Category: News Feeds

The
Biglaw
executive
order
saga
has
a
new
twist,
and
it’s
a
good
one,
or
at
least
as
good
as
things
can
get
when
you’re
heading
into
an
appellate
court
knowing
one
of
three
judges
is
going
to
vote
against
you
no
matter
what
argument
you
make,
because
she
has
a
Supreme
Court
seat
to
audition
for.

But
we’ll
get
to
Neomi
Rao
in
a
moment.

When
oral
argument
kicks
off
on
May
14th
at
the
D.C.
Circuit,
the
four
firms
that
had
the
actual
courage
to

fight
back
against
Donald
Trump’s
retaliatory
executive
orders
—
Perkins
Coie,
Jenner
&
Block,
WilmerHale,
and
Susman
Godfrey
—
will
be
represented
by
none
other
than
Paul
Clement,
the
former
Solicitor
General
of
the
United
States
under
President
George
W.
Bush.

Let
that
sink
in.
A
conservative
legal
legend,
a
man
with
over
100
Supreme
Court
arguments
to
his
name,
is
about
to
stand
up
in
the
D.C.
Circuit
and
tell
this
Republican
administration
that
what
it
did
to
these
law
firms
was
flat-out
unconstitutional.
Clement
will
bring
his
conservative
credibility
to
a
case
over
Trump’s
allegations
of
partisan
lawfare
against
members
of
the
legal
profession.
That’s
not
nothing.

To
be
clear,
Clement
isn’t
exactly
a
newcomer
to
this
litigation.

He
was
initially
hired
to
file
legal
action
for
WilmerHale,
and
it
was
his
firm,
Clement
&
Murphy,
that
filed
that
complaint
mere
hours
after
the
Trump
administration
issued
its
retaliatory
EO
against
the
firm.
And

this
isn’t
the
first
time
in
the
Trump
II
era
that
Clement
has
been
willing
to
court
the
president’s
ire
in
defense
of
the
rule
of
law,
though
it
is
a
far
cry
for
someone
famous
for

fighting
against
marriage
equality,
with
an

expansive
view
of
the
Second
Amendment,
who
once
complained

Kirkland
&
Ellis
was
too
woke.
Strange
times,
strange
bedfellows
and
all
that.
At
the
outset,
Clement
called
the
case
“absolutely
critical
to
vindicating
the
First
Amendment,
our
adversarial
system
of
justice,
and
the
rule
of
law.”
He’s
been
in
this
fight
from
the
jump.
Now
he’s
the
one
walking
up
to
the
podium
on
behalf
of
all
four
firms,
joined
by
Abbe
Lowell,
to
make
the
argument
that
even
a
former
GOP
SG
finds
these
EOs
indefensible.

The
constitutional
case
Clement
is
walking
in
to
argue
remains,
as

four
district
court
judges
made
clear
in
four
separate
rulings,
not
a
close
call.
The
four
firms
argue
that
the
executive
orders
violate
the
First
Amendment
by
retaliating
against
protected
conduct,
discriminating
based
on
viewpoint,
and
interfering
with
the
right
to
associate
with
clients
and
petition
the
courts
—
and
also
violate
the
Fifth
Amendment’s
Due
Process
Clause
and
equal-protection
guarantee,
the
right
to
counsel
under
the
Fifth
and
Sixth
Amendments,
and
separation-of-powers
principles.
Every
district
court
judge
who
looked
at
these
EOs,
across
the
ideological
spectrum,
reached
the
same
conclusion:
NOPE.

The
DOJ,
for
its
part,
is
appealing
despite
having
first

dropped
these
appeals,
then

un-dropped
them
roughly
24
hours
later
after
what
I
can
only
assume
was
a
very
uncomfortable
phone
call
from
someone
at
1600
Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Perkins
Coie’s
brief
has
been
particularly
pointed
about
the
whiplash,
calling
the
order
“indefensible”
and
noting
that
“the
Department
of
Justice
previously
declined
to
defend
it
in
this
Court,
moving
to
dismiss
this
appeal
before
abruptly
reversing
course
at
the
President’s
direction.”
The
DOJ
essentially
handed
the
four
firms
a
gift-wrapped
admission
that
even

they
know
this
is
a
loser
case
—
and
now
they
have
to
defend
it
anyway.

