Author: TSA Press

Today’s
episode
of
Judges
Behaving
Badly
is
a
follow-up
to

a
beer-scented
incident
from
a
couple
of
years
ago!
The
robed
gavel
bangers
have
a
reputation
for
enforcing
the
law,
but
sometimes
they
like
to
take
matters
in
to
their
own
balled-up
fists.
In
case
you
were
wondering,
yes,
this
happened
in
New
York.
From
the

ABA
Journal:

A
New
York
judge
should
be
censured
for
engaging
in
a
street
brawl
with
his
neighbors
and
for
participating
in
matters
involving
an
attorney
who
was
buying
the
judge’s
law
practice,
according
to
the
New
York
State
Commission
on
Judicial
Conduct.

Judge
Mark
J.
Grisanti
may
accept
the
recommendation
or
seek
review
by
the
New
York
Court
of
Appeals,
the
judicial
conduct
commission
said
in
an
April
30
news
release.
…
The
street
brawl
happened
in
Buffalo,
New
York,
in
June
2020,
according
to
findings
of
fact
by
the
judicial
conduct
commission.
It
involved
neighbors
said
to
have
a
history
of
conflict
with
others.

The
street
brawl
stemmed
from
a
classic
combination
of
car
parking
and
fighting
words.
It
seems
like
Judge
Grisanti
initially
responded
to
a
car
being
parked
on
his
driveway
by
calling
the
police.
Once
he
called
the
property
enforcers
to
do
his
bidding,
why
in
the
world
would
he
then
decide
to
take
things
into
his
own
hands?
Really
bad
judgment
call
there,
judge.
When
the
police
got
there,
things
got
worse:

After
officers
arrived,
Grisanti’s
wife
continued
to
yell
profanities
at
the
neighbors,
according
to
the
factual
findings.
When
Grisanti’s
wife
resisted
handcuffing,
an
officer
brought
the
110-pound
woman
to
the
ground.

Grisanti
shoved
the
officer.
A
second
officer
restrained
Grisanti
with
a
bear
hug.
Grisanti
warned
officers
that
they
should
not
arrest
his
wife.
He
said
his
son
and
daughter
are
police
officers,
and
he
was
good
friends
with
the
mayor
of
Buffalo.

Prosecutors
did
not
file
charges
against
the
Grisantis.

First
the
story
about

the
NY
DA
pulling
rank
to
evade
a
parking
ticket
and
now
this?
Wow,
it’s
almost
as
if
people
in
positions
of
power
use
that
authority
to
regularly
skirt
the
rule
of
law
or
something.
Shoving
an
officer
and
not
facing

any
charges?
People
have
been
choked
out
for
nine
minutes
in
broad
daylight
for
far
less.

The
leniency
didn’t
just
end
there.
Some
other
“complexities”
in
Judge
Grisanti’s
history
led
to
the
judicial
conduct
commission
voting
on
how
to
discipline.
And
while
they
decided
to
censure
him,
Grisanti
still
got
off
lucky:

Robert
H.
Tembeckjian,
the
commission’s
administrator,
had
recommended
that
the
judge
be
removed
from
office.
Four
commission
members
agreed
with
that
recommendation,
but
six
others
voted
for
censure.

“I
hope
Judge
Grisanti
appreciates
how
close
he
came
to
being
removed,
and
that
his
future
conduct
will
exemplify
the
integrity
and
dignity
required
of
his
high
office,”
Tembeckjian
said
in
the
press
release.

A
judge
who
is
censured
won’t
be
able
to
serve
as
an
acting
justice
for
two
years,
absent
special
circumstances,
according
to
the
press
release.

Close
call,
buddy.
Take
a
breather
before
you
start
punching
parkers
and
cops
next
time.
Give
the
justice
system
a
chance
to
figure
things
out
before
you
end
up
on
the
other
side.

Judge
Should
Be
Censured
For
Street
Brawl,
Conflict
Of
Interest,
New
York
Judicial
Conduct
Commission
Says
[ABA
Journal]

Earlier:

Judge
Drunk
On
Own
Power,
Possibly
‘Cheap
Beer’

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Kim
Kardashian
is
reportedly

taking
a
break
from
her
legal
studies,
but
she
hasn’t
given
up
on
her
advocacy
efforts
for
criminal
justice
reform.

