Keeping Out The Kardashians – See Also – Above the Law

Defending
The
Bar
Exam
Points
To
An
Unexpected
Icon:
You
can
acknowledge
the
bar
exam
sucks
AND
that
Kim
Kardashian
isn’t
ready
to
be
a
lawyer.
$200k
Super
Bonus?!:
Cahill
goes
above
and
beyond
for
some
of
their
2018-2021
associates!
Even
More
Bonuses!:
Check
out
Orrick
and
Katten!
Could
You
Stop
Doing
This
One?:
Sabrina
Carpenter
tells
the
White
House
to
stop
using
her
music.
Looking
For
The
Best
Online
Law
Programs?:
These
are
the
schools
you
should
apply
to!

Lawyers Will Now Have To Pinky Swear Not To Be Jerks – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


Beginning
in
2026,
which
state
will
become
the
first
to
require
attorneys
to
take
an
annual
civility
oath
to
“conduct
themselves
with
dignity,
courtesy,
and
integrity”?


Hint:
While
this
is
the
first
yearly
pledge,
24
states
require
attorneys
to
make
a
one-time
civility
promise
when
they
are
first
admitted
to
practice.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

The Post-Thanksgiving Turkey Trot: Who’s The Biggest Turkey? – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)

The
standard
definition
of
“turkey”
is
a
fowl
eaten
on
Thanksgiving
Day.
But
there’s
another,
slang,
definition: In
AI
speak,
a
turkey
“can
mean
a
person
or
thing
that
is
a
failure,
incompetent,
or
a
dud.”
Close
enough
for
purposes
of
reviewing
some
of
the
most
outrageous
faux
pas
in
our
profession
this
year.
There
are
so
many
that
it
is
difficult
to
choose.
But
let’s
start
with
several
judicial
turkeys.

A
judge
of
the
Missouri
St.
Charles
Circuit
Court
loved
Elvis
so
much
that
he
wore
an
Elvis
wig
and
played
his
music
during
court
proceedings.
(I
am
not
making
this
up.)
He
also
discussed
politics
while
on
the
bench.
The
Missouri
Judicial
Commission
did
not
take

kindly
to
the
judge’s
antics
.
So
they
cut
a
deal
with
the
judge:
six
months
unpaid
suspension,
after
which
he
would
return
to
the
bench
for
another
18
months
and
then
resign
with
the
understanding
that
his
judicial
career
would
then
be
over
permanently.

Meanwhile,
in
Alabama,
for
a
longtime
Lauderdale
County
circuit
judge,
it’s
not
turkey
but

a
long
stretch
in
the
pokey

awaiting
him
when
sentenced
later
this
month.
A
jury
convicted
him
on
17
counts,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
using
his
office
for
personal
gain,
lying
to
a
grand
jury,
and
lying
to
state
auditors
looking
at
why
there
was
almost
$150,000
that
couldn’t
be
accounted
for
in
two
accounts
that
the
judge
oversaw.
Funds
were
used
for
vacations,
personal
expenses,
and
to
cover
overdrafts
in
his
personal
bank
account.
The
judge
blamed
“sloppy
bookkeeping”
during
COVID-19.
Puhleeze.

 All
but
one
of
the
convictions
are
felonies
and
carry
various
sentences
from
two
to
20
years.
Do
they
serve
turkey
in
the
pokey
or
only
crow?

How
can
judicial
officers
be
such
turkeys
as
to
trash
their
careers?
Lack
of
judgment
perhaps?
(Pun
intentional.)

I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn’t
include
some
lawyers
competing
for
the
turkey
award.

We’re
still
in
Alabama,
but
this
time
it’s
about
an
Alabama
lawyer
who
has
been
accused 
of
trying
to
kill
her
husband
with
fentanyl,
not
once
but
three
separate
times.
The
husband
is
alive,
but
the
lawyer
has
been
charged
with
attempted
murder
and
other
charges.
Married
to
a
former
Auburn
football
player
for
more
than
30
years,
the
lawyer,
Sara
Baker,
has
been
her
husband’s
caretaker
since
he
suffered
a
stroke
a
few
years
ago.
Even
if
driven
to
distraction
and
beyond,

trying
to
murder
him
and
almost
succeeding
,
her
actions
do
not
look
good
for
her
wedding
vows
“till
death
do
us
part”
nor
the
attorney
oath
she
took.
Baker
was
obviously
trying
to
advance
her
spouse’s
date
of
death
on
her
calendar.

How
many
hallucination
cases
can
we
take
in
one
year?
Those
attorneys
are
also
running
in
the
turkey
trot.
The
flock
of
hallucinating
attorneys
(and
even
some
judges)
continues
to
grow.
In
every
case,
there
have
been
sincere,
remorseful
apologies,
promises
to
never
do
it
again,
to
take
whatever
remedial
steps
have
been
already
taken
and
will
be
taken.
Yada,
yada.

Vigilantes
had
their
place
in
the
Old
West,
and
they
are
now
reborn.
Back
then,
they
were
sometimes
crusaders
for
justice,
depending
how
you
defined
“justice.”
These
21st
century
vigilantes
are
lawyers,
they
don’t
carry
sidearms,
and
they
have
nothing
to
do
with
horse
stealing
or
horse
trading.

These
vigilantes
deal
with
horse
shit
,
aka
hallucinations
in
briefs.
Their
weapons
are
words,
not
guns.

The
lawyers
track
down
AI
snafus
in
court
filings.
They
collect
the
most
outrageous examples
and
post
them
online,
hoping
to
shame
the
offending
lawyer(s)
and
reduce
what
is
now
called 
“AI
Slop.”
Essentially,
they
are
trying
to
put
a
stop
to
that
slop.
An
attorney
in
France
has
created
a
database
of
cases
in
which
AI
hallucinations
have
appeared.
It
lists
more
than
600
cases
as
of
mid-September
2025.
The
database
includes
the
nature
of
the
hallucination,
the
outcome
and
sanctions,
and
any
monetary
penalty.

Take
a
looksee

if
you’re
curious. 
  

