We
are
creating
a
firm
like
no
other,
with
the
expertise
to
advise
clients
on
their
most
complex
work
across
the
G20.
We
have
been
on
the
road
over
the
past
few
months
speaking
with
clients,
partners,
associates,
and
business
teams—and
these
conversations
have
emphatically
affirmed
the
strategic
thinking
that
inspired
this
combination.
We
see
strong
opportunities
for
growth,
and
clients
have
expressed
enthusiasm
and
excitement
for
the
combined
firm’s
expanded
reach
and
depth.
—
Miguel
Zaldivar,
CEO
of
Hogan
Lovells,
in
a
statement
announcing
partnership
approval
of
the
mega-merger
of
Hogan
Lovells
and
Cadwalader.
As
noted
by
the
American
Lawyer,
partners
voted
“overwhelmingly”
to
approve
the
combination,
with
over
95%
of
the
firms’
partners
supporting
the
Biglaw
tie-up.
“Our
combined
strength
will
enhance
our
ability
to
invest
in
top
talent
in
a
fiercely
competitive
legal
market,
as
well
as
in
AI
and
other
technology
at
a
vital
time
for
these
investments,”
said
Cadwalader
co-managing
partner
Patrick
Quinn.
As
of
July
1,
2026,
the
combined
firm
will
have
about
3,100
lawyers
spread
across
the
globe,
with
a
gross
revenue
of
about
$3.9
billion.
Zaldivar
will
serve
as
CEO
of
Hogan
Lovells
Cadwalader,
while
Quinn
will
serve
as
global
managing
partner
for
client
practice
integration.
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
The
Department
of
Justice
fired
six
immigration
judges
Friday,
including
the
Boston
judge
who
blocked
the
deportation
of
Tufts
University
student
Rümeysa
Öztürk
earlier
this
year.
Roopal
Patel,
a
Biden-appointed
judge
in
the
Boston
Immigration
Court,
is
the
113th
immigration
judge
laid
off
by
the
Trump
administration
since
his
second
term,
according
to
reporting
from
the
New
York
Times.
Unlike
federal
judges
who
have
lifetime
appointments,
immigration
judges
are
appointed
by
the
Attorney
General
and
can
be
fired.
Along
with
Patel,
the
Trump
administration
fired
Judge
Nina
Froes,
who
blocked
the
deportation
of
Mohsen
Mahdawi,
an
international
student
at
Columbia
University
who
was
detained
after
participating
in
pro-Palestinian
protests.
The
unceremoniously
fired
judges
weren’t
even
given
the
kindness
of
a
vague
“transitioning
to
a
much
needed
and
important
new
job
in
the
private
sector”
post
on
Truth
Social
a
la
Pam
Bondi.
When
it
comes
to
Trump’s
judicial
legacy,
people
are
quick
to
point
out
his
record-breaking
number
of
federal
appointments.
As
they
should
—
the
influence
those
judges
will
have
on
the
matters
before
them
will
last
long
after
the
FTD
claims
him
and
FDT
hits
the
top
of
Billboard.
But
the
judicial
hostility
he’s
fostered
needs
to
be
part
of
the
discussion.
Berating
judges
on
a
public
stage
when
things
don’t
go
your
way
and
firing
triple-digit
numbers
of
judges
for
muddying
up
your
great
plans
with
due
process
are
ripe
conditions
to
chill
judges
from
doing
their
jobs.
At
least
until
they
get
replaced
with
sycophants
willing
ignore
the
law
and
do
Trump’s
bidding
if
it
means
advancing
their
careers.
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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.
Two
flavors
of
federal
clerkship
have
emerged
at
Harvard
Law.
One
based
on
accumulating
consistent
academic
success
across
a
couple
years
worth
of
legal
education,
and
another
based
on
demonstrating
a
firm
ideological
commitment
in
the
student’s
1L
year.
As
the
Harvard
Crimson
reports,
moderate
and
liberal
judges
follow
the
former
path,
selecting
rising
3Ls
based
on
law
school
resumes,
while
America’s
most
conservative
judges
are
hiring
students
as
early
as
their
first
semester
based
on
Federalist
Society
bona
fides
and
vetting
from
fellow
traveler
professors
or
older
students.
So,
in
news
that
isn’t
shocking
in
the
least,
the
same
people
who
complain
about
“DEI”
are
the
ones
hiring
based
on
networking
connections
without
regard
to
academic
merit.
It’s
the
most
powerful
affirmative
action
program
in
education,
you
just
have
to
be
the
right
kind
of
diverse.
“My
understanding
is
that
there
were
students
in
my
section
who,
through
Fed
Soc,
had
clerkships
lined
up
the
fall
of
1L,”
Kaufman
said.
“There
is
no
liberal
student
for
whom
that’s
the
case.”
“Fall
of
1L.”
As
in,
“no
exams
yet.”
But
if
a
student
has
dutifully
done
their
part
to
enthusiastically
cheer
the
speaker
discussing
why
America
needs
fewer
minorities,
you
might
just
earn
a
coveted
clerkship
before
the
class
reaches
Palsgraf.
Or,
hell,
maybe
before
the
class
finds
the
bookstore.
Judges
breaking
away
from
“the
plan”
to
recruit
students
earlier
in
their
law
school
careers
isn’t
new.
Every
attempt
to
reach
a
mutually
agreed
upon
schedule
for
clerkship
applications
has
devolved
into
a
free-for-all
as
some
judges
defect
to
secure
first
dibs
on
the
talent
pool.