Last
week,
the
reality
TV
star
turned
serial
entrepreneur
joined
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris
at
the
White
House
for
a
roundtable
discussion
highlighting
President
Joe
Biden’s
clemency
efforts
for
those
convicted
of
non-violent
drug
offenses.
The

Associated
Press
has
additional
details:

Those
who
sat
down
alongside
Harris,
Kardashian
and
Steve
Benjamin,
the
director
of
the
White
House
Office
of
Public
Engagement,
included
Jason
Hernandez,
Bobby
Lowery,
Jesse
Mosley
and
Beverly
Robinson,
who
all
received
presidential
pardons
[last]
week.
They
spoke
of
successful
careers
—
such
as
running
nonprofits
and
practicing
real
estate
—
and
how
they
were
overcome
with
emotion
when
finding
out
about
their
pardons….

Harris,
who
formerly
served
as
California’s
attorney
general,
spoke
of
her
belief
in
the
“power
of
redemption,”
saying,
“[I]s
it
not
the
sign
of
a
civil
society
that
we
allow
people
a
way
to
earn
their
way
back,
and
give
them
the
support
and
resources
they
need
to
do
that?”

Kardashian,
who
successfully
lobbied
for
the
clemency
of
women
offenders
during
the
Trump
administration,
told
the
group
she
was,
“super
honored”
to
hear
their
stories,
and
that
she
thought
it
was
“so
important
to
amplify
them.”

Kardashian
memorialized
the
day
in
a
post
on
Instagram,
saying
that
while
there
was
“[m]uch
more
to
do,”
she’s
“grateful
for
progress”:

We
have
a
feeling
that
if
Kardashian
is
taking
time
out
of
her
busy
schedule
for
opportunities
like
this,
that
she
may
be
back
on
track
with
her
legal
studies
(in
fact,
she
even
took
a
photo
of
herself
with
Jessica
Jackson
and
Erin
Haney,
the
lawyers
she’s
been
working
with
for
her
apprenticeship).
Best
of
luck
to
her
as
she
advocates
for
criminal
justice
reform,
and
in
her
quest
to
take
the
bar
exam
and
become
a
lawyer.

First
with
Trump,
now
with
Kamala
Harris:
Kim
Kardashian
is
advocating
for
criminal
justice
reform
[Associated
Press]

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Jill
Roth-Gutman
back
to
our
pages.
Click


here

if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.

Imagine
yourself
having
a
relaxing
meal
among
fellow
lawyers
with
whom
you
have
something
in
common
other
than
attending
law
school
and
taking
the
bar
exam.
When
I
started
down
the
road
of
my
legal
career
almost
20
years
ago,
I
thought
it
was
impossible
to
find
such
a
community.
I
started
my
profession
as
a
government
attorney,
and
many
of
us
mostly
kept
to
themselves,
rarely
socializing
outside
of
work
hours.
I
also
had
children
a
few
years
into
my
career,
and
I
didn’t
know
of
any
working-mom
groups,
especially
lawyer-mom
groups
to
encourage
and
connect
with
in
a
similar
stage
of
life.
To
my
surprise,
I
am
now
part
of
more
than
one
community,
somewhat
because
I
have
my
own
firm
but
also
because
lawyer-mom
communities

do
exist
if
you
know
where
to
find
them.

Bar
Associations

The
first
community
—
the
route
I
pushed
back
on
20
years
ago
after
going
to
bar
events
as
a
young
attorney,
but
am
now
part
of
—
is
the
more
traditional
route.
Twenty
years
ago,
I
found
myself
one
of
the
few
female
attorneys
in
a
room
and
was
often
the
youngest
by
years.
I
didn’t
fit
into
the
ol’
boys
club.
About
two
years
ago,
I
decided
to
revisit
the
idea
of
joining
the
local
and
New
Jersey
State
Bar
Association
after
seeing
how
much
the
faces
of
those
practicing
had
changed
over
the
years.
I
specifically
became
more
active
in
the
NJSBA
Solo
and
Small
Firm
Section.
The
group
is
not
only
lawyer
moms
but
a
diverse
group
of
lawyers
that
multitask
always
and
offer
collaboration
on
practical
solutions
and
working
efficiently.
There
is
a
listserv
where
members
post
important
changes
in
the
law,
ask
questions,
and
offer
advice.
I
found
myself
even
picking
the
phone
up
to
ask
for
help
from
a
few
more-veteran
attorneys
—
help
that
is
priceless.
After
joining,
I
kicked
myself
that
I
didn’t
join

prior
to
opening
my
firm.
I
would
have
saved
countless
hours.