If
public
shaming
doesn’t
work,
should
punishment
return
to
the
medieval
stocks?
And
no,
I
am
not
that
old,
but
something
has
to
be
done
to
prevent
attorneys
(and
judges)
from
running
afowl
[sic]
of
proper
procedure.
How
hard
can
that
be?




Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact

it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at 
[email protected].

Fastcase Files Lawsuit Against Alexi Over Alleged Data Misuse and Trademark Infringement

Legal
research
technology
company

Fastcase
,
which
is
now
owned
by

Clio
,
has
filed
a
federal
lawsuit
against
AI-powered
legal
research
platform

Alexi
,
alleging
breach
of
contract,
trademark
infringement
and
trade
secret
misappropriation,
relating
to
its
use
of
data
licensed
from
Fastcase.

The
complaint,
filed
Nov.
26
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
accuses
the
Canadian
company
of
transforming
a
limited
data
license
into
a
competing
commercial
product.

Although
Alexi
has
not
yet
formally
responded
to
the
lawsuit,
its
founder
and
CEO

Mark
Doble

told
me
yesterday
afternoon
that
he
denies
any
wrongdoing
and
that
he
believes
the
lawsuit
is
based
on
a
misunderstanding
of
the
original
licensing
agreement
that
came
to
light
during
Clio’s
recent

closing
of
its
purchase
of
vLex
,
which
had

merged
with
Fastcase
in
2023
.

According
to
the
complaint,
Fastcase
and
Alexi
(formerly
known
as
Alexsei)
entered
into
a
data
license
agreement
in
December
2021.
At
that
time,
the
complaint
says,
Alexi
operated
as
what
it
described
as
a
“research
institution,”
employing
staff
attorneys
who
used
AI-assisted
passage-retrieval
technology
to
prepare
legal
research
memoranda
for
clients
within
24
hours.

The
agreement,
the
complaint
alleges,
granted
Alexi
access
to
Fastcase’s
proprietary
legal
database
solely
for
“internal
research
purposes”

specifically,
research
conducted
by
Alexi’s
own
lawyers
in
preparing
client
memoranda.
The
license
explicitly
prohibited
using
the
data
for
commercial
purposes,
competitive
purposes
or
publishing
or
distributing
the
data
in
any
form,
Fastcase
alleges.

(Although
Fastcase
filed
a
copy
of
the
licensing
agreement
with
the
court,
it
did
so
under
seal,
so
it
cannot
be
viewed
by
the
public.)

Fastcase,
founded
in
1999,
merged
with
vLex
in
2023
and
was
subsequently

acquired
by
Clio
for
$1
billion

in
a
transaction
that
closed
Nov.
10

described
in
the
complaint
as
“one
of
the
most
significant
transactions
in
legal
technology
history.”

At
Issue
Is
Fastcase
Data

The
lawsuit
centers
on
Fastcase’s
claim
that
Alexi
fundamentally
changed
its
business
model
while
continuing
to
rely
on
Fastcase’s
data
under
the
original
restricted
license.

Beginning
in
2023,
Fastcase
alleges,
Alexi
shifted
away
from
its
lawyer-staffed
memorandum
service
and
began
building
a
direct-to-consumer
AI
legal
research
platform
that
competes
with
Fastcase.
According
to
the
complaint,
Alexi
removed
the
“internal
research”
component
entirely
and
began
publishing
Fastcase-sourced
case
law
directly
to
end
users.

The
complaint
cites
public
statements
by
Alexi’s
CEO
Doble,
including
a
March
2024
LinkedIn
post
in
which
he
described
Alexi
as
“increasingly
a
legitimate
alternative
to
incumbent
legal
research
providers.”

Doble
reportedly
stated
that
relative
weaknesses
including
“access
to
additional
content
(primary
&
secondary)
and
primary
law
meta-data
(e.g.
shepardizing)”
were
“easily
solvable
in
the
next
3-6
months.”

Following
an

$11
million
Series
A
funding
round

in
June
2024,
the
complaint
alleges,
Alexi
expanded
its
platform
to
include
document
analysis,
case
management
tools
and
other
features
typical
of
full-scale
legal
research
providers.

Evidence
Cited
in
the
Complaint

As
evidence
of
Alexi’s
unauthorized
use,
Fastcase’s
complaint
points
to
several
public
demonstrations
of
Alexi’s
platform

including

one
I
recorded
with
the
company
last
May

for
my


How
It
Works

video
series.
In
that
video,
according
to
the
complaint,
Alexi’s
Chief
Revenue
Officer
Daniel
Diamond
“showcased
direct
access
to
Fastcase
Data
and
continued
to
use
Fastcase’s
registered
marks
within
its
platform.”



The
complaint
includes
this
screencap
of
my
‘How
It
Works’
interview
with
Alexi,
allegedly
to
show
unauthorized
use
of
Fastcase
data
and
trademarks.

The
complaint
also
cites
an
October
2024

demonstration
for
HeyCounsel

in
which
Diamond
presented
Alexi’s
AI
chat
interface,
stating
that
Alexi’s
model
was
“trained
on
over
30
million
pairs
of
questions
and
answers
that
are
derived
from
caselaw.”

The
complaint
includes
screenshots
from
those
two
demos
that
show
Alexi’s
interface
displaying
full-text
case
law
with
a
button
stating
“View
this
document
on
Fastcase,”
which
Fastcase
characterizes
as
unauthorized
use
of
its
trademark
and
an
implied
affiliation
that
was
never
authorized.

Diamond
also
reportedly
acknowledged
that
Alexi
had
moved
beyond
its
original
passage-retrieval
tool
and
now
acted
“as
a
wrapper
on
top
of
third-party
AI
models
using
Fastcase
Data,”
the
complaint
alleges.

Alexi
CEO
Denies
Wrongdoing

In
an
interview
yesterday,
Alexi
CEO
Doble
denied
that
the
company
had
violated
its
agreement
with
Fastcase
and
expressed
his
hope
that
the
lawsuit
can
be
resolved
quickly.

Although
he
told
me
that
he
is
limited
in
what
he
can
say
because
of
the
pendency
of
the
lawsuit,
he
attributed
it
to
a
“massive
miscommunication”
and
said
that
Alexi
is
“doing
everything
we
can
to
try
and
resolve
it
as
fast
as
we
can.”