But
the
ideological
divide
is
new,
and
reflects
shifting
priorities
as
conservative
judges
increasingly
prioritize
philosophy
and
connections
over
scholarly
success.
When
the
judiciary
prioritizes
ideology
over
qualifications,
of
course
the
clerkships
will
follow.
Mason
R.
Laney,
a
Federalist
Society
member
interviewed
by
the
Crimson
notes:
“We
vet
each
other,
because
we
know
each
other
very
well,”
Laney
said.
“Students
end
up
with
a
lot
of
power,
where
judges
will
reach
out,
and
they’ll
say,
‘Is
this
person
somebody
we
should
reach
out
to?’”
he
added.
Those
recommendations
can
shape
hiring
decisions
well
before
the
timeline
begins.
“Students
around
will
say,
‘Hey,
they’re
solid,
conservative,
they’re
very
much
in
Fed
Soc,’”
Laney
said.
Federal
judges
placing
clerkship
decisions
in
the
hands
of
3Ls
delivering
vibechecks
is
a
damning
indictment.
It
was
bad
enough
when
judges
hired
the
nephews
of
their
country
club
friends,
now
they’re
hiring
based
on
the
considered
judgment
of
kids
who
aren’t
old
enough
to
rent
a
car.
“One
of
them
requires
a
meritocratic
approach
and
a
lot
of
hard
work,”
HLS
student
Jackson
S.
Faulkner
said.
“You
have
to
bank
on
things
way
later
on
in
the
process
that
are
not
available
to
the
other
side,
which
is
looking
for
ideological
adherence,
and
then
they
will
train
you
to
be
a
clerk.”
This
is
a
generous
read,
but
what
“training”
is
happening
when
the
judge
doesn’t
know
what
they’re
doing
either?
And
even
if
the
judge
does
have
ample
experience
for
their
job,
what
faith
can
one
have
in
their
mentorship
—
or
judgment
—
if
they’ve
blown
off
grades
to
hire
a
student
based
on
how
well
they’ve
impressed
the
3Ls?
Worse,
this
is
a
cycle
likely
to
compound
upon
itself
as
tomorrow’s
judges
are
picked
from
today’s
clerks.
In
some
cases
literally,
like
when
Trump
was
elevating
clerks
to
the
federal
bench
only
a
term
removed
from
their
clerkship.
When
he
was
the
dean
of
NYU,
John
Sexton
would
tell
the
story
that
after
clerking
for
Warren
Burger,
the
Chief
Justice
would
quip
about
needing
to
always
have
one
“communist
clerk.”
But
when
judges
start
to
view
the
clerkship
process
as
less
about
untangling
thorny
legal
issues
—
AI
can
do
all
the
disingenuous
originalist
reverse
engineering
anyway
—
and
more
about
building
out
the
conservative
legal
network,
they
don’t
need
to
be
challenged
in
chambers.
Clerks
don’t
need
to
be
academic
superstars,
as
long
as
they
can
be
reliably
groomed
into
future
branches
of
the
judge’s
“coaching
tree.”
There’s
no
easy
way
to
do
this,
but
law
school
rankings
(and,
more
to
the
point,
prospective
students)
really
should
try
to
take
this
two-tiered
approach
into
account.
There
are
definitely
institutions
spamming
right-wing
clerkships
like
this
and
using
those
numbers
to
artificially
fluff
their
rankings.
If
a
law
school
takes
a
significant
jump
in
the
rankings
along
with
a
sizable
bump
in
its
clerkship
figures,
take
a
long,
hard
look
at
WHICH
judges
are
driving
that
boom.
If
it’s
a
bunch
of
Fifth
Circuit
judges
hiring
clerks
in
their
first
year
of
school,
be
very
leery
of
that
resume.
This
is
also
why
the
employers
who
haven’t
already
upped
their
scrutiny
of
past
clerkships
need
a
reality
check.
When
federal
judges
ranked
not
qualified
are
“training”
clerks
they
picked
up
before
first
semester
exams,
that’s
not
the
same
signal
of
future
success
that
the
industry
relied
upon
for
decades.
A
clerkship
simply
isn’t
enough
anymore,
and
employers
need
to
develop
their
own
two-track
system
for
evaluating
the
quality
of
the
clerkship
experience.
Until
there’s
more
transparency
about
this,
networking
with
conservatives
remains
a
law
school
cheat
code.
Who
needs
meritocracy
when
you
can
get
beers
with
FedSoc
3Ls?
If
you’ve
been
paying
any
attention
to
Biglaw
over
the
past
few
years,
the
headline
from
the
2026
Am
Law
100
rankings
won’t
shock
you:
the
industry
is
doing
extremely
well,
thank
you
very
much,
and
the
firms
at
the
top
have
absolutely
no
intention
of
sharing
the
view.
Let’s
break
it
down.
Kirkland
&
Ellis
is
still
sitting
at
No.
1
with
$10.556
billion
in
gross
revenue,
yes,
billion
with
a
B,
up
nearly
20
percent
from
the
prior
year.
Latham
&
Watkins
trails
at
$8.3
billion.
After
that,
it’s
a
significant
drop
to
DLA
Piper’s
$4.58
billion
at
No.
3.
The
most
notable
shuffling
in
the
top
10:
Gibson,
Dunn
&
Crutcher
climbed
one
spot
to
No.
4,
while
Skadden
slipped
one
to
No.
5.
Simpson
Thacher
had
the
most
dramatic
move,
jumping
two
spots
to
crack
the
top
10
at
No.
10
with
$3.55
billion,
a
nifty
22.66
percent
surge
that
should
make
their
partners
very
happy
indeed.