Lawyer
Moms
And
Social
Media

A
colleague
added
me
to
a
private
Facebook
group
for
statewide
lawyer
moms.
It
didn’t
even
dawn
on
me
that
a
group
like
this
would
exist
until
I
launched
my
own
firm.
In
2004,
I
was
attending
law
school
in
Boston
when
Mark
Zuckerberg
launched
Facebook.
It
is
safe
to
say
that
most
Facebook
groups
weren’t
up
and
running
yet,
especially
a
group
as
on
point
as
a
female
lawyer
group.
However,
in
the
past
few
years,
I’m
not
sure
how
I
managed
to
stay
oblivious
to
these
online
social
communities.
No
one
I
knew
was
talking
about
or
participating
in
them.

Members
post
parenting
questions,
and
ask
for
assistance
on
just
about
everything
in
and
out
of
the
legal
field.
A
few
months
into
joining,
a
mom
from
the
group
hosted
a
mom’s
night
out
dinner.
Since
I
was
trying
to
branch
out
and
network,
I
decided
to
go.
The
introvert
in
me
was
a
little
nervous,
but
they
embraced
me
as
if
we’d
known
each
other
for
years!
I
literally
laughed
for
two
hours
straight,
feeling
surprisingly
refreshed
and
energized
after
returning
home.

A
month
later,
I
couldn’t
stop
thinking
about
that
night.
I
glanced
over
my
calendar
and
realized
all
of
my
planned
social
events
revolved
around
school,
my
children’s
activities,
and
their
sports.
So,
I
did
what
any
socially
deprived
mom
would
do:
I
contacted
the
colleague
who
invited
me
to
the
group
to
see
if
we
could
schedule
another
meet
up
and
invited
the
statewide
group
to
breakfast
at
a
restaurant
I
wanted
to
try.
Four
women
showed
up,
and
just
as
with
the
previous
dinner,
we
were
a
natural
fit.
The
conversation
was
easy:
we
were
all
moms,
all
lawyers,
all
living
in
the
same
geographical
area,
all
trying
our
best.

A
few
months
went
by
and
I
reached
out
to
the
same
four
women
again.
We
posted
an
invitation
in
the
Facebook
group
and
this
time
nine
of
us
attended.
We
picked
another
date,
no
pressure,
informal,
and
low
cost
since
everyone
pays
their
own
way.
Whoever
can
attend,
attends.
At
one
breakfast,
the
attire
ranged
from
yoga
pants
to
power
suits.
Since
we
aren’t
on
the
bench,
no
judgment
is
allowed.

In
this
demanding
profession,
we
bond
over
staying
on
top
of
our
cases,
households,
and
families.
We
multitask
at
the
office
and
at
home.
We
exchange
battle
stories,
share
tips
and
show
support
for
one
another.
We
create
a
space
where
working
moms
can
laugh,
share
stories,
ask
for
advice,
and
remind
each
other
we
are
not
alone.

Building
a
supportive
community
of
like-minded
lawyer
moms
isn’t
about
where
we
went
to
law
school,
who’s
going
to
become
partner,
or
competing
with
one
another.
It’s
about
having
empathy
for
one
another,
asking
for
advice
one
moment,
and
brainstorming
how
to
solve
a
complex
legal
issue
the
next.

Creating
Community

Similar
communities
exist
all
over
the
country,
from
the
traditional
bar
association
to
the
Facebook
legal
communities.
If
you
don’t
live
close
to
like-minded
colleagues,
joining
a
Facebook
group
is
a
worthwhile
option
to
ward
off
any
feelings
of
isolation
and
provide
valuable
connections.
The
MothersEsquire
group
is
a
good
place
to
start!
MothersEsquire
helped
me
launch
my
business,
connected
me
to
my
work
wife/accountability
partner,
and
introduced
me
to
one
of
my
favorite
parenting
books,
“Untangled:
Guiding
Teenage
Girls
Through
the
Seven
Transitions
into
Adulthood”
by
Dr.
Lisa
Damour.
For
those
living
in
New
Jersey,
feel
free
to
reach
out
on
LinkedIn.
I’d
be
happy
to
connect
you
to
a
statewide
group,
especially
if
you
are
a
solo
or
lawyer
mom
trying
to
do
it
all/juggle
everything.
I
promise
we
are
all
partners.

