Category: News Feeds

If
you
listened
to
deal
teams
in
2025,
you’d
hear
a
familiar
refrain:
contracts
are
slowing
everything
down.
Too
much
governance.
Too
many
controls.
Too
much
legal
caution
layered
onto
deals
that
just
need
to
close.

That
story
feels
right.
It’s
also
wrong.

What
actually
slowed
deals
in
2025
wasn’t
legal
rigor.
It
was
uncertainty.
And
the
deals
that
closed
fastest
weren’t
the
simplest
contracts.
They
were
the
ones
that
made
trust
visible
early.

What
Really
Caused
Deal
Friction
In
2025

AI,
data
use,
and
regulatory
ambiguity
changed
the
baseline
assumptions
of
commercial
contracting.
Risk
felt
harder
to
evaluate,
harder
to
price,
and
harder
to
explain
to
business
stakeholders.

When
parties
couldn’t
tell
what
the
other
side
was
actually
doing
with
data,
models,
or
automated
decision-making,
negotiations
dragged.
Questions
multiplied.
Escalations
became
inevitable.
Everyone
defaulted
to
delay,
not
because
the
contract
was
long,
but
because
the
risk
signals
arrived
too
late.

In
other
words,
deals
didn’t
slow
because
contracts
asked
for
too
much.
They
slowed
because
no
one
knew
who
to
trust
until
the
eleventh
hour.

The
Counterintuitive
Pattern
Lawyers
Started
Noticing

Across
many
2025
negotiations,
a
clear
pattern
emerged:
contracts
with
clearer
governance
language
tended
to
close
faster
and
escalate
less,
even
when
they
were
longer
or
more
detailed.

That
sounds
backwards
if
you
equate
speed
with
simplicity.
But
speed
isn’t
about
page
count.
It’s
about
legibility.

When
contracts
clearly
spelled
out
how
AI
systems
could
be
used,
what
guardrails
applied,
when
reviews
were
triggered,
and
how
issues
would
be
handled,
parties
stopped
arguing
in
the
abstract.
They
could
see
the
shape
of
the
risk.

Clarity
reduced
imagination-driven
fear.
And
fear
is
what
slows
deals.

Why
Blanket
Prohibitions
Backfired

One
instinct
that
showed
up
early
in
2025
was
the
use
of
blanket
prohibitions.
No
AI
use.
No
automated
decision-making.
No
training
on
customer
data.
No
exceptions.

Those
clauses
felt
safe
at
first.
They
were
easy
to
draft
and
easy
to
explain.
They
also
tended
to
unravel
under
scrutiny.

Blanket
prohibitions
invite
edge
cases.
They
raise
questions
they
don’t
answer.
And
once
business
teams
realize
the
prohibition
conflicts
with
how
the
product
actually
works,
renegotiation
becomes
unavoidable.

The
result
isn’t
speed.
It’s
churn.

Broad
bans
delayed
deals
not
because
they
were
strict,
but
because
they
were
brittle.
They
couldn’t
accommodate
reality
without
reopening
the
entire
conversation.

Conditional
Obligations
Quietly
Accelerated
Deals

What
worked
better
in
2025
wasn’t
less
governance.
It
was
more
conditional
governance.

Contracts
that
moved
quickly
tended
to
replace
blanket
restrictions
with
conditional
permissions.
Instead
of
saying
“never,”
they
said
“unless.”
Instead
of
prohibiting
entire
categories
of
behavior,
they
defined
thresholds,
triggers,
and
escalation
paths.

If
AI
was
used
in
certain
ways,
additional
obligations
applied.
If
models
changed
materially,
notice
was
required.
If
automated
decisions
crossed
defined
boundaries,
review
mechanisms
kicked
in.

These
provisions
weren’t
lighter.
They
were
more
precise.

And
precision
reduced
friction.
When
parties
understood

when
obligations
applied,
they
stopped
arguing
about

whether
they
should
exist
at
all.

Trust
Architecture
Beats
Trust
Theater

A
lot
of
contracts
still
rely
on
what
might
be
called
trust
theater:
broad
assurances,
aspirational
principles,
and
generalized
promises
of
responsibility.

Those
statements
don’t
build
trust.
They
postpone
it.

The
deals
that
closed
faster
in
2025
relied
on
trust
architecture
instead.
They
embedded
concrete
signals
into
the
contract:
governance
processes,
audit
hooks,
documentation
expectations,
and
clear
accountability
pathways.

Rather
than
asking
counterparties
to
believe,
these
contracts
showed
them
where
to
look.

That
difference
mattered.
When
trust
was
observable
early,
negotiations
focused
on
alignment
instead
of
suspicion.

What
This
Means
For
Lawyers
In
Practice

The
lesson
from
2025
isn’t
that
contracts
should
be
simpler.
It’s
that
they
should
be
clearer
sooner.

Governance
language
placed
at
the
end
of
an
agreement
tends
to
arrive
too
late
to
reduce
friction.
By
then,
risk
perceptions
are
already
set.
Putting
clarity
upfront
allows
business,
legal,
and
technical
teams
to
align
before
negotiations
calcify.