Kirkland
&
Ellis
—
$10.556B
(+19.93%)
Latham
&
Watkins
—
$8.300B
(+18.57%)
DLA
Piper
—
$4.583B
(+8.10%)
Gibson
Dunn
—
$4.211B
(+18.37%)
Skadden
—
$4.073B
(+11.00%)
Sidley
Austin
—
$3.738B
(+8.68%)
Ropes
&
Gray
—
$3.737B
(+9.39%)
Baker
McKenzie
—
$3.640B
(+7.24%)
White
&
Case
—
$3.594B
(+8.36%)
Simpson
Thacher
—
$3.553B
(+22.66%)
Sixty-two
firms
cleared
the
$1
billion
revenue
threshold
in
2025,
up
from
58
the
year
before.
Ninety-four
firms
posted
revenue
gains.
The
one
firm
you
might
feel
mildly
bad
for?
Fragomen,
Del
Rey,
Bernsen
&
Loewy,
which
had
the
steepest
decline
at
-5.5
percent.
Immigration
work,
it
turns
out,
is
subject
to
forces
outside
the
firm’s
control.
If
gross
revenue
is
about
size,
revenue
per
lawyer
(RPL)
is
about
effectiveness.
And
here,
the
rankings
tell
a
different
story.
Wachtell,
Lipton,
Rosen
&
Katz,
a
firm
with
a
comparatively
modest
272
lawyers,
absolutely
dominates
at
$5.085
million
per
lawyer.
That’s
not
a
typo.
Per.
Lawyer.
The
gap
between
Wachtell
and
No.
2
Susman
Godfrey
($2.876
million)
is
staggering.
Susman,
for
its
part,
also
operates
relatively
leanly
with
just
226
lawyers.
Davis
Polk
rounds
out
the
top
three
at
$2.588
million
per
lawyer,
followed
by
Kirkland
at
$2.547
million.
Yes,
Kirkland’s
absolute
revenue
dominance
is
partly
a
function
of
having
4,145
lawyers,
but
they’re
still
remarkably
efficient
for
their
scale.
Wachtell
—
$5.085M
per
lawyer
(+13.71%)
Susman
Godfrey
—
$2.876M
(+20.39%)
Davis
Polk
—
$2.588M
(+19.70%)
Kirkland
&
Ellis
—
$2.547M
(+10.79%)
Ropes
&
Gray
—
$2.524M
(+8.33%)
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
—
$2.507M
(+7.46%)
Quinn
Emanuel
—
$2.453M
(+23.39%)
Skadden
—
$2.319M
(+12.08%)
Paul
Weiss
—
$2.318M
(+9.96%)
Cravath
—
$2.255M
(-0.04%)
For
the
Am
Law
100
overall,
revenue
per
lawyer
increased
8.7
percent,
with
92
of
100
firms
posting
gains.
Littler
Mendelson
had
the
biggest
RPL
jump
at
33.73
percent
(the
firm
overall
had
an
extraordinary
year,
posting
40.89
percent
gross
revenue
growth).
Gordon
Rees
had
the
worst
showing
at
-15.79
percent.
And
now
for
the
number
every
equity
partner
actually
cares
about.
Wachtell
leads
the
profits
per
equity
partner
(PEP)
rankings
with
$12.152
million
per
equity
partner,
which,
by
the
way,
represents
a
34.48
percent
increase
over
last
year.
Kirkland’s
equity
partners
aren’t
crying
either,
at
$11.121
million
PEP
(up
20.19
percent).
Davis
Polk
checks
in
at
$9.8
million,
Quinn
Emanuel
at
$9.545
million,
and
Gibson
Dunn
at
$8.89
million.
Wachtell
—
$12.152M
PEP
(+34.48%)
Kirkland
&
Ellis
—
$11.121M
(+20.19%)
Davis
Polk
—
$9.800M
(+25.60%)
Quinn
Emanuel
—
$9.545M
(+10.44%)
Gibson
Dunn
—
$8.890M
(+23.90%)
Latham
&
Watkins
—
$8.654M
(+21.29%)
Paul
Weiss
—
$8.631M
(+14.45%)
Simpson
Thacher
—
$8.569M
(+11.81%)
Paul
Hastings
—
$8.330M
(+24.05%)
Milbank
—
$7.620M
(+11.86%)
For
the
Am
Law
100
as
a
whole,
PEP
was
up
14
percent
in
2025.
Seventy
firms
had
growth
rates
of
at
least
10
percent.
Only
two
firms
—
two!
—
reported
PEP
declines.
The
market
for
top
legal
talent
remains,
to
put
it
diplomatically,
extremely
robust.
2025
was,
by
nearly
every
measure,
a
remarkable
year
for
Biglaw.
The
firms
that
were
already
dominant
got
more
dominant.
The
profits
flowing
to
equity
partners
reached
levels
that
would
have
seemed
absurd
a
decade
ago.
And
the
gap
between
the
haves
(Kirkland,
Wachtell,
Davis
Polk)
and
the
have-lesses
(firms
struggling
to
keep
laterals,
fighting
associate
attrition,
watching
revenue
go
sideways)
is
getting
harder
to
ignore.
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].
Money
talks.
And
apparently,
when
Kirkland
&
Ellis
is
doing
the
talking,
even
the
fortress
of
Wachtell,
Lipton,
Rosen
&
Katz
can’t
hold.
The
Financial
Times
is
reporting
that
Kirkland
&
Ellis
has
landed
themselves
quite
the
lateral
bounty:
Joshua
Feltman,
the
Chair
of
Wachtell’s
Restructuring
and
Finance
Department,
dangling
a
guaranteed
pay
package
of
$80
million
over
three
years
to
lure
him
away
from
his
longtime
home.