Jill
Roth-Gutman
opened
her
niche
family
law
and
estate
planning
firm,
Roth-Gutman
Law
in
Voorhees,
New
Jersey
in
2022.
She
works
with
a
diverse
group
of
families
and
individuals
on
wills,
powers
of
attorney,
special
needs
guardianships,
adoptions,
consultations
for
foster
parents,
and
being
a
Guardian
ad
Litem
in
contested
custody
cases.
In
2016,
Jill
became
a
Child
Welfare
Law
Specialist,
certified
by
the
National
Association
of
Counsel
for
Children,
a
credentialing
organization
approved
by
the
ABA.
She
has
been
practicing
law
since
2006.
When
not
practicing
law,
Jill
enjoys
volunteering,
road
tripping
and
spending
time
with
family
and
friends.
More
about
Jill
can
be
found
on
her
website

www.rothgutmanlaw.com
and
she
can
be
reached
at

jill@rothgutmanlaw.com.

It’s
taken
14
months,
but
the
Ninth
Circuit
can
now
finally,

formally
declare
that
federal
judges

can’t
seize
children
sitting
quietly
in
the
courtroom
and
have
them
forcibly
handcuffed
to
the
jury
box.

Psychologically
torturing
a
crying
girl
is
bad?
Wow.
Truly
a
very
thorny
and
difficult
moral
and
ethical
question
deserving
over
a
year
to
hash
out.

And
the
punishment
for
the
judge
is…
nothing!
Huzzah
for
the
federal
judiciary!

In
February
2023,
Judge
Roger
Benitez
presided
over
a
revocation
hearing
of
a
man
hoping
to
serve
a
10-month
sentence
with
no
supervised
release
so
he
could
move
out
of
San
Diego
and
get
away
from
the
toxic
environment
and
provide
a
better
life
for
his
young
daughter.
Upon
hearing
about
the
man’s
daughter,
the
judge
hauled
her
out
of
the
gallery,
had
the
marshal
handcuff
her
to
the
jury
box.
The
judge
left
her
there
while
she
cried,
exacting
a
mental
toll
upon
both
the
child
and
the
father.
In
fact,
Judge
Benitez
admitted
that
he
hoped
to
inflict
stress
upon
both
describing
his
behavior
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
as
an
effort
to
“solve
two
equations
with
two
variables….”

After
he
finally
ordered
the
cuffs
removed:

But
he
did
not
allow
her
to
immediately
return
to
her
seat.
Instead
he
told
her,
“don’t
go
away.
Look
at
me.”
He
asked
her
how
she
liked
“sitting
up
there”
and
“the
way
those
cuffs
felt
on
you.”
Still
in
tears,
she
responded
that
she
“didn’t
like
it.”
He
told
her
she
was
“an
awfully
cute
young
lady”
but
that
if
she
didn’t
stay
away
from
drugs,
she
would
“wind
up
in
cuffs”
and
be
“right
back
there
where
I
put
you
a
minute
ago.”

Utterly
unhinged.
Judge
Benitez
defended
his
actions
as
a
sort
of
ad
hoc
Scared
Straight
program.
Given
the
damage
these
actions
cause
to
the
credibility
of
the
justice
system,
the
courts
have
to
send
a
strong
signal
that
this
cannot
be
tolerated.
And
yet….

Indeed,
this
whole
affair
may
not
have
come
to
light
had
it
not
been
for
some
heroic
Above
the
Law
tipsters.
The
Ninth
Circuit
only
announced
that
it
had
begun
an
inquiry
into
the
Benitez
incident

in
response
to
our
coverage.
As
the
final
order
notes:

There
was
significant
publicity
and
media
coverage
about
these
incidents.
The
initial
article
highlighting
the
Puente
Hearing
was
published
on
the
Above
the
Law
blog,
soon
followed
by
articles
in
the
San
Diego
Union-Tribune,
the
Los
Angeles
Times,
and
other
media
outlets.

So
what
has
the
Ninth
Circuit
done
to
protect
the
sanctity
of
its
member
courts?
It’s
not

exactly
nothing
as
described
above.
He
receives
a
public
reprimand
and
will
not
be
allowed
to
hear
criminal
cases
for
three
years.

EXCEPT….

Because
the
Judicial
Council
has
been
informed
that,
upon
assumption
of
senior
status
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
294(b),
Judge
Benitez,
with
the
approval
of
the
Chief
District
Judge
of
the
Southern
District
of
California,
elected
not
to
be
assigned
new
criminal
cases,
the
Judicial
Council
approves
and
confirms
this
arrangement
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
294(c)
by
limiting
Judge
Benitez’s
designation
of
approved
judicial
duties
as
to
newly-assigned
cases
to
non-criminal
civil
matters
for
three
years.