Lawyers
who
frame
governance
as
a
delay
mechanism
miss
its
real
function.
Done
well,
governance
is
a
deal
accelerator
because
it
collapses
uncertainty
early.

Patterns
like
these
appeared
consistently
across
commercial
agreements
negotiated
in
2025
and
are
explored
in
more
detail
in
a
recent

“Contract
Trust
Report”
examining
how
trust
signals
affect
deal
velocity. 

The
Real
Takeaway

In
2025,
the
fastest
deals
weren’t
the
lightest
on
governance.
They
were
the
clearest
about
it.

Contracts
didn’t
slow
business
down.
Unclear
trust
signals
did.

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.


A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.


She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.

The
ABA
has
been
trying
to
slow
Standard
206’s
bleeding
since
the
Court
handed
down

SFFA
v.
Harvard.
In
short,
the
standard
held
that
law
schools
had
to
take
concrete
actions
showing
a
commitment
to
diversity
by
providing
full
opportunities
to
study
the
law
and
enter
the
profession
to
underrepresented
groups.
If
they
didn’t,
the
school’s
accreditation
could
be
in
jeopardy.
The
ABA
suspended
the
standard

right
at
the
end
of
Black
History
Month
last
year
and
spent
the
interim
time

promising
that
they
weren’t
retreating
from
diversity
despite
all
the
evidence
to
the
contrary.
Though
their
good
gesture
move
of

extending
the
moratorium
didn’t
really
do
anything,
the
barely
breathing
Standard
still
got
played
for
culture
war
fodder.
The
FTC
made
the
ridiculous
argument
that

demanding
diversity
was
making
law
school
expensive,
meanwhile
Texas,
Florida,
and
Tennessee
used
206
as
an
excuse
to
break
off
from
ABA
accreditation
entirely.
A
year
later,
we
close
Black
History
Month
with
the
ABA
proposing
a
repeal
of
Section
206.

Law.com
has
coverage:

Following
an
emotional
discussion
about
the
future
of
the
American
Bar
Association’s
accreditation
standard
that
governs
diversity
and
inclusion
requirements
in
law
school
admissions,
the
ABA’s
Council
of
the
Section
of
Legal
Education
and
Admissions
to
the
Bar
has
decided
to
advance
a
proposal
to
repeal
the
standard.

The
council
voted
Friday
to
send
a
proposed
repeal
of
the
standard
out
for
notice
and
comment
and
extend
the
current
suspension
of
Standard
206
until
Aug.
31,
2027.

Emotions
be
damned:
if
you’re
going
to
get
rid
of
it,
just
get
rid
of
it.
If
you
want
to
keep
it
on
the
books
to
spite
the
administration,
fine,
but
do
it

and
stand
firm
for
something.
Stand
on
your
principles,
suffer
the
consequences,
and

hope
that
fate
smiles
on
you
as
it
did
Costco.
But
this
slow
dance
of
“it
breaks
my
heart
to
do
this”
and
“schools
need
clear
rules
to
operate”
muddies
values
and
benefits
no
one.
And
let’s
be
honest.
Pushing
the
decision
off
until
next
year
is
not
that
much
better.

ABA
Weighing
Repeal
of
Law
School
Diversity
Standard
[Law.com]

Earlier:

ABA
Committee
Decides
To
Diversify
Diversity.
It
Should
Come
With
A
Clear
Reason
For
Why
That’s
Important.

ABA
President
Says
They
Aren’t
‘Retreating’
From
Diversity
Promises.
Does
He
Know
What
The
ABA
Has
Been
Up
To?

ABA
Diversity
And
Inclusion
Standard
Looks
Like
It’s
On
Its
Last
Legs

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

If
they
use
AI
to
justify
it,
they
won’t
look
as
cruel
when
they
make
that
many
staff
cuts.

— Scott
Love,
president
of
legal
industry
recruiter
The
Attorney
Search
Group,
in
comments
given
to
the

New
York
Law
Journal,
concerning
the
recent
spate
of
layoffs
at
Baker
McKenzie,
where
the
firm

parted
ways
with
hundreds
of
business
professionals
while
noting
that
artificial
intelligence
factored
into
the
move.
Industry
insiders
predict
that
more
layoffs
may
be
on
the
way,
with
Baker’s
cuts
offering
permission
for
other
firms
to
move
forward
with
their
own.

---

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.

No
cheers
for
Chief
Justice
Roberts!

After
Friday’s

tariff
ruling,
the
usual
suspects
chimed
in
to
glaze
the
three
conservatives
who
ruled
that
Trump
can’t
impose
a
constantly
shifting
tariff
regime
based
on
whichever
country
he’s
trying
to
stick
up
on
a
given
day.

Adam
Liptak,
chief
legal
affairs
correspondent
at
the
New
York
Times

called
it
“a
declaration
of
independence,”
congratulating
the
“controlled,
cerebral
chief
justice”
for
staring
down
“the
biting,
brazen
president.”