Let
that
number
sink
in
for
a
moment.
Eighty.
Million.
Dollars.
Guaranteed.
Feltman
joined
Wachtell
as
an
associate
back
in
2002,
made
partner
in
2010,
and
rose
to
chair
the
firm’s
elite
Restructuring
and
Finance
group. Over
that
time,
he
helped
lead
some
of
the
most
consequential
restructurings
of
the
last
two
decades,
including
Toys
“R”
Us,
AMC,
Expedia,
and
Express.
He’s
not
just
a
rainmaker;
he’s
the
kind
of
lawyer
whose
name
is
synonymous
with
an
entire
practice
area.
He’s
a
recognized
leader
in
the
burgeoning
field
of
“liability
management,”
having
advised
on
some
of
the
largest
and
most
novel
transactions
in
the
area,
from
Envision
Healthcare
to
AMC
Theatres.
So
why
would
someone
at
that
perch
leave?
Well,
let
me
count
the
reasons…
and
they
basically
all
come
in
the
shape
of
dollar
signs.
The
timing
of
this
hire
is
no
coincidence.
David
Nemecek,
who
rose
to
legal
industry
prominence
advising
distressed
companies
on
using
liability
management
exercises
to
avoid
restructuring
and
bankruptcy,
left
Kirkland
&
Ellis
in
February
to
join
Simpson
Thacher
(along
with
fellow
partners
Christine
Bae
and
Jacob
Ruby).
Nemecek
is
considered
the
architect
of
modern
liability
management
exercises,
creative
out-of-court
restructurings
that
have
become
an
important
revenue
stream
for
elite
firms
and
redefined
how
private
equity
sponsors
manage
stressed
portfolio
companies.
The
move
positions
Simpson
Thacher
to
directly
challenge
Kirkland’s
long-held
dominance
in
that
space.
Bloomberg
Law
reports
that
at
least
nine
partners
with
leadership
roles
in
restructuring
or
liability
management
have
moved
law
firms
since
late
2024,
shuffling
practices
at
firms
including
Fried
Frank,
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher,
Latham
&
Watkins,
Simpson
Thacher,
Ropes
&
Gray,
and
Debevoise.
It’s
being
describes
as
a
“super
cycle”
of
lateral
moves
across
restructuring
practices.
With
an
economy
teetering
on
the
edge
(tariff
chaos,
market
volatility,
corporate
debt
maturities
piling
up),
a
top-flight
restructuring
practice
its
essential
countercyclical
planning.
Feltman
noted
earlier
this
year
that
an
uptick
in
Chapter
11
activity
seems
inevitable,
both
to
address
unsuccessful
liability
management
transactions
and
in
the
face
of
upcoming
maturities
for
substantial
debts
incurred
between
late
2020
and
2022.
So,
the
work
is
coming,
but
who
is
going
to
get
to
bill
for
it
remains
unanswered.
Kirkland,
stung
by
the
Nemecek
defection,
clearly
decided
it
needed
to
swing
big
for
a
replacement.
When
a
firm
that
already
pays
its
average
equity
partner
$11
million
offers
an
individual
attorney
a
guaranteed
$80
million
over
three
years
—
roughly
$26.7
million
annually
—
it
says
everything
about
how
valuable
top
restructuring
talent
is
right
now
and
how
much
Kirkland
wanted
to
plug
the
gap
left
by
Nemecek’s
departure.
Wachtell
is
undeniably
a
remarkable
institution,
and
has
long
been
regarded
as
the
crown
jewel
of
Biglaw
profitability.
It
operates
with
fewer
than
90
equity
partners,
zero
offices
outside
Manhattan,
the
highest
profit
margin
in
the
Am
Law
100,
and
revenue
per
lawyer
reported
at
over
$5
million,
the
highest
in
the
industry.
But
as
we
keep
seeing,
there
is
something
that
even
the
most
elite
partnership
culture
cannot
fully
inoculate
against:
enough
guaranteed
money,
deployed
by
a
firm
with
$10.56
billion
in
annual
revenue
that
genuinely
has
room
to
spend
it.
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].
Last
week,
Vault
released
the
2027
edition
of
its closely
watched
law
firm
rankings,
proving
that
prestige
has
its
limits.
While
money
—
in
the
form
of
Cravath’s
perennially
competitive
pay
scale
—
can
help
maintain
a
firm’s
place
near
the
top,
defending
the
rule
of
law
in
the
face
of
a
brazenly
authoritarian
president
can
reshape
how
associates
define
prestige
altogether.
But
can
that
money
buy
happiness
when
associates
are
increasingly
measuring
prestige
not
just
in
dollars,
but
in
whether
their
firms
are
willing
to
stand
up
for
justice
in
America?
In
a
companion
ranking
to
the
Vault
100,
associates
were
asked
to
rank
their
own
law
firms
based
on
categories
most
relevant
to
their
overall
quality
of
life,
including
satisfaction;
firm
culture;
hours;
compensation;
quality
of
work;
business
outlook;
career
outlook;
associate/partner
relations;
transparency;
formal
and
informal
training;
pro
bono;
and
overall
inclusion.
Fifty
firms
were
ranked
for
Vault’s
2027
Best
Law
Firms
to
Work
For
survey,
which
was
conducted
from
October
22,
2025 to January 23,
2026,
so
we’re
getting
a
bird’s-eye
view
of
life
at
many
of
these
firms
in
the
aftermath
of
Trump’s
revenge
tour
against
Biglaw
and
the
broader
legal
industry.