The
full
text
of
the
license
agreement
is
under
seal
in
the
lawsuit
at
Clio’s
request.
But
Doble
said
he
has
always
been
careful
never
to
operate
beyond
the
license’s
scope.

The
reason
it
came
to
a
head
now,
Doble
suggested,
is
that
Clio
only
became
aware
of
the
agreement
during
the
final
weeks
before
the
Nov.
10
date
on
which
it

completed
its
acquisition
of
vLex
.

Until
then,
he
said,
no
one
at
Fastcase
or
vLex
had
ever
before
questioned
the
licensing
agreement
or
Alexi’s
actions
under
it.
His
relationship
with
both
companies
had
always
been
cordial
and
cooperative,
he
said,
even
to
the
point
of
their
engineers
having
worked
together
to
develop
some
of
the
functionality
now
at
issue.

He
disputes
the
complaint’s
allegation
that
Alexi
shifted
its
business
model
after
entering
into
the
licensing
agreement.
From
the
company’s
founding,
he
said,
its
mission
was
always
to
fully
automate
the
production
of
research
memos.
While
it
initially
employed
lawyers
to
control
the
accuracy
of
its
memos,
its
goal
was
always
to
become
fully
automated,
and
that
was
clearly
communicated
to
Fastcase,
he
said.

Doble
describes
the
misunderstanding
around
the
terms
of
the
agreement
as
being
the
result
of
a
“bit
of
broken
telephone”
in
the
transitions
over
the
years
from
Fastcase
to
vLex
and
then
vLex
to
Clio.

“It’s
clear
there’s
a
lot
of
information
that
Clio
doesn’t
have
that
we
have
that
now
we’re
just
trying
to
go
through
and
work
with
them
on
explaining,”
he
said.

October
Notice
of
Breach

Doble
said
the
first
he
heard
of
any
problem
was
in
late
October,
when
he
received
a
phone
call
from
a
vLex
executive,
which
was
then
followed
on
Oct.
27
by
vLex
sending
Alexi
a
“Notice
of
Material
Breach”
demanding
the
company
cure
its
breaches
within
30
days
as
required
by
the
agreement.

According
to
the
complaint,
Alexi’s
counsel
responded
on
Nov.
3,
denying
any
breach
and
expressly
admitting
that
Alexi
had
used
Fastcase
data
to
train
its
generative
AI
models.

The
response
stated:
“The
intention
of
the
Agreement
was
never
to
preclude
Alexi
from
using
Fastcase
Data
as
source
material
for
Alexi’s
generative
AI
product;
that
is
exactly
what
Alexi
was
paying
Fastcase
nearly
a
quarter
million
dollars
for
annually.”

Fastcase
characterizes
this
as
an
acknowledgment
of
conduct
prohibited
by
the
agreement’s
plain
terms
and
notes
that
Alexi
stated
its
intention
to
continue
using
the
data
“as
it
had
been.”

After
the
30-day
cure
period
expired
without
resolution,
Fastcase
terminated
the
agreement
and
filed
this
lawsuit.

A
Clio
spokesperson
declined
to
say
anything
more
about
the
allegations
of
the
lawsuit
beyond
what
is
alleged
in
the
complaint.

“Clio
takes
its
contractual
obligations
and
our
responsibility
as
stewards
of
our
intellectual
property
very
seriously,”
the
spokesperson
said.
“We
follow
established
processes
to
ensure
our
licensed
data
is
used
appropriately
in
order
to
protect
the
integrity
of
our
content
library.”

Legal
Allegations

The
complaint
alleges
that
Alexi
materially
breached
the
Data
License
Agreement
by
using
Fastcase
data
to
train
and
develop
Alexi’s
commercial
AI
legal
research
product
and
in
other
ways.

It
also
asserts
that
Alexi
violated
Fastcase’s
trademarks
and
used
the
Fastcase
name
and
trademarks
in
its
interface
and
marketing
materials.

Perhaps
most
significantly
the
complaint
alleges
that
Alexi
misappropriated
trade
secrets
through
its
unauthorized
use
of
Fastcase’s
database.

Fastcase
is
seeking
extensive
remedies,
including
a
declaratory
judgement
that
Alexi
materially
breached
the
contract,
a
permanent
injunction,
compensatory
damages,
and
disgorgement
of
all
revenues
and
profits
from
unauthorized
use.

‘A
Huge
Misunderstanding’

Some
of
you
reading
this
may
be
wondering
if
this
is

déjà
vu
 all
over
again,
as
this
blog
continues
to
follow
the

long-running
litigation
of
Thomson
Reuters
v.
ROSS
Intelligence
.

Yes,
that
lawsuit
involves
an
established,
Canada-based
legal
research
company
suing
a
Canada-based
legal
research
startup,
much
as
this
one
involves
the
Canada-based
legal
tech
giant
Clio
suing
the
Canada-based
Alexi.

But
in
this
case,
Doble
expressed
hope
that
Canada
connection
would
work
in
favor
of
a
quick
resolution.

“We’re
a
Canadian
legal
tech
company
and
Clio
is
the
Canadian
darling
legal
tech
company,”
he
said.
“I
still
have
a
ton
of
respect
for
what
they’ve
done

we
all
at
Alexi
look
up
to
them.
They’re
an
amazing
company.

“I
just
think
there’s
a
huge
misunderstanding,
miscommunication,
and
I’m
confident
it’ll
be
resolved
pretty
quickly.”

The
case
is
assigned
to
Judge
Richard
J.
Leon
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
case
number
1:25-cv-04159.

Fastcase
is
represented
by
attorneys
from
Wilson
Sonsini
Goodrich
&
Rosati,
including
Paul
N.
Harold
in
the
firm’s
Washington,
D.C.,
office.