Times
opinion
columnist
David
French

suggested
that

Learning
Resources
v.
Trump
“may
prove
to
be
the
most
important
Supreme
Court
decision
this
century.”

“On
this
day
the
presidency
is
stuffed
back
into
its
box.
On
this
day
the
separation
of
powers
prevails.
And
on
this
day
the
Constitution
holds,”
he
gushed.

Over
at
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
the
Editorial
Board

celebrated
the
“monumental
vindication
of
the
Constitution’s
separation
of
powers,”
winking
that
“You
might
call
it
the
real
tariff
Liberation
Day.”

Only
George
Will
at
the
Washington
Post

tempered
his
criticism.
While
lauding
the
ruling
as
a
“defibrillator
to
Congress,”
he
chided
conservatives
for
“something
the
court
has
been
dilatory
about
elaborating
and
timid
about
enforcing:
a
nondelegation
doctrine.”
Please,
Mister
Manly
Chief
Justice,
enforce
your
made-up
“major
questions
doctrine”

harder!

No
doubt
the
Chief
Justice
appreciates
the
lovefest,
but
his
adoring
fans
should
take
a
breath.
Trump’s
claim
that
he
can
shout
“Emergency!”
and
steal
Congress’s
tariff
power
was
stupid
a
year
ago
when
the
first
challenges
were
filed.
It
was
stupid
in
May,
when
a
three-judge
panel
of
the
Court
of
International
Trade

declared
them
unlawful,
for
the
exact
same
reasons
just
reached
by
the
Supreme
Court.
It
was
stupid
in
August
when
the
Federal
Circuit
agreed,
but
sent
it
back
to
the
trial
court
to
figure
out
what
the
hell
to
do
after
SCOTUS
blew
up
nationwide
injunctions
in

Trump
v.
CASA.
And
it
was
stupid
in
September
when
the
Supreme
Court
granted
cert,
effectively
staying
the
CIT’s
injunction
and
allowing
Trump
to
collect
the
illegal
levies.

At
any
point,
the
justices
could
have
put
a
stop
to
this
nonsense.
But,
faced
with
the
choice
to
tell
the
president
“no”
in
the
first
instance
or
let
him
steal
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars,
Chief
Justice
Roberts
said,

“Eh,
let’s
go
with
door
number
two.
Seems
like
the
safer
option.”

American
taxpayers
footed
the
bill
for
this
fecklessness,
as
importers
passed
the
cost
on
to
consumers.
And
because
the
justices
dithered,
presumably
to
let
Justice
Kavanaugh
polish
his
63-page
turd
of
a
dissent,
the
meter
kept
running
for
four
months.

After
the
opinion
came
down
Friday,
Trump
gave
a

rambling
press
conference,
in
which
he
called
the
majority
justices
“lap
dogs
for
the
RINOs
and
the
radical
left
Democrats”
and
praised
Kavanaugh,
“whose
stock
has
gone
so
up,
you
have
to
see,
I’m
so
proud
of
him.”
There
was
also
a
lengthy
airing
of
his
fantasy
of
being
kissed
by
a
steel
worker.

Trump:
“‘President,
I’d
love
to
kiss
you’
—
this
is
a
very
powerful
man.
I
don’t
want
to
be
kissed
my
that
man.
But
a
very
powerful,
strong
man
…
he
said,
‘Sir,
I
want
to
kiss
you
so
badly.’
And
I
said,
‘No
thank
you.'”

—

Aaron
Rupar
(@atrupar.com)

2026-02-20T18:58:14.900Z

The
president
did
say
one
rational
thing,
though,
in
response
to
a
question
about
whether
the
Treasury
will
issue
refunds
to
companies
that
paid
the
tariffs.

“They
take
months
and
months
to
write
an
opinion
and
they
don’t
even
discuss
that
point,”
he

groused.
“Wouldn’t
you
think
they
would
have
put
one
sentence
in
there
saying
that
keep
the
money
or
don’t
keep
the
money,
right?
I
guess
it
has
to
get
litigated
for
the
next
two
years.”

Why,

yes,
you
would
…
if
you
weren’t
completely
preoccupied
with
slobbering
all
over
the
justices
for
finally
handing
in
their
homework.
This
omission
guarantees
that
companies
who
paid
these
illegal
levies
won’t
get
their
money
back
without
an
expensive
fight.

BASH:
Let’s
start
with
the
big
question
—
will
you
refund
the
roughly
$134
billion
taken
by
these
tariffs?BESSENT:
That’s
not
the
big
question.
That’s
bad
framingBASH:
Refunds
are
clearly
gonna
be
up
to
youBESSENT:
No
no
no.
It’s
not
up
to
me
or
the
administration.
It’s
up
to
the
lower
court

—

Aaron
Rupar
(@atrupar.com)

2026-02-22T14:09:03.500Z

And
if
they
do,
it
will
be
a
windfall
for
their
shareholders,
not
the
consumers
who
paid
for
those
tariffs
in
increased
costs.
It’s
functionally
a
transfer
of
wealth
from
consumers
to
American
businesses,
with
an
assist
from
a
demented
despot.