We’re
also
looking
at
feedback
from
associates
during
the
fast-paced
rise
of
artificial
intelligence
being
used
within
the
legal
profession.
All
of
that
being
said,
only
of
the
firms
that
made
the
Top
10
list
for
being
the
most
prestigious
made
the
Top
10
list
for
being
a
best
firm
to
work
for.
There
was
a
huge
amount
of
movement
in
the
Top
10
this
year.
Which
firms
made
the
cut?
Without
any
further
ado,
here
are
the Top
10
Best
Law
Firms
to
Work
For based
on
Vault’s
Annual
Associate
Survey
for
2027:
Morgan
Lewis
&
Bockius
(+1)
O’Melveny
&
Myers
(-1)
Clifford
Chance
US
(no
change)
Ropes
&
Gray
(+36)
Gibson
Dunn
&
Crutcher
(+16)
Fried
Frank
(+3)
Mayer
Brown
(+1)
Gunster
(-2)
Baker
&
Hostetler
(+2)
Proskauer
(not
ranked)
In
happy
news
for
associate
quality
of
life,
Morgan
Lewis
and
O’Melveny
duked
it
out
once
again
this
year,
competing
to
really
impress
their
associates.
As
noted
by
Eric
Stutzke,
SVP
and
General
Manager
of
Vault,
“We
saw
another
close
race
between
Morgan
Lewis
and
O’Melveny
for
the
Best
Law
Firm
to
Work
For
title.”
Both
Morgan
Lewis
and
O’Melveny
placed
in
the
top
10
for
every
quality
of
life
category,
with
each
snagging
the
No.
1
or
No.
2
spot
in
nearly
every
ranking.
“When
looking
at
the
average
scores
from
all
associates
participating
in
the
survey,
the
largest
increases
were
in
Technology
and
Innovation
and
Wellness,”
Stutke
said.
“Firms
are
investing
more
in
AI-powered
tools
and
technologies.
They
are
also
paying
more
attention
to
the
mental
and
physical
well-being
of
associates.”
This
certainly
helps
explain
the
meteoric
rise
in
the
rankings
for
Ropes
and
Gibson
Dunn,
which
both
placed
well
in
the
tech
and
wellness
categories.
Congratulations
to
each
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
the
Vault
Best
Firms
to
Work
For
rankings,
and
a
huge
congratulations
to
Morgan
Lewis
and
O’Melveny
for
scoring
incredibly
well.
How
did
your
firm
do? Email
us,
text
us
at (646)
820-8477,
or
tweet
us @atlblog to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.
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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on Linke
It’s
that
time
of
year
where
publications
look
deep
into
the
souls
of
complex,
nuanced
legal
institutions
and
assign
them
a
fixed
ranking.
U.S.
News
and
World
Report
issued
its
latest
law
school
rankings
and
for
the
first
time
ever,
Yale
has
lost
its
death
grip
on
first
place.
The
rest
of
the
T14
—
which
isn’t
really
a
thing
at
this
point,
since
its
whole
argument
for
being
was
that
the
same
14
schools
never
fell
out
of
the
top
14
—
is
also
topsy-turvy,
with
the
HYS-CCN
model
scrambled
by
the
likes
of
Penn,
Duke,
and
UVA.
Are
the
rankings
just
busted,
or
are
they
catching
up
with
a
new
reality?
At
the
same
time,
Vault
put
out
its
rankings
of
law
firms
based
on
prestige
and
while
the
list
looks
familiar,
the
firms
that
made
deals
with
Donald
Trump
took
a
hit.
And
none
more
than
Paul
Weiss,
which
seems
to
be
taking
much
more
reputational
heat
for
these
deals
than
the
other
capitulators.
Finally,
we
talk
about
billing
and
the
time-space
continuum.
A
vendor
email
landed
in
my
inbox
the
other
day.
Normally
I
delete
these
without
a
second
thought.
This
one
stopped
me.
It
read,
“Legal
teams
often
get
blamed
for
slowing
things
down
—
even
when
the
real
issue
is
unclear
contract
ownership.”
I
read
that
line
three
times
not
because
it
was
clever
marketing
copy
but
because
it
was
true
and
because
I
have
lived
it.
I
Got
Exactly
What
I
Asked
For
Many
years
ago,
I
championed
the
adoption
of
a
contract
management
system.
I
made
the
case
to
leadership.
I
pushed
through
the
budget
process.
I
sold
the
vision.
I
got
my
wish.
We
acquired
the
system
and
then
the
problems
started.
The
problem
was
not
with
the
software.
The
software
worked.
The
problem
was
perception.
Because
I
had
championed
the
system,
the
organization
viewed
me
and
the
legal
office
as
being
the
owner
of
that
system.
When
you
own
the
system,
you
own
the
process.
When
you
own
the
process,
you
own
every
question,
every
delay,
and
every
handoff
that
doesn’t
go
smoothly.
Overnight,
we
went
from
being
the
team
that
reviews
and
advises
on
contracts
to
the
team
that
manages,
tracks,
routes,
and
follows
up
on
contracts.
We
became
the
coordinators,
the
administrators,
and
the
help
desk.
It
was
never
my
plan,
but
it
is
what
happened.
The
Ownership
Trap
The
vendor
email
nailed
it.
When
contract
ownership
is
unclear,
everything
routes
back
through
legal
by
default.
Business
teams
stop
taking
responsibility
for
their
own
contracts
because
“that’s
Legal’s
system.”