From Business Plan To Cornerstone Prompt: Narrowing The Gap Between Idea And Implementation When Starting A Law Firm – Above the Law

For
decades,
conventional
wisdom
was
that
a
business
plan
was
a
necessary
prerequisite
to
launching
a
law
firm.
Trouble
was,
drafting
a
comprehensive
business
plan
gave
lawyers
an
excuse
to
lose
themselves
in
analysis
paralysis

endless
research,
interviews
with
colleagues,
and
economic
projections
built
on
hypotheticals

when
that
time
would
have
been
better
spent
talking
to
real
clients
and
building
momentum.
What’s
more,
when
lawyers
would
finally
emerge
from
their
months-long
planning
cocoon,
their
predictions
invariably
collided
with
reality,
sending
them
back
to
the
drawing
board
for
more
prognostication.  

With
the
advent
of
the

move
fast
and
break
things

tech
era,
formal
business
plans
gave
way
to
lighter
tools
like
the

business
model
canvas

and

pitch
decks

and

SWOT
analyses
.
These
were
easier
to
complete,
but
they
still
tended
to
be
one-time
exercises:
useful
for
clarifying
direction,
less
helpful
for
driving
day-to-day
implementation
once
the
firm
actually
launched.

With
AI,
everything
shifts.
Behold
the
Cornerstone
Prompt:
a
device
that
doesn’t
just
declare
your
firm’s
reason
for
being

it
embeds
that
purpose
into
every
formation
step
that
follows.
In
other
words,
the
Cornerstone
Prompt
fuses
design
with
deployment.
It
takes
the
big
ideas
in
your
head
and
enables
you
to
implement
them,
right
now,
while
the
energy
is
alive
and
the
moment
is
yours.

A

cornerstone
,
as
Wikipedia
puts
it,
is
the
first
stone
set
in
a
masonry
foundation

the
reference
point
for
every
stone
that
comes
after.
Get
that
first
stone
right,
and
the
whole
structure
rises
true.
That’s
what
the
Cornerstone
Prompt
does
for
your
firm:
it’s
the
first
stone
you
set
with
intention,
so
everything
you
build
from
there
aligns,
strengthens,
and
stands
for
something
unmistakably
yours. 

Sidenote:
The
Cornerstone
Prompt
draws
inspiration
from
Connecticut
criminal
defense
attorney

Jay
Ruane
,
who
introduced
a
comprehensive
“Master
Prompt”
system
at
last
month’s

Best
Era

AI
Conference.
Jay
uses
his
Master
Prompt
to
run
a
thriving
practice.
Think
of
the
Cornerstone
Prompt
as
the
focused
starter
slice
of
that
larger
system

the
foundation
you
can
build
on.
(If
you
want
a
full-scale,
firm-running
prompt
of
your
own,
you
can
reach
out
to
Jay
directly.)


Step
1:
Commit
Your
Vision
To
Paper
With
A
Guided
Interview

To
develop
your
Cornerstone
Prompt,
you’ll
want
to
start
by
answering
the
following
series
of
questions.
You
can
type
out
the
responses
or
use
AI-powered
dictation
tools
to
give
a
stream-of-consciousness
response.
Unlike
with
a
formal
business
plan,
grammar
and
precision
don’t
matter
at
this
juncture.
You
just
want
to
capture
your
ideas;
AI
will
handle
the
details.
Below
is
a
condensed
version
of
the
questions:

  • Purpose:
    Why
    this
    firm,
    why
    now?
    What
    client
    problem
    or
    market
    gap
    are
    you
    here
    to
    fix?
  • Direction:
    Write
    your
    mission
    (what
    you
    do
    today
    and
    for
    whom)
    +
    vision
    (impact/reputation
    in
    5–10
    years).
    List
    your
    non-negotiable
    values.
  • Clients:
    Who
    are
    your
    ideal
    client
    segments?
    Who
    is
    not
    a
    fit?
    What
    triggers
    them
    to
    hire
    a
    lawyer?
  • Problems:
    What
    are
    their
    top
    3–5
    pains,
    what’s
    at
    stake,
    and
    what
    outcomes
    do
    they
    want
    most?
  • Offer:
    What
    practice
    areas/matter
    types
    are
    in
    scope
    vs.
    out
    of
    scope?
    What
    states/jurisdictions
    now
    and
    later?
  • Value/Unique
    Selling
    Proposition:
    What
    results
    do
    you
    deliver
    consistently?
    What’s
    your
    signature
    approach?
    Why
    choose
    you
    over
    competitors

    your
    plain-English
    USP.
  • Experience:
    How
    should
    clients
    feel
    working
    with
    you?
    What
    communication
    standards
    and
    boundaries
    define
    great
    service?
  • Growth
    channels:
    How
    will
    clients
    find/hire
    you?
    (referrals,
    SEO,
    LinkedIn,
    community,
    ads,
    etc.)
    Map
    intake
    from
    first
    contact

    signed
    engagement.
  • Ops
    basics:
    Key
    activities
    that
    drive
    outcomes
    and
    growth.
    Key
    resources
    (team
    roles,
    tech,
    networks).
    Key
    partners/referral
    sources.
  • Money:
    Revenue
    streams
    (hourly/flat/contingency/retainer/subscription/hybrid)
    +
    what
    services
    map
    to
    each.
    Pricing
    philosophy.
    Major
    costs
    and
    year-one
    financial
    goals.
  • Brand
    +
    success:
    If
    your
    firm
    were
    a
    person,
    what
    3–5
    traits
    would
    it
    have?
    Desired/avoided
    associations.
    What’s
    your
    ideal
    caseload
    and
    culture?
  • Voice:
    Describe
    or
    share
    examples
    of
    the
    writing
    style
    or
    voice
    consistent
    with
    your
    brand
    and
    mission.


Step
2:
Create
The
Cornerstone
Prompt

Once
you’ve
completed
the
interview,
prompt
the
AI
platform
as
follows:


You’re
a
law-firm
strategist.
Interview
me
(mission/vision,
ideal
clients,
value
+
USP,
practice
scope,
jurisdictions,
brand
voice,
revenue
model,
BMC
elements,
success
metrics).
Convert
my
answers
into
a
reusable
Cornerstone
Master
Prompt
that
I
can
paste
into
future
AI
chats
so
everything
I
draft
matches
my
firm’s
niche,
tone,
and
strategy. 

Once
the
prompt
is
created,
upload
it
into
a
platform’s
preferences
or
knowledge
base
or
simply
attach
it
each
time
you
prompt
ChatGPT. 