This
is
not
the
day
that
Chief
Justice
Roberts
became
a
real
jurist.
This
is
three
conservative
justices
who
invited
the
president
to
pick
consumers’
pockets
for
a
full
year
before
eventually
telling
him
to
knock
it
off
—
once
they’d
ensured
that
the
chaotic
fallout
would
persist
for
the
rest
of
his
term.
We
will
not
be
applauding
like
trained
seals
because
the
person
who
left
the
bath
running
and
flooded
our
collective
house
eventually
wandered
back
and
turned
off
the
taps.

The
most
important
Supreme
Court
decision
this
century
was

Trump
v.
US.
Roberts,
Barrett,
and
Gorsuch
all
flubbed
that
one,
agreeing
that
the
president
can
do
crimes
with
impunity.
The
fact
that
one
time
they
actually
did
their
damn
jobs
is
no
cause
for
celebration.
It’s
the
bare,
bloody
minimum.

Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….

---

Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:

If
you
were
worried
that
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
might
someday
surprise
everyone
by
rediscovering
the
concept
of
judicial
independence,
congratulations,
today
is
not
that
day.

In
a
move
that
will
shock
exactly
no
one
who
has
watched
Cannon’s
extremely
online
career
arc,
the
Trump-appointed
judge
permanently
blocked
the
release
of
the
special
counsel
report
authored
by
Jack
Smith
in
the
classified
documents
case.
The
reason?
According
to
Cannon,
disclosure
is
barred
“due
to
the
unlawful
appointment
of
Special
Counsel
Smith
and
Attorney
General
Bondi’s
deliberative-process
determination.”

Cannon,
you’ll
recall,
showed her
whole
ass as
a partisan
hack willing
to
do the
bidding of
Donald
Trump,
but
her lack
of
experience and chaotic
courtroom
management are
just
as noteworthy.
But
she
really
upped
her
status
as
“favorite
judge
of
the
most
aggressively
red-hatted
MAGA
crowd”
when
she
dismissed
the
criminal
case
against
Trump.
Her
theory
—
that
Smith’s
appointment
as
special
counsel
was
unconstitutional
—
was…
creative.
So
creative,
in
fact,
that
it
flew

directly
into
conflict
with
decades
of
precedent.
But
after
Trump
won
the
2024
election,

the
DOJ
dropped
the
appeal.

Fast-forward
to

today’s
ruling.
Cannon
writes
that
releasing
Volume
II
of
Smith’s
report
(the
portion
addressing
the
classified
documents)
will
stay
behind
Cannon’s
ever-expanding
shield
of
judicial
paternalism
as
it
would
cause
“manifest
injustice”
to
the
former
defendants
because
Smith,
“acting
without
lawful
authority,”
obtained
an
indictment
that
was
ultimately
dismissed.

Originally,
Cannon
justified
blocking
release
because
appeals
were
pending
for
Trump’s
co-defendants
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira.
Then
Trump
took
over
the
DOJ,
those
cases
evaporated,
and

Cannon’s
excuse
went
with
them.
American
Oversight
and
the
Knight
First
Amendment
Institute
sought
to
intervene
and
asked
for
the
report
to
be
released.

Cannon
responded
by
doing
absolutely
nothing
—
for
a
really
long
time.
Like,
the
Eleventh
Circuit
had
to
get
all
“undue
delay”
to
get
her
to
work.
Cannon
did
what
any
aspiring
MAGA
judicial
influencer
would
do
and
invited
the
parties
to
seek
“appropriate
relief.”

You
can
probably
guess
what
happened
next.

Trump,
through
a
personal
lawyer,
filed
a
motion
asking
Cannon
to
permanently
block
release
of
the
report.
The
DOJ
—
that
is,

Trump’s
personal
law
firm
—
helpfully
chimed
in
to
say
it
agreed
the
report
shouldn’t
be
released
outside
the
department.
Nauta
and
De
Oliveira
went
even
further,
asking
Cannon
to
order
that
all
copies
of
the
report
be
destroyed…
which,
even
Cannon
declined
to
go
that
far.
Growth!

Cannon’s
ruling
locks
the
report
away,
insulating
Trump
from
the
political
and
historical
consequences
of
a
prosecution
that
never
quite
made
it
to
trial.
All
because
rather
than
act
as
a
“check”
or
“balance”
to
executive
authority,
Aileen
Cannon
uses
her
federal
judgeship
to
give
an
assist
to
her
benefactor.

---

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].

Albany
Law
student
Dawson
Maloney
is
dead,
following
an
apparent
terror
attack
on
a
substation
in
the
Hoover
Dam
power
generation
system.

Maloney,
a
2L,
rented
a
car
in
New
York,
embarking
on
Valentine’s
Day
for
a
cross-country
trip
to
Boulder
City,
Nevada.

Armed
with
“two
shotguns,
an
assault
rifle-style
pistol,
and
flame
throwers,”
Maloney
rammed
the
rented
Nissan
Sentra
through
the
gate
of
a
power
substation
owned
by
the
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Water
and
Power.
The
substation
was
not
damaged
in
the
attack.