Contracts
stall
between
handoffs
and
Legal
becomes
the
escalation
point
for
problems
Legal
did
not
create.
The
friction
builds
and
it
builds
quietly.
No
one
sends
you
an
email
saying,
“We’ve
decided
Legal
is
the
bottleneck
now.”
It
just
happens.
One
question
at
a
time.
One
forwarded
email
at
a
time.
One
“Can
you
check
on
this?”
at
a
time.
Before
you
know
it,
you
are
spending
more
time
managing
a
workflow
than
providing
legal
advice.
You
are
tracking
deadlines
instead
of
assessing
risk.
You
are
chasing
signatures
instead
helping
to
shape
deals.
That
is
not
what
in-house
lawyers
are
for.
It
Was
Never
About
The
System
Here
is
what
I
wish
I
had
understood
then.
Getting
the
system
is
the
easy
part.
It
is
defining
who
owns
what
inside
the
system
that
is
the
hard
part.
I
skipped
that
step.
I
assumed
that
because
the
tool
would
make
contract
management
more
efficient,
everyone
would
naturally
understand
their
role
in
the
process.
They
did
not.
Without
clear
ownership,
the
path
of
least
resistance
for
the
entire
organization
was
to
send
everything
to
the
team
whose
name
was
connected
to
the
system.
The
tool
did
not
create
the
bottleneck.
The
system
was
the
excuse.
The
real
issue
was
that
no
one
had
drawn
the
lines.
There
were
no
defined
roles
and
responsibilities.
Legal
As
Advisor,
Not
Administrator
In-house
lawyers
add
the
most
value
when
they
are
advising,
not
administrating;
when
they
are
assessing
risk,
and
negotiating
terms;
and
when
they
are
helping
the
business
make
informed
decisions.
It
is
not
when
they
are
checking
the
status
of
a
signature.
If
your
legal
team
has
become
the
default
coordinator
for
contracts,
something
has
gone
wrong.
The
fix
is
not
working
harder
or
hiring
more
people.
The
fix
is
stepping
back
and
asking:
who
should
own
what?
Here
is
how
I
think
about
it
now:
Business
teams
own
the
relationship
and
the
deal.
They
initiate
the
contract.
They
know
the
commercial
terms.
They
should
be
responsible
for
driving
the
process
forward.
Legal
owns
the
review
and
the
risk
assessment.
We
advise
on
terms,
flag
issues,
and
protect
the
organization.
We
do
not
need
to
be
the
ones
routing
documents
or
chasing
approvals.
Operations
or
procurement
(or
whoever
manages
the
system)
owns
the
workflow.
The
system
needs
an
administrator,
and
that
administrator
should
not
be
Legal.
When
those
lines
are
clear,
Legal
gets
to
do
what
legal
does
best.
When
they
are
not,
Legal
becomes
the
catch-all.
And
catch-alls
become
bottlenecks.
The
Lesson
I
Carry
Forward
I
do
not
regret
championing
that
system.
It
was
the
right
call.
I
learned,
though,
that
advocating
for
a
solution
is
not
the
same
as
designing
how
it
will
work
within
the
organization.
The
system
was
a
tool.
What
we
lacked
was
a
plan
for
who
would
use
it,
how,
and
who
would
be
accountable
for
each
stage
of
the
process.
If
you
are
an
in-house
lawyer
thinking
about
implementing
new
tools,
new
processes,
or
new
systems,
learn
from
my
mistake.
Do
not
just
sell
the
“what.”
Define
the
“who.”
Be
explicit
about
ownership
from
day
one.
Put
it
in
writing.
Make
sure
everyone,
from
the
business
team
to
finance
to
procurement,
understands
their
role
before
you
flip
the
switch.
If
you
don’t,
you
become
the
owner
by
default.
Once
you
own
it,
it
is
very
hard
to
give
it
back.
Support
The
Team.
Do
Not
Become
The
Team.
The
best
in-house
lawyers
I
know
are
the
ones
who
make
the
business
better
without
becoming
the
business.
They
create
frameworks,
not
dependencies.
They
build
capacity
in
others,
not
reliance
on
themselves.
The
next
time
a
process
breaks
down
or
a
contract
stalls,
resist
the
urge
to
jump
in
and
fix
it.
Instead,
ask:
whose
job
is
this?
If
the
answer
is
always
“Legal,”
it
is
time
to
redraw
the
lines.
We
are
at
our
best:
when
we
advise,
not
when
we
administer;
when
we
support
the
team,
not
when
we
become
the
team.
The
vendor
email
reminded
me
of
that.
Sometimes
the
best
insights
come
from
the
most
unexpected
places.
Lisa
Lang
is
an
accomplished
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
dedicated
to
empowering
fellow
legal
professionals. She
offers
insights
and
resources
tailored
for
in-house
counsel
through
her
website
and
blog,
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com).
Lisa
actively
engages
with
the
legal
community
via
LinkedIn,
sharing
her
expertise
and
fostering
meaningful
connections.
You
can
reach
her
at [email protected],
connect
on
LinkedIn
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/).
Like
John
Fugelsang,
I
was
raised
strictly
Catholic.
However,
a
lot
of
variation
falls
under
the
umbrella
of
“strictly
Catholic,”
and
the
unique
backstory
of
his
parents
early
in
his
book
“Separation
of
Church
and
Hate”
is
worth
the
purchase
price
alone.
Furgelsang
definitely
put
in
his
time
promoting
the
book,
and
I’d
heard
him
speak
in
the
course
of
a
number
of
media
appearances
before
I
finally
picked
up
a
copy
a
little
over
a
week
ago.
