
However,
these
vaccines
target
an
older
strain
of
H5N1
and
their
efficacy
against
the
virus
circulating
now
is
unknown.

In
addition
to
the
months
it
takes
to
develop
an
updated
version
within
eggs
or
cells,
Rasmussen
questioned
the
ability
of
the
government
to
rapidly
test
and
license
updated
shots,
with
a

quarter
of
HHS
staff
gone.
If
the
Senate
approves
Trump’s
proposed
budget,
the
agency
faces
about
$32
billion
in
cuts.

Further,
the
Trump
administration’s
cuts
to
biomedical
research
and
its
push
to
slash
grant
money
for
overhead
costs
could
undermine
academic
hospitals,
rendering
them
unable
to
conduct
large
clinical
trials.
And
its
cuts
to
the
CDC
and
to
public
health
funds
to
states
mean
that
fewer
health
officials
will
be
available
in
an
emergency.

“You
can’t
just
turn
this
all
back
on,”
Rasmussen
said.
“The
longer
it
takes
to
respond,
the
more
people
die.”

Researchers
suggest
other
countries
would
produce
bird
flu
vaccines
first.
“The
U.S.
may
be
on
the
receiving
end
like
India
was,
where
everyone
—
rich
people,
too
—
got
vaccines
late,”
said
Achal
Prabhala,
a
public
health
researcher
in
India
at
medicines
access
group
AccessIBSA.

He
sits
on
the
board
of
a

World
Health
Organization
initiative
to
improve
access
to
mRNA
vaccines
in
the
next
pandemic.
A
member
of
the
initiative,
the
company
Sinergium
Biotech
in
Argentina,
is
testing
an
mRNA
vaccine
against
the
bird
flu.
If
it
works,
Sinergium
will
share
the
intellectual
property
behind
the
vaccine
with
about
a
dozen
other
groups
in
the
program
from
middle-income
countries
so
they
can
produce
it.

The
Coalition
for
Epidemic
Preparedness
Innovations,
an
international
partnership
headquartered
in
Norway,
is
providing
funds
to
research
groups
developing
rapid-response
vaccine
technology,
including
mRNA,
in
South
Korea,
Singapore,
and
France.
And
CEPI
committed
up
to
$20
million
to
efforts
to
prepare
for
a
bird
flu
pandemic.
This
year,
the
Indian
government
issued
a
call
for
grant
applications
to
develop
mRNA
vaccines
for
the
bird
flu,
warning
it
“poses
a
grave
public
health
risk.”

Pharmaceutical
companies
are
investing
in
mRNA
vaccines
for
the
bird
flu
as
well.
However,
Prabhala
says
private
capital
isn’t
sufficient
to
bring
early-stage
vaccines
through
clinical
trials
and
large-scale
manufacturing.
That’s
because
there’s
no
market
for
bird
flu
vaccines
until
a
pandemic
hits.

Limited
supplies
means
the
United
States
would
have
to
wait
in
line
for
mRNA
vaccines
made
abroad.
States
and
cities
may
compete
against
one
another
for
deals
with
outside
governments
and
companies,
like
they
did
for
medical
equipment
at
the
peak
of
the
covid
pandemic.

“I
fear
we
will
once
again
see
the
kind
of
hunger
games
we
saw
in
2020,”
Cameron
said.

In
an
email
response
to
queries,
HHS
communications
director
Andrew
Nixon
said,
“We
concluded
that
continued
investment
in
Moderna’s
H5N1
mRNA
vaccine
was
not
scientifically
or
ethically
justifiable.”
He
added,
“The
decision
reflects
broader
concerns
about
the
use
of
mRNA
platforms—particularly
in
light
of
mounting
evidence
of
adverse
events
associated
with
COVID-19
mRNA
vaccines.”

Nixon
did
not
back
up
the
claim
by
citing
analyses
published
in
scientific
journals.