Here’s
an
example
of
how
it
works. 
I
asked
ChatGPT
(but
you
can
use
any
AI
platform)
to
develop
a
Cornerstone
Prompt
for
a
Maryland
estate
planning
firm
focused
on
single,
divorced,
and
widowed
people.
Once
I
had
my
Cornerstone
Prompt,
I
asked
Chat
GPT
it
to
generate
ad
copy
for
a
webinar
consistent
with
the
Cornerstone
Prompt. Without
any
further
instruction,
here’s
what
it
came
up
with:

Then
I
asked
for
law
firm
announcements
consistent
with
my
Cornerstone
Prompt
and
here’s
what
ChatGPT
delivered:

I
realize
that
these
samples
are
a
bit
vanilla.
But
that’s
because
I
didn’t
take
the
time
to
complete
the
interview
questions
in
much
detail.
If
you
do
that,
the
output
will
be
more
robust

and
more
distinctly
yours.

The
Cornerstone
Prompt
offers
a
framework
for
what
you
want
to
build,
and
generative
AI
serves
as
the
mechanism
for
putting
it
into
practice.
This
approach
slashes
the
amount
of
time
between
idea
and
implementation,
allowing
you
to
launch
more
quickly
and
before
you
lose
your
nerve.
More
importantly,
it
keeps
your
decisions,
messaging,
and
systems
aligned
as
you
grow

so
your
firm
doesn’t
drift
away
from
the
practice
you
intended
to
build.




Carolyn
Elefant
is
one
of
the
country’s
most
recognized
advocates
for
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers.
She
founded
MyShingle.com
in
2002,
the
longest-running
blog
for
solo
practitioners,
where
she
has
published
thousands
of
articles,
resources,
and
guides
on
starting,
running,
and
growing
independent
law
practices.
She
is
the
author
of
Solo
by
Choice,
widely
regarded
as
the
definitive
handbook
for
launching
and
sustaining
a
law
practice,
and
has
spoken
at
countless
bar
events
and
legal
conferences
on
technology,
innovation,
and
regulatory
reform
that
impacts
solos
and
smalls.
Elefant
also
develops
practical
tools
like
the AI
Teach-In
 to
help
small
firms
adopt
AI
and
she
consistently
champions
reforms
to
level
the
playing
field
for
independent
lawyers.
Alongside
this
work,
she
runs
the
Law
Offices
of
Carolyn
Elefant,
a
national
energy
and
regulatory
practice
that
handles
selective
complex,
high-stakes
matters.

The Best Online Law School Programs In America (2026) – Above the Law

Would-be
lawyers
continue
to
seek
flexible
pathways
into
the
study
of
law,
and
many
law
schools
have
finally
entered
the
21st
century
with
the
introduction
of
online
JD
programs,
with
teaching
presented
in
a
fully
online
or
a
hybrid/online
format.
But
which
of
these
programs
are
the
best?
As
with
brick-and-mortar
law
schools,
of
course
there’s
a
ranking
for
the
best
online
law
schools.

Thanks
to

University
Magazine
,
we
now
have
a
ranking
of
the
top
online
schools
for
those
seeking
a
legal
education
in
a
way
that
works
best
for
them.
Here
are
the
Top
10
online
law
schools
in
America:

  1. Northeastern
    University
    School
    of
    Law

    Flex
    JD
    Program
  2. Syracuse
    University
    College
    of
    Law

    JD
    Interactive
    Program
  3. Suffolk
    University
    Law
    School

    Hybrid
    Online
    JD
    Program
  4. Albany
    Law
    School

    Flex
    JD
    Program
  5. University
    of
    Hawaii
    at
    Manoa

    Online
    JD
    Flex
    Program
  6. Seattle
    University
    School
    of
    Law

    Flex
    JD
    Program
  7. South
    Texas
    College
    of
    Law

    Online
    JD
    Program
  8. Southwestern
    Law
    School

    Part-Time
    Evening
    Hybrid
    JD
    Program
  9. Case
    Western
    Reserve
    University
    School
    of
    Law

    Online
    JD
    Program
  10. Vermont
    Law
    and
    Graduate
    School

    Online
    Hybrid
    JD

Click

here

to
see
the
rest
of
the
list.

Congratulations
to
each
of
these
law
schools
for
offering
these
valuable
online
law
degree
programs

they’re
leading
students
into
the
future,
one
degree
at
a
time.


The
Best
Online
Law
Schools
In
America
2026

[University
Magazine]





Staci
Zaretsky
 is
the
managing
editor
of
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.

Trump Administration’s Cease And Desist Playlist Gains Another Star – Above the Law

(Photo
by
XNY/Star
Max/GC
Images)

Sabrina
Carpenter
is
known
for
many
things,
namely

her
catchy
coffee
themed
tunes

and

SNL-worthy
humor
.
And
while
Sabrina
rubbed
shoulders
with
“Donald
Trump”
in
a
skit
about
12-year-old
boys
with
podcast
equipment,
she’s
nowhere
near
as
buddy
buddy
with
the
real
administration.
Earlier
this
week
she
took
to
Twitter
to
tell
ICE
to
cut
the
shit
with
using
her
music
to
make
abducting
people
with
questionable
due
process
appear
cutesy.

Considering
that
the
tweets
are
still
up,
it
looks
like
ICE
and
the
White
House
aren’t
that
interested
in
respecting
artistic
intent.
With
the

multiple
lawsuits
already
facing
ICE
,
a
cease
and
desist
request
might
be
at
the
bottom
of
their
worries.
The
White
House
should
do
something
though

folks
are
saying
this
tweet
is
in
the
running
for
biggest
ratio
of
all
time:

At
the
time
of
writing
the
number
has
changed
a
bit:
the
White
House
post
is
now
at
84k
likes
compared
to
Sabrina’s
whopping
1.6
Million.
Easy
publicity.

Speaking
of,
Sabrina’s
24-hour
response
time
drew
attention
to
another
blonde
star
who
opted
out
of
telling
the
administration
to
leave
her
music
out
of
it:
Taylor
Swift.
While
she
has
previously
criticized
the
Trump
administration,
her
silence
on
her
music
being
used
toward
administrative
ends
is
a
little
baffling


she’s
taken
legal
action
against
Etsy
sellers
for
using
her
lyrics

but
not,
you
know,
the
White
House?
Strange
priorities.