He
already
wasn’t
hearing
criminal
cases!
His
punishment
was
to
officially
bless
his
personal
desires.
Must
be
rough.
The
decision
also
allows
parties
to
seek
recusal
in
any
probationary
or
sentencing
matter
that
he
happens
to
get…
another
action
that
he’d
already
asked
for.

Of
course
Benitez
never
wanted
to
hear
criminal
cases
while
enjoying
senior
status.
The
criminal
docket
gets
in
the
way
of
the
work
that
actually
keeps
him
on
the
federal
bench:

helping
deep
pocketed
gun
lobbyists
lay
the
groundwork
for
more
school
shootings.

But
let’s
not
be
too
hard
on
the

content
of
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
decision.

Federal
courts
can’t
actually
do
much
to
discipline
their
colleagues.
Unless
it’s
the
Federal
Circuit,
which
has
decided
it
has
the
authority
to

pocket
impeach
a
sitting
judge
based
on
their
own
deep
medical
expertise
to
second-guess

the
director
of
medical
student
education
at
GWU
Medical
School.
But
most
federal
courts
refrain
from
such
power
grabs,
even
when
the
stakes
are
more
serious
and
a
solid
evidentiary
record
actually
exists.

Allegations
against
Alex
Kozinski

bounced
around
the
federal
judiciary
for
years
with
no
action.
And
if
mere
embarrassment
is
too
much,
investigations
of

egregious
harassment
or

involvement
in
systemic
tax
fraud
simply
evaporate
when
those
judges
voluntarily
walk
off
the
job.

And
that’s
before
we
even
get
to
the
lawlessness
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
an
entity
that
refuses
to
abide
by
even
the
relatively
toothless
rules
imposed
upon
other
federal
judges.
When
public
pressure
on
the
Court’s

damning

ethical

lapses
got
too
hot,
it
announced
a
new
ethics
code
to
much
fanfare…
and

started
openly
violating
it
within
weeks.

But
this
powerlessness
makes
the
14-month
delay
all
the
more
galling.
If
a
court
can’t
put
teeth
into
a
punishment,
it
becomes
all
the
more
essential
that
it
act
with
alacrity.
The

speed
of
the
condemnation
becomes
the
only
lever
the
judiciary
can
pull
to
protect
itself
from
the
damage
a
rogue
judge
can
cause.

Reuters
reports
that,
in
a
statement,
Benitez
responded,
“I
respectfully
disagree.”

Well,
at
least
he’s
learned
absolutely
nothing
from
the
whole
affair.
Maybe
the
Ninth
Circuit
should
consider
cuffing
him
to
a
jury
box?

(Full
opinion
on
the
next
page…)

Panel
reprimands
California
federal
judge
for
cuffing
13-year-old
girl
[Reuters]

Earlier:

Federal
Judge
Handcuffs
Crying
13-Year-Old
Girl
Attending
Father’s
Hearing

Formal
Complaint
Lodged
Against
Federal
Judge
For
Handcuffing
Crying
13-Year-Old
Girl

6
Months
Later,
Still
No
Discipline
For
Federal
Judge
Who
Handcuffed
Crying
13-Year-Old
Girl

Joe
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 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.

Ed.
note:
This
is
part
of
a
series
detailing
Gen
AI’s
impact
on
the
legal
profession
from
our
friends
at
Thomson
Reuters.
For
a
further
deep
dive
on
Gen
AI,
download
the The
Business
Case
for
AI
At
Your
Law
Firm
here.

Law
firms
of
all
sizes
have
an
opportunity
to
adjust
the
way
they
work
with
generative
AI.

Generative
AI
can
help
all
legal
professionals
stretch
their
idea
of what
technology
can
do
and
create
important
opportunities
for
growth.

What
is
generative
AI?

Generative
AI
is
a type
of
machine
learning that
creates
drafts
of
content
like
documents,
images,
and
songs
in
response
to
prompts
from
the
user.
ChatGPT
from
OpenAI
is
one
of
the
best-known
generative
AI
tools,
though
several
other
offerings
have
become
widely
available.
These
tools
comb
through
large
volumes
of
content
to
create
“the
best”
response
to
the
prompt. 

“Generative
AI
is
smart
enough
to
give
a
plausible
answer
to
most
prompts,”
says
Zach
Warren,
who
leads
Technology
and
Innovation
Content
for
the
Thomson
Reuters
Institute.
“From
there,
the
human
using
the
tool
should
decide
whether
the
material
is
accurate
and
edits
it.
It
can
be
a
great
way
to
get
a
solid
first
draft,
even
for
legal
issues.” 