Because
it
was
a
Nissan
Sentra.

Maloney
had
sent
recent
messages
to
his
family
about
plans
to
do
something
that
would
make
the
news
and
at
one
point
referring
to
himself
as
a
terrorist.
Albany
Law
School
released
a
statement
saying
they
were
“heartbroken
to
hear
of
the
tragic
passing
of
one
of
our
law
students,
Dawson
Maloney,
in
an
off-campus
incident.”

Hoover
Dam
and
its
affiliated
infrastructure
have
drawn
attacks
in
the
past.
Nazis
tried
to

destroy
the
dam’s
intake
towers
in
1939.
In
2020,
a
guy
used
a
rifle
and
an
armored
truck
to
block
the
bridge
over
the
dam
to

show
his
support
for
QAnon.

Maloney’s
motive
is
less
clear
as
he
seems
to
have
read
an
eclectic
selection
of
ideologies.
A
hotel
room
search
uncovered
explosive
materials
—
suggesting
Maloney
harbored
plans
for
more
attacks
—
and
a
“smorgasbord
of
radical
literature.”

According
to
Las
Vegas
Metropolitan
Police
Department
Sheriff
Kevin
McMahill,
the
works
spanned
right-wing
extremism,
left-wing
extremism,
environmental
extremism,
white
supremacy,
and
anti-government
ideologies.
Though,
in
fairness,
to
the
police,
those
could
just
be
his
law
school
textbooks.

It
is
a
reminder
to
keep
vigilant
about
radicalization
these
days.
There’s
a
glut
of
misinformation
and
propaganda
out
there
—
some
of
it
being
pushed
by
the
people
who
own
social
media
platforms
—
and
it’s
easy
for
folks
to
lose
a
sense
of
grounding,
even
if
they
have
the
advantages
that
come
with
being
in
law
school.

---

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 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.

Here’s
a
new
twist
on
the
notion
that
AI
will
soon
make
businesses
all
super
productive
and
maybe
all
of
us
irrelevant.
In
fact,
AI
may
actually
slow
productivity
growth
which
eventually
could
chill
the
AI
hype.

Wait.
What?

According
to
a
well-researched

Fortune
Magazine
article,
AI
is
slowing
the
growth
of
productivity.
And
it
could
mean
more,
not
less,
work
for
us
poor
human
lawyers.

It’s
all
based
on
the
observations
in
the
late
80s
of
the
economist

Robert
Solow.
Back
then,
the
prevailing
view
was
that
new
technologies
like
transistors,
microprocessors,
and
memory
chips
would
disrupt
workplaces
and
result
in
increased
productivity
growth.
But
in
fact,
according
to
Solow,
the
opposite
happened.
Productivity
growth
actually
slowed
over
the
years.
It’s
the
Solow
paradox.

Why?
Solow
believed
it
was
because
the
new
technologies
produced
more
and
more
information
and
reports
that
had
to
be
read,
pored
over,
and
analyzed.
In
other
words,
the
tools
created
more
work,
not
necessarily
greater
productivity.

And
it
may
be
happening
again.
The
Fortune
article
cites
a
lot
of
statistics
showing
that
even
though
AI
is
being
implemented
by
many
businesses,
they
aren’t
showing
productivity
gains.

Other
studies
cited
by
Fortune
suggest
that
many
executives
are
seeing
little
impact
of
AI
on
their
operations.
In
fact,
despite
the
substantial
investments
in
AI
tools,
many
are
struggling
to
show
the
return
on
investment.
Other

research
cited
in
the
article
suggests
that
confidence
in
the
technology
seems
to
be
waning.

What
in
the
Sam
Hill
Is
Going
On?

Lots
of
interesting
facts
here
that
could
impact
legal.
First,
there
could
be
some
simple
reasons
for
the
lack
of
productivity
increase:
AI
gains
just
haven’t
caught
up
to
us
yet.
When
it
does,
for
legal,
this
would
mean
as
firms
implement
more
and
more
AI
into
workflows,
the
legal
outputs
should
increase.
Costs
should
also
be
reduced
at
least
presumably.

But
legal
has
some
peculiar
characteristics
that
may
mean
Solow’s
paradox
may
hold
at
least
for
a
while.
Certainly,
AI
will
produce
more
information:
when
the
whole
world
is
easily
searchable
and
regurgitated
in
summary
fashion,
everyone
has
access
to
more
answers.
And
giving
a
group
of
lawyers
more
answers
will
just
give
them
more
to
argue
about,
not
less.

It
also
means
more
information
to
digest
and
factor
into
strategy.
It
means
more
verification
required
in
a
profession
where
accuracy
is
critical.

And
lawyers
by
their
nature
and
training
look
for
problems.
Give
them
more
information
and
they
are
going
to
look
for
more
problems.
Which
means
more
searching
for
solutions.