In

dozens
of

published
studies,
researchers
have
found
that
mRNA
vaccines
against
covid
are
safe.
For
example,
a

placebo-controlled
trial
of
more
than
30,000
people
in
the
U.S.
found
that
adverse
effects
of
Moderna’s
vaccine
were
rare
and
transient,
whereas
30
participants
in
the
placebo
group
suffered
severe
cases
of
covid
and
one
died.

More
recently,

a
study
revealed
that
three
of
nearly
20,000
people
who
got
Moderna’s
vaccines
and
booster
had
significant
adverse
effects
related
to
the
vaccine,
which
resolved
within
a
few
months.
Covid,
on
the
other
hand,
killed
four
people
during
the
course
of
the
study.

As
for
concerns
about
the
heart
issue,
myocarditis,

a
study
of
2.5
million
people
who
got
at
least
one
dose
of
Pfizer’s
mRNA
vaccine
revealed
about
2
cases
per
100,000
people.
Covid
causes

10
to
105
myocarditis
cases
per
100,000.

Nonetheless,
HHS
Secretary
Robert
F.
Kennedy
Jr.,
who
founded
an
anti-vaccine
organization,
has
falsely

called
covid
shots
“the
deadliest
vaccine
ever
made.”
And
without
providing
evidence,

he
said
the
1918
flu
pandemic
“came
from
vaccine
research.”

Politicized
mistrust
in
vaccines
has
grown.
Far
more
Republicans
said
they
trust
Kennedy
to
provide
reliable
information
on
vaccines
than
their
local
health
department
or
the
CDC
in
a

recent
KFF
poll:
73%
versus
about
half.

Should
the
bird
flu
become
a
pandemic
in
the
next
few
years,
Rasmussen
said,
“we
will
be
screwed
on
multiple
levels.”

KFF
Health
News
is
a
national
newsroom
that
produces
in-depth
journalism
about
health
issues
and
is
one
of
the
core
operating
programs
at
KFF—an
independent
source
of
health
policy
research,
polling,
and
journalism.
Learn
more
about

KFF.
This

article
first
appeared
on

KFF
Health
News
and
is
republished
here
under
a
Creative
Commons
license.

*
Kirkland
cuts
diversity
leader
and
staff
in
ongoing
cowardice
campaign.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Elon
Musk’s
Twitter
strategy
remains
“threatening
to
sue
anyone
who
doesn’t
give
us
money.”
It’s
been

his
play
for
a
year
now,
but
he’s
getting
a
new
assist
from
the
FTC.
[WSJ]

*
ABA
responds
by
ripping
DOJ
for

shutting
the
group
out
of
judicial
nomination
vetting.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
Federal
Circuit
keeps
tariffs
in
place
while
Trump
appeals
decision
that
he
has
no
authority
to
impose
tariffs.
This
seems
like
an
incentive
structure
that’s
sure
to
cause
no
problems
down
the
road.
[Law360]

*
Senior
CFPB
official
departs
as
administration
trashes
agency.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Justice
Department
continues
purge
of
employees
who
investigated
Trump
criminal
activity.
[Reuters]

*
Freshfields
lawyers
raise
$30
million
for
AI
business.
[Legal
Cheek]

How
Much
Longer
Will
The
National
Guard
Sleep
On
The
Floor?:
And
will
hotels
have
to
rely
on
the
Third
Amendment?
Business
Insider
Draws
Attention
On
Bob
Giuffra:
We
know
the
pro
bono
payola
was
bad
business,
but
was
it
an
ethical
misstep
to
boot?
Scary
Time
To
Be
Innocent
In
Public:
ICE
crackdowns
are
stressing
out
citizens
too.
Brad
Bondi
Broadcasted
His
Bruised
Ego
On
LinkedIn:
“Was
this
9:1
loss
my
fault?
No,
it
must
be
the
voters
that
are
wrong!”
A
Picture
Perfect
Lawsuit:
Getty’s
IP
suit
against
AI
company
could
change
how
both
companies
operate.
A
Change
Of
Scenery.
A
Change
In
Talent:
Axinn’s
new
Rockefeller
office
should
attract
some
talented
attorneys!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Where
was
the
first
location
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
met?