For
the
record
(see
what
I
did
there?),
here’s
a
whole
playlist
of
songs
the
Trump
Administration
ought
to
stay
away
from.
Here’s
to
hoping
a
few
of
’em
are
in
your
Spotify
Wrapped!


Earlier
:

You
Could
Make
A
Playlist
Of
All
The
Musicians
Who
Sued
Trump
For
Playing
Their
Music


Isaac
Hayes
Estate
Files
Copyright
Suit,
Say
This
Cat
Donald
Trump
Is
A
Bad
Mother–


Judge
Shuts
Down
Donald
Trump’s
Dance
Party



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.

Biglaw Bonus Train Keeps Chugging Along As Top 50 Firm Gets On Board To Drop Cash For Associates – Above the Law

Compensation
news
continues
to
spread
across
the
Biglaw
landscape,
and
associates
couldn’t
be
happier.
From
Am
Law
200
firms
to
boutique
firms,
there
will
be
more
money
in
associates’
pockets
this
holiday
season,
and
the
excitement
is
palpable.

We’ve
now
confirmed
that
Orrick

a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,593,353,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
35
in
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100

has
chosen
to
use
the

Cravath

scale
for
its
year-end
bonuses,
complete
with
the
special
bonuses
being
offered
by

Milbank
.
That
said,
here’s
what
the
bonus
and
salary
scales
look
like
at
the
firm:


Role

 
Year
 2026
Salary
Scale

2025
Bonus

Merit
Bonus

Special
Bonus

Senior
Associate

Year
2+
$435,000 $115,000 $25,000

Year
1
$420,000 $115,000 $25,000

Managing
Associate

Year
3
$390,000 $105,000 $25,000

Year
2
$365,000 $90,000 $25,000

Year
1
$310,000 $75,000 $20,000

Associate

Year
3
$260,000 $57,500 $15,000

Year
2
$235,000 $30,000 $10,000

Year
1 **
$225,000 $20,000 $6,000

The
firm
is
also
considering
overmarket
merit
bonuses
for
those
who
have
displayed
“exceptional
performance”
this
year.

Special
bonuses
will
be
paid
out
on
December
31,
2025,
while
merit
bonuses
will
hit
bank
accounts
in
mid-February
2026.

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Orrick!

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!





Staci
Zaretsky
 is
the
managing
editor
of
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
.

Super Busy? You’ll Get A Bonus Worthy Of A ‘Superstar’ At This Biglaw Firm – Above the Law

Bonus
news
is
still
coming
in
at
Biglaw
firms.
The
latest
firm
to
announce
a
market
match
on
associate
bonuses
is
Katten
Muchin
Rosenman.
Well,
if
you’ve
been
busy
billing

and
the
bonus
amount
keeps
going
up
the
more
you
bill.

Sure,
the
year-end
bonus
schedule
at
Katten
is
a
little
more
complex
then
most.
But
associates
can
take
down
market
bonuses
once
they
bill
2,000
hours.
Additional
billables
are
rewarded
as
per
this
chart.

Plus,
there
are
the
special
bonuses
that
associates
can
add
to
their
comp
package
when
they
hit
2,000
hours
in
the
range
of
$6,000

$25,000
depending
on
seniority.
On
top
of
all
these
associate
bonuses,
“superstar”
bonuses
are
also
available
on
a
discretionary
basis.

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!




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].

Actually, Kim Kardashian Is The Best Argument FOR The Bar Exam – Above the Law

In

The
Washington
Post
,
NYU
adjunct
professor
Max
Raskin
advances
the
entirely
defensible
claim
that
the
bar
exam
is
a
cartel
instrument
designed
to
keep
prices
high,
outsiders
out,
and
the
whole
profession
wrapped
in
the
same
warm,
self-satisfied
delusion
that
making
future
securities
lawyers
memorize
the
Rules
of
Evidence
has
ever,
even
once,
identified
who
will
be
a
competent
lawyer.

Fair
enough.
Totally
agree
on
that
front.
The
bar
exam
is
a
flaming
sack
of
Scantron-bubbled
garbage.

But
the
headline
and
hook?
How
the
bar
exam
failed
Kim
Kardashian

is
just…
no.
No,
we’re
not
doing
this.
We’re
not
hoisting
Kim
Kardashian
upon
the
cross
of
professional
licensure
reform.
The
only
good
argument
FOR
the
bar
exam
is
Kim
Kardashian.

Unfortunately,
an
essay
on
the
futility
of
the
bar
exam
and
the
desperate
need
for
states
to
develop
alternatives
to
a
generalist
memory
test
for
a
profession
of
specialists
probably
doesn’t
grab
the
attention
of
the

Washington
Post

and
certainly
not
the
attention
of
the
public
at
large.
But
with
one
of
the
most

if
inexplicably
so

famous
people
in
the
world
grafted
onto
the
polemic,
it
stands
a
chance
of
reaching
a
broader
audience.
And
so
this
piece
is
framed
around
Kardashian’s
quixotic
and
confusing
quest
for
esquireship.
But
not
all
publicity
is
good
publicity
and
tying
the
fight
against
the
bar
exam
to
Kim
Kardashian
does
more
harm
than
good.

She’s
not
Our
Lady
of
Perpetuities,
she’s
a
reality
star
without

an
undergrad
degree


let
alone
a
law
degree

trying
to
shortcut
into
a
law
license
to
perform
admittedly
good
work
that

she
already
does
without
being
a
lawyer
anyway
!
Kardashian’s
work
supporting
challenges
to
wrongful
convictions
and
relief
from
excessive
sentences
doesn’t
need
another
lawyer,
it
needs
a
billionaire
to
bankroll
a
bunch
of
lawyers.