There’s
also
that
pesky
business
model:
the
billable
hour.
Most
seem
to
think
the
model
is
a
dinosaur
in
the
age
of
AI
since
it
will
take
so
much
less
time
to
do
things.
But
if
the
number
of
“things”
to
do
increase,
it
could
mean
it
takes
more
time
to
do
them
all.
And
therein
lies
the
strength
of
the
billable
hour
model.
As
long
as
there
is
plenty
of
work
to
do,
it
will
be
hard
to
kill
it.
Not
to
mention
the
fact
that
for
some
matters,
like
those
with
perceived
high
exposure,
clients
want
the
billable
hour
model
since
it
ensures
thoroughness.

Moreover,
we
are
already
seeing
increases
in
some
litigation
that
are
fueled
by
AI
efficiencies
as

I
have
discussed.
For
example,
AI
enables
lawyers
to
take
contingency
fee
cases
they
couldn’t
before
because
many
of
the
cost-generating
tasks
overwhelmed
the
case
value.
Now
those
cases
become
economically
viable.
So,
we
have
more
work
for
humans
to
do.

Add
to
all
this
lawyers’
innate
resistance
to
change,
particularly
change
they
feel
is
imposed
on
them,
and
the
Solow
paradox
may
hold
sway
in
legal
for
the
foreseeable
future.

Let’s
Not
Write
Off
Human
Lawyers,
At
Least
Not
Yet

There’s
an
old
saying
that
the
amount
of
work
to
be
done
somehow
manages
to
fill
all
the
available
time
to
do
it.
That
may
be
true
here,
especially
in
legal.
The
Fortune
article
and
quoted
statistics
suggests
that
productivity
gains
are
not
materializing
and
there
will
be
more
work
to
be
done.
That
in
turn
raises
at
least
the
possibility
that
lots
of
investment
money
is
being
spent
for
little
quantifiable
return.
If
that’s
true,
then
sometime
soon,
the
spigot
may
run
dry.

This
—
together
with
the
fact
that
much
of
GenAI
for
legal
has
been
overhyped
and
oversold,
and
that
ROI
is
not
easy
to
quantify
—
raises
the
possibility
that
the
GenAI
hype
volcano

Melissa
Rogozinski
and
I
have
discussed
in
our
Pompeii
series
(see
below)
may
be
about
to
erupt,
leaving
many
investors,
vendors,
and
users
holding
the
bag.

In
the
meantime,
as
the
article
suggests,
despite
all
the
hype,
in
many
ways
it’s
still
more
or
less
business
as
usual.
So,
let’s
all
take
a
deep
breath
before
we
predict
the
end
of
human
work.
And
oh
yeah,
get
back
to
work.

The
Pompeii
Series:

Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Infrastructure
Crisis?
(Part
I)

Like
Lawyers
In Pompeii: Is Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming AI
Cost
Crisis?
(Part
II)

Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Trust
Crisis?
(Part
III)

Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Financial
Crisis?
(Part
IV)

Like
Lawyers
In
Pompeii:
Is
Legal
Ignoring
The
Coming
AI
Definition
Crisis?
(Part
V)

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Want
to
know
the
best
thing
about
fumbling
a
cold
call?
No
matter
how
scary
the
teacher
seems
to
be,
it
isn’t
like
the
judge
who
wrote
the
damned
case
will
be
there
to
tell
you
that
you
couldn’t
spot
the
issues.
Unless,
of
course,
you
plan
on
taking
Con
Law
at
one
of
the
schools
below.

Spokesman
has
coverage:

Longtime
Supreme
Court
Justice
Barbra
Madsen
will
teach
state
constitutional
law
at
Gonzaga
School
of
Law
and
Seattle
University
School
of
Law
after
retiring
in
April.

“I’m
really
excited
about
teaching
law,
particularly
state
constitutional
law,
since
I’ve
written
so
many
of
the
opinions,”
Madsen
said.
“I
feel
like
it’s
a
natural
for
me.”

If
you
needed
some
extra
motivation
to
read
the
case
before
class,
there
you
go!
For
what
it’s
worth,
she
won’t
be
in
the
classroom
until
next
year.
You
lucked
out,
soon-to-be
2Ls.
Future
1Ls,
prepare
to
hit
the
books.

It
really
is
a
treat
to
have
one
of
the
justices
teaching
an
opinion
they
helped
pen
or
dissented
against.
For
one,
they
should
know
what
they’re
talking
about.
Second,
it’s
a
great
chance
to
get
a
behind-the-scenes
look
at
the
process
of
writing
opinions
and
balancing
ideologies
on
the
court
that
you’d
usually
only
get
clerking
for
a
judge.
Just
be
sure
to
ask
pointed
follow-up
questions
in
class
or
in
office
hours!
And
while
it
might
not
come
up
directly
because
of
Con
Law
readings,
you
may
also
want
to
get
her
opinions
on

access
to
justice
issues.

Supreme
Court
Justice
To
teach
At
Gonzaga,
Seattle
U
After
April
Retirement
[Spokesman.com]

---

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.