Many
legal
professionals
are
already
considering
the
use
of
generative
AI
in
their
legal
practice.
In
a
recent
survey,
the Thomson
Reuters
Institute
found that
82%
of
legal
professionals
believe
that
the
capability can be
used
in
legal
work.
Only
51%
believed
that
it should be
used
in
legal
work.
The
difference
suggests
that
legal
professionals
see
the
potential
but
are
unsure
if
they
can
trust
the
available tools
to
deliver
accurate
legal
work
product.

Warren
offers
several
ways
lawyers
can
use
generative
AI
to
create
efficiencies
in
their
practice.
For
instance, you
can
ask
the
tool
to
write
a
brief
or
contract
based
on
a
set
of
facts.
Once
the
tool
generates
a
draft,
you
check
the
citations,
terms,
and
narrative,
editing
the
draft
rather
than
starting
from
scratch.
You
can
also
use
generative
AI
tools
to
draft
an
RFP
response
to
lighten
the
load
in
business
development. 

Generative
AI
also
has
the
potential
to
synthesize
large
amounts
of
data.
For
instance,
you
can
upload
four
contracts
to
an
AI
tool
and
ask
to
see
the
similarities
and
differences.
You
can
analyze
spreadsheets
full
of
data
or
get
plain
language
answers
to
legal
questions. 

Impact
of
generative
AI
on
legal
practice

Generative
AI
is
poised
to
create
incredible
efficiencies
and
cut
down
on
the
number
of
hours
that
lawyers
work.
Warren
says
that
with
a
trusted
tool,
a
legal
professional
may
be
able
to
cut
down
a
task
such a brief
writing
from
ten
hours
to
even
one
hour.

“That
means
the
differentiating
factor
for
lawyers
won’t
be
time.
It
will
be
how
well
people
manage
their
cases,”
says
Warren.

Law
firms
will
all
need
to
leverage
their
efficiency
gains
and
still
bill
for
the
value
they
provide.
This
dynamic
plays
out
differently
depending
on
firm
size.
Solo
attorneys
and
smaller
firms
will
find
that
their
innovative
use
of
generative
AI
enables
them
to
take
on
matters
they
couldn’t
before.
Larger
firms
will
find
that
their
clients
expect
them
to
use
generative
AI,
and
they
will
need
to
adapt
processes
and
pricing
to
properly
capture
value. 

Let’s
look
at
the
impact
of
generative
AI
on
law
firms,
depending
on
their
size.

Solo
attorneys
use
generative
AI
to
grow

Generative
AI
can
be
a
powerful
helper
for
solo
attorneys
looking
to
grow
their
practice.
For
solos
billing
by
the
hour,
growth
is
limited
by
the
number
of
hours
in
a
day.
Even
those
who
price
by
the
matter
are
limited
by
their
own
ability
to
get
through
the
work
in
a
reasonable
time
frame.
With AI-powered
legal
research and know-how from
a
trusted
source,
you
can
cut
significant
time
from
both
transactional
and
litigation
matters.

“This
is
pure
time
savings,”
Warren
says.
“You’re
not
giving
different
advice,
but
maybe
you
can
take
on
more
clients
or
do
more
work.”

You
may
be
more
available
to
take
client
calls
or
meet
with
them
when
you
are
spending
less
time
researching
and
drafting.
You
may
also
be
better
positioned
to
offer
flat-rate
pricing,
which
clients
may
appreciate.

Rather
than
using
the
extra
time
to
take
on
more
work,
some
attorneys
may
use
generative
AI
to
deliver
the
same
amount
of
work
in
less
time.
That
gives
them
the
opportunity
to
spend
more
time
with
family
or
on
their
own
personal
growth.
Either
way,
if
you’re
spending
less
time
on
tasks
like
research
or
form
submissions,
you
have
more
time
to
spend
how
you
want
to
spend
it. 

Small
law
firms
innovate
through
generative
AI

Small
law
firms
–
those
with
up
to
10
attorneys
–
also
benefit
from
the
time
savings
that
their
solo
counterparts
experience.
They
can
take
on
more
matters
with
their
lean
teams,
and
they
can explore
new
practice
areas
more
easily,
especially
with AI-powered
know-how
tools. 

Small
law
firms
that
adopt
generative
AI
early
are
likely
to
be
seen
as
innovative
and
forward-thinking.
Rather
than
waiting
for
the
market
to
settle
on
uses
for
generative
AI,
early
adopters
can
experiment
based
on
the
needs
of
the
firm
or
the
interests
of
the
attorneys. 