Hint:
The
High
Court
has
met
in
five
different
buildings,
not
counting
the
nearby
homes
and
taverns
they
used
in
the
1800s
when
construction
forced
them
to
find
temporary
meeting
spots.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

We
hit
a
major
milestone
in
the
Fretzin
household
this
week.
My
only
child,
Andrew,
graduated
from
high
school.
To
say
the
road
was
smooth
would
be
a
complete
lie.
If
you’ve
listened
to
my

BE
THAT
LAWYER
podcast,
you
already
know
that
Andrew
is
full-blown
ADHD.
That
means
he’s
disorganized,
impulsive,
and
occasionally
argumentative.
Funny
enough,
that
also
describes
a
few
lawyers
I’ve
worked
with
over
the
years.

You
might
be
thinking
I’m
calling
some
of
you
out
—
and
you’re
right.
The
messy
workspace,
the
scattered
marketing
efforts,
and
the
resistance
to
sound
advice
around
business
development
are
all
too
familiar.
But
if
you’re
reading
this
column,
there
may
be
hope
for
you
yet.
Let
me
offer
three
ways
to
stop
acting
like
an
angsty
teenager
and
start
building
your
law
practice
with
more
maturity
and
purpose.

Step
1:
Get
Organized
To
Get
Started

Look
around
your
office
for
a
moment.
Does
it
reflect
a
sense
of
order
and
professionalism?
Or
is
it
closer
to
a
teenager’s
bedroom
after
a
weekend
of
video
games
and
fast
food?

For
many
attorneys,
disorganization
and
poor
time
management
are
the
biggest
roadblocks
to
business
development.
It’s
not
just
about
tidiness,
it’s
about
being
in
control
of
your
time,
your
energy,
and
your
strategy.

One
of
the
best
things
I
ever
did
for
myself
was
read
“Getting
Things
Done”
by
David
Allen.
That
book
changed
everything
for
me.
It’s
a
playbook
for
mastering
your
time
and
freeing
up
mental
space.
And
to
quote
“Tommy
Boy,”
one
of
my
favorite
movies,
“You
can
get
a
good
look
at
a
T-bone
by
sticking
your
head
up
a
bull’s
ass,
but
wouldn’t
you
rather
take
the
butcher’s
word
for
it?”
In
other
words,
trust
me
and
read
the
book.
Once
I
did
and
actually
applied
what
I
learned,
the
stress,
pressure,
and
time-wasting
slipped
away
like
magic.
I’m
hoping
it
does
the
same
for
you.

Step
2:
A
Failure
To
Plan
Is
A
Plan
To
Fail

I’m
sure
you’ve
heard
this
phrase
before,
but
it’s
worth
repeating.
Time
is
money.
Wandering
around
networking
events
or
posting
on
LinkedIn
without
a
strategy
is
just
spinning
your
wheels.

Think
about
this:
would
you
walk
into
court
without
knowing
the
case
inside
and
out?
Of
course
not.
So
why
approach
business
development
without
a
plan?

Start
by
asking
yourself
a
few
basic
but
powerful
questions:

• Who
  are
  my
  top
  50
  business
  relationships,
  including
  clients,
  referral
  partners,
  and
  colleagues?
• How
  am
  I
  showing
  up
  for
  those
  people
  and
  adding
  value?
• Where
  is
  the
  easiest
  new
  business
  going
  to
  come
  from?
• What
  professional
  groups,
  conferences,
  or
  boards
  are
  my
  ideal
  clients
  and
  referral
  sources
  attending?
• Do
  I
  know
  any
  successful
  rainmakers
  who
  might
  be
  willing
  to
  mentor
  me?
• What
  knowledge
  or
  skills
  am
  I
  lacking
  when
  it
  comes
  to
  marketing
  and
  business
  development?
• Have
  I
  watched
  Steve’s
  LinkedIn
  tutorial
  yet?
  (If
  not,
  it’s
  waiting
  for
  you
  in
  my
  LinkedIn
  Featured
  section.)