What
a
difference
a
year
makes,
huh?
Almost
exactly
a
year
ago,
President
Donald
Trump
rolled
up
on
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
after
the
State
of
the
Union
address,
to
effusively
tell
the
jurist,
“Thank
you
again.
Thank
you
again.
Won’t
forget
it,”
heaping
praise
on
the
jurist
for
concocting
an
unprecedented
theory
of
presidential
immunity
that
helped
Trump
evade
trial
on
his
way
back
to
the
White
House.
On
Friday,
Trump
called
Roberts
“a
disgrace
to
our
nation,”
“swayed
by
foreign
interests.”

Now
John
Roberts
—
and
Justices
Barrett
and
Gorsuch,
for
that
matter
—
must
watch
the
presidency
of
their
own
creation
mark
them
by
name
for
public,
ritualistic
humiliation.

The
Supreme
Court struck
down
Trump’s
sweeping
IEEPA
tariffs in
a
6-3
decision
Friday,
with
Roberts
writing
for
a
majority
that
included
Gorsuch
and
Barrett
alongside
the
three
Democratic-appointed
justices.
Within
hours,
the
president
held
a
hastily
assembled
press
conference
to
both
showcase
the
tragedy
of
dementia
and
call
the
majority
justices
“fools
and
lapdogs
for
the
RINOs
and
the
radical
left
Democrats,”
for
reaching
an
opinion
urged
by
such
pinko
communists
as

the
U.S.
Chamber
of
Commerce.
Haphazardly
calling
on
journalists
and
then
—
if
they
began
a
remotely
probing
question
—
instantly
declaring
that
he
meant
to
call
on
someone
else,
Trump
raged
and
rambled
about
the
decision,
noting
that
he
was “absolutely
ashamed” of
the
Republican
justices
in
the
majority.

Of
Gorsuch
and
Barrett,
Trump
added
that
they
were “an
embarrassment
to
their
families.”

Trump
followed
up
by
instantly
imposing
a
new
10
percent
tariff
under
a
different
statute
—
Section
122
of
the
Trade
Act
of
1974
—
which
unlike
the
IEEPA

actually
talks
about
tariffs.
But
Section
122
is
explicitly
limited
to
150
days
unless
extended
by
Congress,
a
tall
order
since
many
Republican
legislators
quietly
(or
not-so-quietly)
object
to
the
tariffs
as
directly
counter
to
conservative
economic
principles.
But
no
one
bothered
to
stop
Trump
when
he
violated
the
TikTok
ban
for
months,
so
maybe
the
committed
textualists
on
the
Court
will
find
a
way
to
read
“150
days”
as
“forever.”
The
Section
122
theory
is
also
hamstrung
by
the
Trump
administration’s
own
galaxy
brained
argument
in
this
case
that
they
needed
IEEPA
tariffs
because
Section
122
tariffs,
they
argued,

would
be
illegal
under
the
circumstances.
In
order
to
head
off
any
claim
that
Trump
acted
without
a
hint
of
capriciousness,
he
raised
these
new
tariffs
to
15
percent
the
next
day.

Like
clockwork,
mainstream
legal
analysts
fell
over
themselves
to
frame
the
tariff
decision
as
“The
Supreme
Court’s
Declaration
of
Independence”
or
a
“Turning
Point,”
a
triumph
of
institutional
integrity
shepherded
by
the
Court’s
moderate
voices.
Jonathan
Turley,
who
has
never
met
a
conservative
judicial
overreach
he
couldn’t
launder
into
respectability, crowed that
the
tariff
decision
proves
the
Court
“continues
to
exercise
independent
judgment.”

Anyone
hoping
to
bolt
a
fairy
tale
narrative
onto
the
Supreme
Court
is
fooling
themselves.
Or
at
least
trying
to
fool
you.

Nothing
about
Friday’s
opinion
signals
a
Court
finding
its
backbone.
Real,
dyed-in-the-wool,
Reaganaut
conservatives
hate
tariffs
and
three
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
six
conservatives
chose
the
conservative
movement
over
the
prattling
of
a
president
who
brags
about

being
able
to
identify
a
giraffe
in
a
test
designed
to
track
cognitive
decline.
The
Federalist
Society
didn’t
spend
decades
building
this
Court
so
a
president
could
impose
a
massive
tax
hike
on
imports.
They
weren’t
so
much
rejecting
a
naked
Republican
policy
interest,
as
defending
an
older
one.

We’re
not
sitting
here
watching
the
president
of
the
United
States
have
an
unhinged
meltdown
over
the
Supreme
Court
because
it’s
suddenly
a
nonpartisan
institution.
Trump’s
fury
is
so
pronounced
because
the
Supreme
Court’s
conservatives

are
brazenly
partisan
and
Trump
ran
face
first
into
one
of
the
few
internecine
conflicts
within
the
Republican
Party.
He’s
angry
because
the
Supreme
Court
told
him
they
would
rubberstamp
his
every
desire
—
up
to
and
including
stealing
classified
documents
and
conspiring
to
commit
election
fraud
—
and
he
discovered
right-wing
business
interests
still
outrank
him
in
some
conservative
hearts.