“Small
law
firms
have
so
much
flexibility
to
experiment
and
implement
new
tools,”
Warren
says.
“If
you
have
individual
attorneys
who
are
taking
the
time
to
learn
this,
you’ll
find
there
are
so
many
more
ways
to
use
the
tools.” 

Where
larger
firms
may
wait
on
committees
or
consultants
to
approve
an
AI
approach,
smaller
firms
can
move
quickly
to
take
advantage
of
the
capabilities. 

Small
firms
may
also
benefit
more
immediately
because
they
can
get
even
more
from
their
new
associates.
“Training
and
getting
people
out
of
law
school
is
going
to
be
interesting,”
Warren
says.
“Documents,
legal
research,
writing
contracts
are
tasks
that
can
be
streamlined
or
automated
or
simplified
with
generative
AI,
and
they
are
also
tasks
that
most
often
fall
to
newer
associates.
Firms
that
use
generative
AI
will
be
able
to
move
new
associates
to
more
strategic
work
more
quickly.” 

This
is
a
selling
point
for
clients,
who
don’t
want
to
pay
to
train
new
associates.
It’s
also
a
differentiator
in
hiring.
Small
law
firms
can
compete
better
in
the
war
for
talent
if
they
are
able
to
promise
less
grunt
work
and
more
opportunities
to
work
directly
with
partners
and
clients. 

“Generative
AI
can
be
a
huge
boon
to
associates
looking
to
accelerate
their
career,”
Warren
says.  

Mid-size
law
firms
use
generative
AI
to
compete
on
a
new
level

Warren
says
that
on
the
whole,
AI
can
be
seen
as
an equalizer
for
both
small
and
midsize
firms.
“You’re
competing
with
enterprise
firms
that
can
just
throw
people
at
a
problem,”
he
says. Generative
AI
like
Chat GPT,
Copilot
and
legal-specific
tools can
act
as
a
force
multiplier
for
smaller
firms
that
don’t
have
armies
of
new
associates. 

Partners
are
particularly
aware
of
this
dynamic.
In
fact,
in
the
Thomson
Reuters
Institute
study,
“ChatGPT
&
Generative
AI
within
Law
Firms,”
partners
were
the
most
likely
to
respond
that
generative
AI should be
used
in
legal
work,
outpacing
the
total
59%
to
51%.
“If
you’ve
made
partner,
you’re
thinking
strategically
about
cases
and
about
what’s
right
for
the
firm
and
the
business,”
Warren
says.
“You’re
aware
of
the
efficiencies
the
tools
bring,
of
the
way
those
efficiencies
could
lower
costs
or
boost
growth.”
For
an
attorney
eager
to
make
a
name
for
themselves
in
the
firm,
helping
the
firm
learn
and
implement AI
could
be
an
important
career
booster. 

“This
is
the
time
for
firms
to
empower
people
who
are
curious,”
Warren
says.
“Right
now,
the
interest
in
generative
AI
is
high
but
adoption
is
low.
Being
the
person
who
jumpstarts
the
AI
initiative
in
your
firm
can
be
very
powerful
for
career
development.” 

Aspiring
AI
experts
can
look
at AI-powered
document
review
tools, know-how,
and legal
research platforms
as
possible
new
tools
for
the
firm. 

Global
large
law
firms
match
client
needs
with
generative
AI

“Generative
AI
represents
a
shift
in
how
global
large
law
firms
approach
their
business,”
says
Warren.
That
could
mean
that
they’ll
see
more
client
pressure
to
go
to
flat-rate
pricing.
Or
that
corporate
clients
could
decide
to
keep
more
matters
in
house.
“Clients
want
big
firms
to
use
technology.
They
also
don’t
want
to
pay
firms
to
handle
things
they
can
do
themselves.”

Warren
identifies
this
as
a
particular
issue
for
the
global
large
law
firms,
versus
smaller
firms,
because
their
clients
tend
to
be
the
largest
corporations.
They
have
large
legal
teams
themselves,
and
they
are
keen
to
manage
costs
as
closely
as
possible.
The Association
of
Corporate
Counsel
(ACC)
recently
reported nearly
60%
of
corporate
legal
departments
have
someone
fully
dedicated
to
tech
and
operations.
They
are
automating
their
processes,
and
they
expect
their
law
firms
to
do
the
same. 

“Small
companies
may
appreciate
you
using
generative
AI,”
Warren
says,
“But
large
companies
will
expect
it.” 