I
was
about
halfway
through
when
Donald
Trump
posted
his
lengthy
tirade
trashing
the
pope
and
posted
an
AI
slop
image
depicting
himself
as
Jesus
Christ.
Trump’s
blasphemous
social
media
posts
didn’t
especially
bother
me.
I
abandoned
Catholicism
about
13
years
ago,
and
even
if
I
hadn’t,
I
am
far
more
indignant
about
Trump’s
real-world
outrages
than
his
disgusting
presence
in
cyberspace.
When
the
president
has
already
sent
unaccountable
masked
goons
to
murder
American
citizens
in
the
streets,
what’s
yet
another
display
of
distasteful
idolatry
on
the
internet?
That
being
said,
I
went
to
a
Catholic
law
school,
almost
all
of
my
family
members
are
still
Catholic,
and
I
understand
anyone
of
any
religion
being
upset
about
a
sitting
president
mocking
one
current
and
one
former
head
of
their
church.
It’s
not
difficult
to
empathize
with
those
who
were
displeased
to
see
Trump
baselessly
attack
the
pope
and
compare
himself
to
Jesus.
“Separation
of
Church
and
Hate”
was
the
perfect
thing
to
be
reading
as
this
latest
Trump
controversy
unfolded.
It
has
been
easy
to
be
resentful
of
the
highly
religious
among
us
for
causing
this
mess
to
begin
with.
Churchgoing
Catholics
went
for
Trump
over
Kamala
Harris
55%
to
43%.
Protestants
voted
for
Trump
62%
to
36%.
Fugelsang
made
it
a
lot
easier
for
me
to
accept
that
a
relatively
small
number
of
zealots
who
don’t
actually
practice
what
Jesus
taught
are
largely
responsible
for
these
margins.
I’ve
read
the
Bible.
Yeah,
all
of
it.
While
this
puts
me
far
ahead
of
most
people
who
claim
to
believe
in
this
stuff,
it’s
a
hard
holy
book
to
follow.
The
Bible
is
so
full
of
contradictions,
nonsense,
rules
that
don’t
and
were
never
meant
to
apply
to
21st
century
Christians,
irrelevant
measurements,
and
exhaustive
lineages
that
it
really
self-dilutes
the
part
that
matters:
the
teachings
of
Jesus.
Fugelsang
does
great
work
in
separating
the
wheat
from
the
chaff
in
the
source
material
and
in
explaining
why
it
makes
sense
to
do
so
even
(maybe
especially)
from
a
believer’s
perspective.
Jesus
was
a
radical.
He
preached
nonviolence.
He
championed
the
poor,
questioned
authority,
and
was
definitely
anti-wealth.
He
was
against
the
death
penalty.
He
was
pro-woman
2,000
years
before
it
finally
just
barely
started
to
become
cool.
He
never
mentioned
abortion.
He
never
said
anything
anti-gay.
In
fact,
in
one
story
Jesus
went
out
of
His
way
to
heal
a
young
man
who,
based
on
the
context
and
the
historical
conventions
of
the
time,
was
likely
the
homosexual
lover
of
a
Roman.
Any
Christian
would
benefit
from
reading
“Separation
of
Church
and
Hate.”
But
so
would
any
nonbeliever.
Like
it
or
not,
we
all
have
to
share
the
world
with
people
of
many
different
faiths,
or
no
faith
at
all,
and
whatever
you
believe,
Jesus
makes
a
lot
of
good
points
simply
as
a
philosopher.
When
I
finish
“Separation
of
Church
and
Hate,”
I’m
not
going
back
to
Mass.
But
it’s
already
reminded
me
that,
when
you
stop
selectively
focusing
on
the
parts
of
the
Bible
that
are
clearly
wrong
as
applied
to
modern
life
and
faith
(much
of
the
Old
Testament
isn’t
a
healthy
place
to
dwell)
and
instead
focus
on
Christ’s
actual
deeds
and
teachings,
Jesus
clearly
had
so
much
staying
power
for
a
reason.
Treat
others
as
you
would
like
to
be
treated
—
doesn’t
get
much
more
profound
than
that.
Now
if
only
we
could
get
a
few
more
self-identified
Christians
to
really
try
to
live
by
it.
Whether
you’re
Christian
or
not,
pick
up
a
copy
of
Fugelsang’s
book
if
you
want
to
counter
the
poison
that
is
Trump’s
self-deifying
social
media
presence.
I
guarantee
that
Fugelsang’s
actions
as
an
author
are
a
lot
closer
to
what
Jesus
would
have
done
under
present
circumstances
than
whatever
it
is
Trump
is
doing
lately.
Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
Well,
folks,
it
looks
like
the
Senate
is
getting
its
confirmation
ducks
in
a
row
—
because
if
Justice
Samuel
Alito
does
finally
decide
to
hang
up
his
robes,
Majority
Leader
John
Thune
wants
you
to
know
they
are
ready.
Thune
told
the
Washington
Examiner
that
Senate
Republicans
are
fully
prepared
to
move
on
a
Supreme
Court
nominee
should
a
vacancy
arise.
“That’s
a
contingency
I
think
around
here
you
always
have
to
be
prepared
for.
And
if
that
were
to
happen,
yes,
we
would
be
prepared
to
confirm,”
Thune
said.
He
further
clarified
that
any
confirmation
vote
would
happen
before
November’s
midterm
elections,
which,
given
the
political
stakes,
makes
all
the
sense
in
the
world.
But
let’s
back
up,
because
none
of
this
happens
without
Alito
actually
walking
out
the
door
first,
and
we’ve
been
watching
that
particular
slow-motion
drama
unfold
here
at
Above
the
Law
for
months
now.