The
Chief
Justice
sold
out
the
institutional
legitimacy
of
the
Supreme
Court
to
help
Donald
Trump
return
to
office
because
the
people
who
guide
his
judgment
wanted
more
tax
cuts
and
fewer
protections
for
marginalized
people.
In
return,
he
gets
publicly
berated
on
national
television.
Maybe
this
is
some
sort
of
“turning
point,”
but
based
on
the
record
as
it
exists

right
now,
this
isn’t
the
beginning
of
the
“John
Roberts:
Principled
Jurist”
redemption
arc,
this
is
just
a
guy
choking
down
his
karmic
vegetables.
Donald
Trump
didn’t
hide
the
ball
during
his
2024
campaign
—
his
few,
but
significant
breaks
with
conservative
conventional
wisdom
were
front
and
center.
Roberts
understood
that
this
day
would
come,
and
it
would
probably
be
humiliating,
and
that
he’d
still
do
it
anyway
because
he
hates
the
Voting
Rights
Act
more
than
he
loves
self-respect.

And
he’ll
willingly
go
through
all
this
again
after
he
fires
off
four
or
five
more
engraved
invitations
for
unconstitutional
executive
overreach,
but
still
won’t
let
Trump
fire
Federal
Reserve
governors.
There’s
no
amount
of
abuse
he
won’t
take
to
achieve
his
desired
political
outcome.

He’s
sat
around
as
Trump
spent
the
next
year
attacking
lower
court
judges
in
terms
that
generated a
327
percent
increase
in
threats against
the
federal
judiciary.

Federal
judges
sounded
the
alarm that
they
feared
for
their
lives,

telling
NBC
News
that
the
Supreme
Court
“doesn’t
have
our
backs.”
One
judge
said
flatly
that
if
nothing
changed,
“somebody
is
going
to
die.”As
the
leader
of
the
judiciary,
Roberts
responded
by
issuing a
year-end
report
about
how
Thomas
Paine
would
probably
yearn
for
a
return
to
the
monarchy
and
collecting

a
funding
boost
for
Supreme
Court
security.

John
Roberts
left
last
year’s
State
of
the
Union
being
publicly
thanked
by
Trump
like
consigliere
getting
praised
by
a
mob
boss.
Now,
according
to
Trump,
Roberts
is
just
“barely
invited”
to
this
year’s
installment.

Quite
a
year.

---

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 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.

Judges
have

very
limited
patience
for
lawyers
who
decide
that
courtroom
rules
are
more
of
a
vibes-based
suggestion.
And
in
the
sprawling,
high-stakes
social
media
addiction
litigation
—
the
one
trying
to
make
Big
Tech
answer
for
allegedly
hooking
kids’
brains
like
it’s
nicotine
with
better
branding
—
patience
finally
snapped.

Enter
Matthew
Bergman,
founder
of
the
Social
Media
Victims
Law
Center
and,
until
very
recently,
a
member
of
the
plaintiffs’
steering
committee.
Until,
that
is,
Judge
Carolyn
B.
Kuhl

decided
she
had
had
just
about
enough
of
Bergman’s
(repeated)
inability
to
follow
the
courthouse
rules
about
technology.

Yes,
in
a
case
literally
about
tech
accountability,
the
irony
writes
itself.

Last
week,
as
Mark
Zuckerberg
took
the
witness
stand,
Bergman
apparently
felt
the
pull
of
the
spotlight.
He
conducted
an
interview
with
the
BBC
on
the
first
floor
of
the
courthouse
where
recording
is
banned.

When
called
on
it,
Bergman
went
with
the
full
contrition
package.
The
day,
he
said,
was
“so
emotionally
overcoming”
that
he
“lost
sight
of
my
obligation
as
an
officer
of
this
court.”
He
told
Judge
Kuhl
it’s
“something
for
which
I
am
deeply
ashamed,”
adding
that
he
hoped
this
would
be
“a
learning
experience”
that
would
help
him
become
“a
better
lawyer
and
a
better
person.”

Judge
Kuhl
removed
Bergman
from
the
plaintiffs’
steering
committee,
though
another
attorney
from
the
Social
Media
Victims
Law
Center
remains
on
the
committee.
And
this
isn’t
a
one-off,
Bergman
is
also
facing
a
citation
for
allegedly
taking
a
photo
on
his
phone
in
the
courtroom,
with
a
contempt
hearing
scheduled
for
March
23.

Kuhl
did
not
mince
words.
“The
things
you’re
doing
are
threatening
to
impede
your
clients’
pursuit
of
their
claims,”
she
told
him.
To
his
credit,
Bergman
leaned
into
the
irony.
“In
a
case
about
tech
accountability,
the
fact
that
I
was
not
accountable
on
tech
issues
in
this
court
is
resonant,
it
is
humbling,
and
I
am
deeply
sorry,”
he
said.

Gold
star
for
remorse.
Unfortunately,
remorse
does
not
get
you
back
your
leadership
role
in
one
of
the
most
consequential
pieces
of
mass-tort
litigation
against
Big
Tech
to
date.

---

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].