But
she
does
not
make
a
sympathetic
figure
for
bar
reform.
If
anything,
the
public
sees
a
billionaire
dilettante
cutting
corners.
Say
what
you
will
about
Elle
Woods,
but
she
actually
went
to
Harvard.
This
isn’t
meant
to
diminish
the
work
that
Kardashian’s
put
into
this
effort.
Her
“reading
the
law”
pathway
absolutely
involves
real
work,
and
is
a
time-honored
pathway
harkening
back
to
the
days
before
law
schools
metastasized
into
debt
factories.
But
we’re
trying
to
persuade
the
public
that
the
bar
exam
fails
to
effectively
vet
future
lawyers
and
“it
kept
out
that
rich
woman
from
TV
who
never
went
to
college”
strikes
most
people
as
the
bar
exam

doing
its
job
.

The
fundamental
problem
with
Raskin’s
broadside
against
the
bar
exam
because
he
goes
beyond
bashing
the
bar
exam
as
a
bad
test
to
questioning
the
need
for
professional
licensing
at
all.
Kardashian
is
a
flawed
hero
for
bar
exam
reform,
but
fits
into
an
argument
for
a
world
of
no
licensing
at
all.

The
bar
exam,
the
Law
School
Admission
Test
and
law
school
itself
are
the
price
you
pay
for
joining
a
government-protected
legal
guild

no
different
from
taxi
medallions
or
liquor
licenses.
It
is
essentially
illegal
to
represent
someone
else
in
court
without
passing
this
test,
which
is
an
exception
to
the
general
rule
that
people
should
be
allowed
to
hire
whomever
they
want
without
the
government’s
permission.

No,
being
a
lawyer
is
not
the
same
as
running
a
bar.
An
incompetent
lawyer
leaves
clients
in
financial
ruin
or
prison,
while
an
incompetent
bartender
leaves
clients
with
a
subpar
martini.
The
free
market
can
sort
out
bad
bartenders
over
time,
but
it
doesn’t
do
much
for
the
guy
serving
25
to
life
while
the
rest
of
the
market
catches
up
on
the
lawyer’s
Yelp
reviews.
Many
jobs
don’t
require
expensive
licensing.
Attorney
is
not
one
of
them.

The
Uber-fication
of
legal
gives
real
“libertarian
startup
pitch
deck”
energy.
And
I’m
still
trying
to
figure
out
how
justice
doesn’t
end
in
truly
vicious
surge
pricing
in
this
model.


Many
empirical
studies
 question
the
effectiveness
of
the
bar
exam
in
predicting
lawyerly
prowess,
but
this
should
be
settled
by
a
free
market.
We
don’t
make
auto
mechanics
or
electricians
go
to
school
for
an
additional
three
years,
even
though
their
professions
can
cause
much
more
physical
harm.
We
rely
on
credentials,
social
signaling,
reviews
and
other
market
mechanisms
for
determining
quality.

But…
we
do.
We
don’t
have
an
“additional
three
years”
of
school
for
either
of
those
jobs,
but
we
do
have
schools
for
them.
We’ve
had
a
national
level
push
toward
trade
schools
since
the
tail
end
of
the
Obama
administration.
There
are
also
accepted
licensing
procedures
for
both.
Auto
mechanics
are

certified
through
an
industry
test
,
and
even
though
the
government
isn’t
running
that
test,
many
jurisdictions
require
passage
of
the
industry
test
to
perform
key
tasks
as
a
mechanic.
Electricians,
on
the
other
hand,
absolutely
do
get
state
licenses.
Every
state
requires
some
sort
of
electrician
certification.

The
best
defense
of
this
system
is
that
while
it
is
not
necessary
to
memorize
the
arcane
rule
against
perpetuities
to
be
a
competent
lawyer
because
you
can
always
use
Google,
the
temperament
of
the
person
who
has
the
sitzfleisch
to
study
for
these
exams
is
the
kind
of
person
who
makes
an
effective
lawyer.

Hopefully
lawyers
are
not
doing
critical
legal
research
with
Google.
But,
yes,
the
bar
exam
expects
applicants
to
answer
doctrinal
questions
about
areas
of
law
they
don’t
specialize
in
from
snap
memory,
which
in
real
world
is
what
we
would
call
“malpractice.”
It
is
a
goofy
stand
in
for
“the
kind
of
person
who
makes
an
effective
lawyer.”
You
know
what
might
be
a
better
stand
in
for
the
kind
of
person
with
the
temperament
to
engage
in
grueling
legal
study?
A
LAW
SCHOOL.

This
is
why
diploma
privilege,
coupled
with
more
rigorous
standards
for
law
schools
to
actually
turn
out
graduates
capable
of
doing
the
job

as
opposed
to
collecting
their
tuition
dollars
and
wishing
them
luck
on
the
bar
exam

makes
for
the
best
licensing
model.
You
know,
sort
of
like
the
one
Wisconsin
figured
out
ages
ago.

Which
is,
again,
why
the
best
defense
of
the
bar
exam
is…
Kim
Kardashian.
The
only
defensible
purpose
of
an
additional
written
test
of
legal
knowledge
is
to
vet
someone
who
decided
to
skip
out
on
law
school.
This
test
doesn’t
have
to
be
the
current
bar
exam.
In
fact,
it
should
be
something
more
closely
resembling
Utah’s
new
proposed
written
test,
which
focuses
on
skills
and
aims
to
be

something
that
a
competent,
currently
practicing
lawyer
could
pass
without
any
studying
.
If
we’re
testing
minimum
competence,
then
existing
practitioners
should
by
default
be
able
to
pass
with
ease
or
there’s
something
even
more
desperately
wrong.

Lawyers
are
not
doctors,
so
more
experimentation
in
the
legal
profession
can
be
tolerated.
Lawyers
are
not
constantly
making
life-or-death
decisions,
and
when
they
do,
there
are
procedures
to
ensure
that
counsel
is
competent.
Run-of-the-mill
contract
review
and
regulatory
filings,
however,
don’t
warrant
a
licensure
scheme.