With
a
straight
face.

Now,
about
that
panel.

The
D.C.
Circuit
assigned
Chief
Judge
Sri
Srinivasan
and
Judges
Cornelia
Pillard
and
Neomi
Rao
to
hear
the
May
14
arguments.
Two
Obama
appointees
and

one
Trump
appointee.
For
two-thirds
of
this
panel,
that’s
a
decent
draw.

Let’s
be
real
about
the
third.

Neomi
Rao
is
not
going
to
side
with
these
firms.
Not
because
the
law
is
against
them
—
it
isn’t,
and
she
(probably)
knows
it
—
but
because
Rao
has
spent
her
entire
appellate
career
writing
her
Supreme
Court
résumé
in
the
margins
of
opinions
that
hand
the
executive
branch
whatever
it
wants.
We’ve

watched
her
do
it
before.
With
Donald
Trump
publicly
hyping
his
SCOTUS
shortlist,
Rao
could
not
be
more
jazzed
to
show
off
her
unswerving
loyalty
to
the
administration
that
installed
her
on
the
Supreme
Court
farm
team
bench.
That
was
true
in
2020.
It
is,
if
anything,
more
true
now,
with
a
vacancy

potentially
on
the
horizon
and
Rao
acutely
aware
that
every
opinion
she
writes
is
being
read
at
the
White
House.

Judge
Thirsty
has
been,
well,
thirsty
for
years
and
nothing
she’s
done
since
has
given
us
reason
to
update
that
assessment.

Rao
has
been
an
open
conservative
troll
for
forever,
slapping

legal
jargon
on
political
talking
points.
And

even
when
the
full
D.C.
Circuit
has
had
to
step
in
and
clean
up
her
messes,
she
has
persisted.
After
all
her
work
penning
what’s

been
described
as
an
“embarrassing
mixtape
of
judicial
activism
and
anti-textual
hot
takes
that
she
hoped
would
win
her
a
seat
on
the
country’s
highest
court,”
a
high-profile
dissent

against
the
Trump
administration
in
a
case

about
the
Trump
administration’s
power
to
punish
law
firms
is
simply
not
in
the
cards.
She
is
too
thirsty
for
that
seat
to
let
something
as
inconvenient
as
the
Constitution
get
in
the
way.

So
the
realistic
math
here
is
2-1
for
the
firms,
which
is
still
a
win…
and
still
sends
the
whole
thing
up
to
a
Supreme
Court
that,
as

we’ve
noted
with
some
anxiety,
has
proven
itself

disturbingly
willing
to
bend
norms
for
this
president.

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
Bluesky @Kathryn1

Politeness
is
a
one-way
street.
You
can
openly
mock
some
of
the
most
prominent
jurists
in
the
nation
if
you’re
on
the
right
team,
but
playing
for
the
other
side
opens
you
up
to
all
sorts
of
nitpicking
about
the
proper
way
to
do
things.
It
is
a
nonsense
rule
that
explains
a
lot
once
you’re
wise
to
it,
like
how

Sotomayor’s
comments
on
Kavanaugh
required
an
apology
but
his
“your
fault
for
looking
Mexican”
concurrence
was
no
biggie.
Similar
things
are
happening
with
campus
speech.
If
you
advocate
for
anything
to
the
left
of
Palantir’s
recent
manifesto,
you
should
expect
public
scrutiny.
Protestors
are
getting
cast
as
villains
for
opposing
the
normalization
of
right-wing
power
grabs
at
law
school
events.

New
York
Post
has
coverage:

A
speaking
event
at
UCLA’s
law
school
erupted
into
turmoil
Tuesday
night
when
a
Department
of
Homeland
Security
attorney
faced
loud
disruptions
from
student
protesters
and
activists.

James
Percival,
general
counsel
for
DHS,
was
invited
by
the
Federalist
Society’s
UCLA
chapter
to
address
law
students
on
campus.