Global
large
law
firms
will
have
to
navigate
through
the
same
disruptive
dynamics
that
small
and
mid-size
firms
do,
but
on
a
greater
scale.
You
will
have
to
continually
look
at
pricing
models
to
be
sure
you’re
capturing
the
value
of
your
work
product.
You’ll
have
to
look
at
how
you
onboard
new
associates,
what
work
you
have
them
cut
their
teeth
on,
and
how
you
mentor
them
through
the
early
years
of
their
practice.  

Firms
may
find
that
generative
AI
changes
much
about
their
businesses.
Not
because
it
replaced
lawyers,
but
because
it disrupted
the
status
quo around
the
billable
hour,
overworked
associates,
tedious
work,
and
impossible
goals
so
completely.
It
can’t
replace
expertise,
but
a
combination
of
best-in-class
AI-powered
technology
could
significantly
reshape
the
way
global
large
law
firms
and
their
clients
do
business
together.

Conclusion

“Generative
AI
will
affect
all
lawyers,
no
matter
which
size
firm
you
work
for,”
Warren
says.
He
urges
legal
practitioners
to
start
exploring
the
capabilities
now.
And
to
understand
how
different
platforms
verify
their
results.
“Don’t
use
something
you
can’t
trust,”
he
says.

Those
firms
that
lean
into
the
capabilities
can
start
to
realize
significant
time
savings
and
perhaps
shift
their
approach
to
pricing,
employee
training,
and
retention
to
reduce
costs
and
grow
revenue.
Solo
attorneys
can
take
on
more
matters
without
working
more
hours
–
or
they
can
spend
less
time
working
while
maintaining
their
income.
Small
and
mid-size
firms
can
compete
with
larger
firms,
either
by
taking
on
more
matters
or
by
expanding
their
practice
areas.
Global
large
law
firms
will
use
generative
AI
to
keep
up
with
their
corporate
clients
and
offer
greater
value
in
less
time. 

Generative
AI
is
only
as
good
as
its
source
material.
See
how
Thomson
Reuters
is providing
trusted
answers
through
AI. 

Zach
Warren
leads
technology
and
innovation
content
for
the
Thomson
Reuters
Institute.
Zach
has
been
writing
and
speaking
on
tech
and
innovation
for
more
than
a
decade,
and
with
Thomson
Reuters,
charts
the
future
of
professional
services
industries,
including
legal,
tax,
and
risk
&
fraud,
through
writing,
podcasts,
speaking
engagements,
and
more. 

Every
year,
tens
of
thousands
of
students
enroll
in
law
school,
each
with
a
dream
in
their
hearts
of
saving
the
world.
Whatever
their
public-interest
cause
may
be,
only
a
select
few
will
go
on
to
accept
a
position
that
goes
hand-in-hand
with
their
do-gooder
career
goals.

Some
law
schools
are
better
than
others
when
it
comes
to
getting
their
graduates
a
leg
up
on
the
competition
for
one
of
these
coveted
jobs.
The
American
Bar
Association
recently
released
new
employment
data
for
the
Class
of
2023,
and
thanks
to
an
analysis
made
by

Reuters,
we
now
know
which
law
schools
sent
the
highest
percentage
of
graduates
into
government
and
public
interest
work.

Altogether,
11.1%
of
the
class
of
2023
went
into
government
jobs
(e.g.,
positions
with
local,
state,
and
federal
entities
as
well
as
the
military),
and
8.9%
found
public
interest
roles
(e.g.,
those
working
as
public
defenders,
on
behalf
of
labor
unions,
or
in
Legal
Services
Corp.-funded
jobs).

If
you’re
a
service-minded
future
lawyer,
these
are
the
employment
statistics
you
need
to
see.
Here
are
the
top
10
(technically
11
thanks
to
a
tie)
law
schools
on
the
list:

1.
CUNY:
55.34%
2.
UDC:
43.75%
3.
Albany:
36.36%
4.
Northern
Kentucky:
34.58%
5.
Buffalo:
33.12%
6.
Florida
A&M:
33.04%
7.
Cincinnati:
32.28%
8.
UC
Davis:
32.02%
8.
Wisconsin:
32.02%
9.
Penn
State
Dickinson:
32.00%
10.
Creighton:
31.97%

You
can
access
the
full
list
by
clicking

here.

Congratulations
to
all
of
these
schools
on
helping
their
graduates
secure
public
service
jobs.
Check
back
with
us
next
year
to
see
if
CUNY
is
able
to
maintain
its
place
as
a
pipeline
to
public
interest
work.

For
government
and
public
interest
jobs,
these
law
schools
are
tops
[Reuters]

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.