Seriously?
Yes,
lawyers
are
not
doctors,
but
this
is
a
country
that

convicts
people
of
murder
when
their
lawyer
falls
asleep
in
court
.
So
pardon
us
for
being
a
tad
skeptical
of
the
“procedures
to
ensure
that
counsel
is
competent.”
Obviously,
law
school
and
the
bar
exam
didn’t
protect
that
client,
but
it
underscores
how

something

needs
to
be
in
place
before
opening
the
door
to
every
rando
because
a
“kill
them
all
and
let
God
sort
them
out”
approach
to
the
market
will,
in
fact,
kill
a
lot
of
people
while
the
market
sorts
it
out.
And
that
goes
for
victims
of
companies
concealing
their
work
with
fraudulent
regulatory
filings
as
much
as
for
wrongfully
convicted
defendants.

This
is
especially
true
in
light
of
advances
in
artificial
intelligence.

Stop.

AI
systems
already
draft
wills,
nondisclosure
agreements,
term
sheets,
employment
contracts
and
regulatory
memos
at
associate-level
quality.

No,

they
don’t
.

There
are
those
who
point
to
the
occasional
lawyer
who
doesn’t
check
hallucinated
citations
and
embarrasses
himself
in
court,
but
these
are
exceptions.
The
vast
majority
of
lawyers
who
use
AI
don’t
want
to
admit
it
for
the
same
reason
doctors
don’t
want
to
admit
to
Googling
symptoms,
so
there
is
a
negative
selection
bias
where stories
of
federal
judges
 sloppily
using
AI
catch
more
attention
than
routine
use
of
the
tool.

This,
however,
is
true.
AI
is
not
doing
associate
level
work
unless
you
happen
to
work
with
really
terrible
associates.
AI
drafts
documents
that

look

like
associate-level
work.
Which,
in
its
defense,
is
still
extremely
useful
and
AI
can
do
valuable
work
when
drafting
based
off
a
well-curated
knowledge
base.
Coupled
with
a
competent
attorney,
AI
can
make
the
start-to-finish
legal
workflow
much
faster.
Lawyers
(or
judges
)
who
don’t
check
AI
are
the
real
problem,
not
the
technology
itself.
But
don’t
let
the
technology
totally
off
the
hook.
The

acceleration
of
the
workflow

creates
the
conditions
for
disaster,
compressing
those
moments
of
pause
where
lawyers
engage
in
the
iterative
and
collaborative
processes
that
refine
(and
sometimes
completely
reorient)
the
work.

Someone
competent
needs
to
be
on
the
other
end
of
this
or
it’s
just
an
express
lane
to
legal
slop.
The
public
should
feel
confident
that
the
smooth
talker
they’ve
hired
will
be
that
competent
thinker.
If
anything,
the
expansion
of
legal
AI
makes
the
need
for
an
agreed
upon
certification
process
more
dire
because
work
product
is
going
to
get
more
homogenized
with
everyone
using
the
same
LLMs
and
human
editing
is
going
to
be
the
only
differentiator.

Also,
doesn’t
this
whole
AI
argument
cut
the
opposite
direction?
If
one
assumes
that
AI
is
a
magic
box
that
can
do
most
legal
work,
the
cost
of
legal
work
would
fall
anyway,
regardless
of
its
guild-like
structure.
In
this
hypothetical
world,
lawyers
are
churning
out
drafts
with
a
fraction
of
the
human
staff.
Flooding
the
market
with
more
untrained
attorneys
lacks
the
price-busting
power
it
would
have
in
a
pre-AI
world.

One
of
the
most
nefarious
forms
of
protectionism
is
the
limit
on
nonlawyers
being
partners
in
law
firms.
This
rule
prevents
specialization,
which
is
the
cornerstone
of
economic
order.
Why
would
someone
think
that
a
lawyer
who
has
trained
in
a
narrow
field
would
be
good
at
firm
operations
or
marketing
or
hiring?
In
most
other
industries,
chief
technology
officers
deal
with
tech,
chief
operation
officers
deal
with
operations
and
hiring
is
with
human
resources.
But
in
law
firms,
essentially
all
the
ultimate
decision-makers
must
be
lawyers.
Kim
Kardashian
could
surely
run
a
more
efficient
marketing
department
than
a
white-shoe
firm.

Law
firms
already
hire
chief
technology
officers.
There’s
nothing
about
the
limit
on
non-lawyer
ownership
that
prevents
building
out
a
non-lawyer
C-Suite.
Whether
it’s
a
good
idea
to
let
private
equity
funds
run
law
firms
or
not
is
a
debate,
but
it’s
not
what
prevents
firms
from
hiring
specialist
officers.

These
rules
are
marketed
as
protecting
justice
when
they
really
protect
incumbents.
Over
the
past
decade, legal
costs
have
risen
 by
about
twice
the
rate
of
inflation,
while
technology
should
have
driven
costs
down.

True,
though
lawyers
are

just
catching
up

after
running
below
inflation
for
years.
We
ideally
want
legal
costs
lower
and
more
accessible
while
lawyers
make
their
nut
on
technology
assisted
volume,
but
we
also
need
some
way
to
assure
the
public

before
they
end
up
in
prison

that
the
lawyer
they’re
talking
to
is
competent.
The
bar
exam
is
a
horrible
mechanism
for
this.
Law
school
is
better.

Which
brings
us
back
to
Kim
Kardashian.
The
bar
exam
isn’t
failing
Kim
Kardashian.
It’s
failing
the
law
school
graduates
who
more
than
meet
any
reasonable
standard
of
“minimum
competence”
because
the
test
is
administered
as
a
quantity
control
mechanism
for
the
profession.
But
Kardashian
isn’t
a
law
school
graduate
who
completed
a
course
of
study
at
an
accredited
institution.
She’s
the
exact
reason
the
public
thinks
a
test
like
the
bar
exam
is
necessary
in
the
first
place.

Kill
the
bar
exam
tomorrow,
replace
it
with
statewide
supervised-practice
pathways,
tighten
accreditation
oversight,
and
give
diploma
privilege
to
schools
that
produce
actually
competent
graduates.
Then
reserve
the
exam

a
better
one,
not
the
dumpster
fire
we
have
now

for
the
narrow
slice
of
candidates
not
covered
by
those
systems.

We
don’t
need
to
abolish
a
written
exam

because

it
was
unfair
to
Kim
Kardashian.
We
need
to
abolish
the
exam
because
it’s
unfair
to
everyone
else.
But
we
absolutely
need
some
kind
of
licensing.




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
.