The
retirement
speculation
really
got
legs
back
in
February,
when
The
Nation‘s
Elie
Mystal
published
a
piece
laying
out
the
Alito
retirement
case
methodically.
(Alito’s
forthcoming
book,
So
Ordered:
An
Originalist’s
View
of
the
Constitution,
the
Court,
and
the
Country,
is
set
to
drop
on
October
6,
the
day
after
the
Supreme
Court’s
2026-27
term
begins.
You
know…
right
when
justices
get
stuck
in
D.C.
hearing
oral
arguments,
making
it
a
strange
choice
for
a
book
tour.
Unless,
of
course,
you
don’t
plan
to
be
hearing
oral
arguments.)
That
framing
caught
fire,
and
the
speculation
has
been
building
ever
since.
CNN’s
Joan
Biskupic
later
reported
that
Alito
has
been
pondering
stepping
down,
and
it’s
well
known
that
his
wife,
Martha-Ann,
is
eager
for
him
to
retire,
as
she
acknowledged
in
a
surreptitiously
taped
conversation
at
a
Supreme
Court
event.
Meanwhile,
prediction
markets
have
the
odds
of
an
Alito
retirement
before
the
end
of
the
year
at
above
50
percent
—
Kalshi
at
50.6
percent
and
Polymarket
at
53
percent.
What’s
particularly
interesting
is
Mystal’s
original
read
on
why
Alito
would
retire
now,
if
he
does,
and
it
maps
almost
perfectly
onto
the
political
urgency
animating
Thune’s
comments.
As
Mystal
wrote,
“Alito
watches
TV.
He
reads
the
papers.
With
Republican
poll
numbers
flagging,
I
don’t
think
he
wants
to
roll
the
dice
and
be
forced
to
hang
around
on
the
court
should
Republicans
lose
the
Senate
this
fall.
I
think
he’s
leaving
while
Republicans
still
have
the
political
power
to
replace
him
with
another
Sam
Alito
who
is
30
years
younger.”
That’s
the
throughline
here,
and
it’s
worth
dwelling
on
for
a
moment.
Because
right
now,
the
GOP
holding
the
Senate
is
not
exactly
a
sure
thing.
Kalshi
traders
currently
price
Democrats
as
the
slight
favorites
to
retake
the
Senate,
with
the
most
likely
single
outcome
being
Democratic
control
of
both
chambers,
a
scenario
traders
assign
a
50%
probability.
History
is
not
kind
to
the
incumbent
party
at
midterms
under
the
best
of
circumstances,
and
2026
is
not
the
best
of
circumstances.
An
unpopular
trade
war
hammering
consumers,
gas
prices
climbing,
and
an
economy
that
has
rattled
markets
badly
enough
to
give
everyone
2008
flashbacks
they
didn’t
ask
for
is
not
exactly
the
formula
for
a
rousing
midterm
defense.
Which
means
if
Alito
is
indeed
reading
the
papers,
he’s
seeing
the
same
numbers
everyone
else
is
seeing.
The
window
to
get
a
reliable
conservative
confirmed
is
open
right
now.
Thune
is
essentially
signaling
the
same
thing
from
the
other
end
of
Pennsylvania
Avenue:
we
are
ready,
come
on
down.
Whether
that
quiet
urgency
is
landing
at
One
First
Street
is,
for
now,
anyone’s
guess.
Now,
here’s
where
things
get
truly
entertaining.
Even
as
Thune
is
publicly
declaring
readiness,
Politico
reports
that
Senate
Republicans
haven’t
actually
started
having
serious
conversations
within
the
conference
about
the
logistics
of
a
confirmation
battle.
Which,
hilarious.
But
perhaps
the
most
delicious
detail
in
all
of
this
is
who
may
be
at
the
front
of
the
line
if
Trump
gets
to
pick
another
justice:
Senator
Ted
Cruz
of
Texas.
According
to
Politico,
Cruz
may
be
a
frontrunner
for
the
nod.
And
Trump
himself
floated
the
idea
during
a
stop
in
Texas
earlier
this
year,
joking
that
Cruz
would
get
unanimous
support
from
his
Senate
colleagues.
And
honestly,
the
reasoning
is
fucking
spot
on
—
as
Trump
put
it,
“they
want
to
get
him
out
of
there.”
A
Senator-to-Supreme-Court
pipeline
is
not
unheard
of
(Hugo
Black,
for
example)
but
the
notion
that
Cruz’s
colleagues
would
be
thrilled
to
confirm
him
to
a
lifetime
appointment
primarily
as
a
means
of
removing
him
from
their
daily
lives
is
a
level
of
petty
legislative
calculus
that
feels
very
on-brand
for
this
particular
moment
in
American
politics.
One
does
wonder
whether
“unanimous
support”
would
survive
the
actual
confirmation
hearings,
but
that’s
a
problem
for
another
news
cycle.
Republicans
currently
hold
53
seats
in
the
Senate,
and
Supreme
Court
confirmations
require
only
a
simple
majority,
meaning
Trump
would
have
a
comfortable
margin
to
confirm
a
nominee
without
needing
any
Democratic
votes.
So
the
math
works…
for
now.
Whether
the
will
is
truly
there,
whether
Alito
actually
walks
out
the
door
before
the
midterms,
and
whether
Ted
Cruz
ends
up
trading
one
high-profile
job
for
another
remains
to
be
seen.
But
the
Senate,
at
least
officially,
is
ready.
Or
so
they
say.
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].
Kathryn