Planning
might
not
be
the
most
exciting
part
of
your
day,
but
it’s
essential
if
you
want
results
that
are
sustainable
and
repeatable.

Step
3:
Take
Advice
To
Move
Ahead

One
of
the
hardest
parts
of
parenting
a
teenager
is
watching
them
ignore
good
advice.
As
parents,
we’ve
lived
more
life.
We’ve
made
the
mistakes.
But
we
also
know
when
to
let
go
and
let
them
learn.
Still,
watching
the
same
train
wreck
play
out
repeatedly
gets
old
fast.

Lawyers
can
be
the
same
way.
You’re
smart,
capable,
and
confident
—
but
that
doesn’t
mean
you
know
everything.
I
sure
don’t,
especially
when
it
comes
to
plumbing.
If
I’ve
got
a
leak,
I’m
calling
in
a
pro.
I’m
not
grabbing
a
saw
and
hacking
into
the
ceiling.

So
why
is
it
so
hard
to
ask
for
help
with
business
development?
Maybe
it
feels
like
something
you
“should”
be
able
to
figure
out
on
your
own.
But
if
your
billable
rate
is
$500
an
hour,
can
you
really
afford
to
spend
years
figuring
it
out
the
hard
way?

When
I
work
with
lawyers,
one
of
the
first
things
I
do
is
a
gap
assessment.
Nine
times
out
of
10,
I
find
six
figures
or
sometimes
millions
in
missed
opportunities.
These
are
smart
people
who
just
needed
the
right
plan
and
support
to
unlock
what
was
already
within
their
reach.

Start
by
checking
out
some
free
resources
like
podcasts,
videos,
and
books.
If
that
lights
a
fire
under
you,
it
might
be
time
to
explore
coaching.
Whether
it’s
with
me
or
one
of
the
many
other
coaches
out
there,
just
be
sure
you
choose
someone
who
fits
your
goals,
your
personality,
and
who’s
program
will
eliminate
your
BD
gaps.
Talk
to
the
coaches
past
clients.
Ask
tough
questions.
Make
sure
the
program
is
built
for
you.

If
you’re
tired
of
being
compared
to
a
difficult
teenager,
then
stop
acting
like
one.
Get
organized.
Create
a
plan.
Work
with
someone
who
can
help
you
stay
accountable
and
focused.
You
deserve
to
build
the
law
practice
you
want
—
not
just
the
one
you’ve
been
tolerating.

---

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It’s
wise
to
be
as
vague
as
possible,
which
explains
the
firms’
lack
of
any
effort
to
reduce
whatever
the
arrangement
is
to
writing.
If
you
start
negotiating
with
Trump,
then
you
wind
up
identifying
what
he
may
conclude
are
gaps
in
what
you’ve
got,
and
then
he
demands
more.

—

Stephen
Gillers,
a
professor
at
New
York
University
Law
School,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
on
the
perhaps
intentionally
vague

pro
bono
payola
deals
that
nine
Biglaw
firms
signed
with
the
Trump
administration,
pledging
$940
million
in
free
legal
services.
Trump
has
yet
to
attempt
to
enforce
those
deals,
and
the
Biglaw
firms
in
question
aren’t
pushing
the
issue,
either.
Gillers
points
out
that
the
agreements’
vagueness
may
come
back
to
bite
the
law
firms,
noting,
“Trump
realized
in
the
midst
of
these
negotiations
that
he
might
want
to
use
the
work
of
these
law
firms
after
he’s
no
longer
president
in
situations
that
could
not
even
remotely
be
called
pro
bono.”

---

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.