But
the
appearance
quickly
turned
contentious
as
more
than
150
demonstrators
gathered
outside,
chanting
slogans
targeting
the
Trump
administration,
including
“No
ICE,
No
KKK,
No
Fascist
USA.”

No
reporting
suggests
Green
Day
was
present,
but
I’m
sure
they
were
there
in
spirit:

Not
sure
if
its
uplifting
or
a
telling
weakness
of
protest’s
efficacy
that
a
decade-old
chant
is
just
as
prescient
now.
As
far
as
the
article’s
“eruption
into
turmoil”
characterization
of
the
event
goes,
it
couldn’t
have
been

that
disruptive
if
the
UCLA
admin’s
response
was
“Yup,
that
stuff
just
kinda
happens
and
we
move
along”:

“UCLA
Law
is
committed
to
free
speech
and
academic
freedom,
including
perspectives
that
may
be
controversial
or
deeply
contested,”
the
school
said
in
a
statement
to
Fox
News.
“This
student-organized
event,
which
proceeded
to
its
conclusion,
was
one
instance
of
those
principles
in
practice.”

For
all
of
the
complaining
about
the
protest,
Percival
was
able
to
give
his
talk.
Before
the
framing
of
this
as
a
bunch
of
out-of-control
leftists
piling
on
the
little
old
lawyer
of
the
deportation
branch
gets
blown
out
of
proportion,
remember:

While
we’re
here,
let’s
talk
about
the
students.
They
may
have
dropped
a
couple
of
F
bombs
and
called
DHS
a
bunch
of
Nazis,
but
let’s
keep
a
clear
head
about
how
much
weight
that
tier
of
name
calling
carries.
The
DHS
knows
what
they’re
doing
—

it
isn’t
like
they
used
a
neo-Nazi
song
for
ICE
recruitment
or

looked
like
they’ve
brushed
off
the
vintage
Hugo
Boss
to
the
point
that
the
Germans
stepped
in
because
they
want
to
shy

away
from
the
Nazi
comparisons.
What’s
next?
Trying
to
anger
Darth
Sidious
by
calling
him
a
Sith
Lord?
They
know
what
they
are
and
are
shameless
about
it.
The
only
silver
lining
would
be
that
calling
them
what
they
are
is
meant
to
provoke
observers
in
to
recognition,
but
between
the
COVID
brain
damage
and
AI
overuse
frying
people’s
comparative
thinking,
that
ship
has
sailed.
The
people
who
aren’t
looking
and
seeing
the
obvious
are
the
same
ones
that

didn’t
realize
Homelander
was
there
to
make
fun
of
them
until
season
4.

The
real
story
is
that
the
things
done
in
protest
are
nowhere
near
as
newsworthy
as
the
things
being
protested:

Justice
Kavanaugh
greenlighting
racial
profiling;

the
administration’s
abdication
of
the
rule
of
law
in
deportation
proceedings;
a

poorly
trained
militia
acting
as

judge,
jury,
and
executioners
in
broad
daylight;
and
the
list
goes
on.
Don’t
be
swayed
by
framings
that
suggest
protestors’
discontent
in
and
of
itself
is
a
threat
to
speakers
—
the
real
threats
are
the
men
with
guns

openly
stating
that
they
will
erase
your
voice
if
you
raise
it.

Lefty
Students
Hijack
UCLA
Event
From
Homeland
Security’s
Top
Lawyer
[New
York
Post]

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.

On
Wednesday,
Jeanine
Pirro
defiantly
insisted
that
her
investigation
of
Federal
Reserve
Chair
Jerome
Powell
was
ongoing.

“This
investigation
continues,”
the
US
Attorney
for
DC

huffed
at
a
press
conference.
“I
am
in
the
legal
lane.
There
are
others
who
are
in
the
political
lane.
I
don’t
intersect
those
two
lanes.”

This
indignation
would
have
been
more
credible
if
she
hadn’t
spent
the
past
four
months

harassing
one
of
the
president’s
most
persistent
foes.
After
Pirro’s
office
subpoenaed
the
Fed
in
January,
Powell
called
her
bluff
and
publicly
denounced
the
effort
to
intimidate
the
central
bank.
Then
in
March,
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg

quashed
the
subpoenas,
noting
that
Pirro’s
office
had
declined
the
opportunity
to
present
evidence

in
camera
of
any
actual
crime.

“The
Court
is
thus
left
with
no
credible
reason
to
think
that
the
Government
is
investigating
suspicious
facts
as
opposed
to
targeting
a
disfavored
official,”
he
wrote.
“When
the
evidence
of
improper
motive
is
so
strong
and
the
justifications
for
these
subpoenas
are
so
tenuous,
it
is
hard
to
see
the
renovations
and
testimony
as
anything
other
than
a
convenient
pretext
for
launching
a
criminal
investigation
that
the
Government
launched
for
another,
unstated
purpose:
pressuring
Powell
to
knuckle
under.”

Incensed,
Pirro
vowed
to
appeal.
She
also
sent
a
couple
of
lawyers
from
her
office
to
bang
on
the
door
of
the
Fed
and

demand
to
be
let
in
for
a
spot
inspection.

“Should
you
wish
to
challenge
that
finding,
the
courts
provide
an
avenue
for
you;
it
is
not
appropriate
for
you
to
try
to
circumvent
it,”
the
Fed’s
lawyer
Robert
Hur
wrote.
“I
ask
that
you
commit
not
to
seek
to
communicate
with
my
client
outside
the
presence
of
counsel.”

But
Pirro
wasn’t
done
fighting.

“The
idea
that
a
judge
can
stand
at
the
door
of
a
grand
jury
and
tell
a
prosecutor
you’re
not
allowed
to
go
in
when
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
has
said
you
can
go
into
a
grand
jury
based
on
rumors
and
suspicion,
is
an
order
that
we
think
must
be
appealed,
and
we
are
continuing
in
this
investigation,”
she
snarled
on
Wednesday.

In
the
end,
though,
politics
came
for
Pirro.
Republican
Senator
Thom
Tillis
vowed
that
none
of
Trump’s
nominees
to
the
Fed
were
getting
out
of
the
Banking
Committee
until
Pirro
called
off
her
dogs.
And,
with
no
ability
to
replace
Powell
when
his
term
expires
in
three
weeks,
Trump
would
be
stuck
with
his
nemesis
indefinitely
according
to
the
bank’s
own
rules.

This
morning,
Pirro
blinked,
claiming
that
she
was
handing
the
case
off
to
the
Inspector
General
for
the
Federal
Reserve.

In
fact,
Powell
himself

asked
Inspector
General
Michael
Horowitz
to
review
the
project
last
July,
and
the
IG
confirmed
to

NBC
that
there
is
no
new
inquiry.
But
Pirro
was
willing
to
fudge
the
truth
to
make
the
climbdown
a
bit
less
ignominious
—
as
she
has
been
during
this
entire
ridiculous
outing.

“Note
well,
however,
that
I
will
not
hesitate
to
restart
a
criminal
investigation
should
the
facts
warrant
doing
so,”
she
tweeted,
acknowledging
even
as
she
flounced
out
that
the
facts
never
warranted
criminal
investigation
in
the
first
place.

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:

Well,
readers,
the

Paul,
Weiss
litigation
exodus
just
claimed
a
major
name.

Kannon
Shanmugam
—
one
of
the
most
prominent
Supreme
Court
litigators
in
private
practice,
a
man
who
has
argued
39
cases
before
the
High
Court
—
is
leaving
Paul,
Weiss
for
Davis
Polk
&
Wardwell.
As

Bloomberg
Law
reported,
he
and
partner
Masha
Hansford
will
launch
the
firm’s
new
Supreme
Court
and
appellate
practice.

If
you’ve
been
following
the
slow-motion
litigation
talent
drain
at
Paul,
Weiss
since
the
firm’s

ignominious
capitulation
to
the
Trump
administration
in
March
2025,
Shanmugam’s
departure
shouldn’t
be
entirely
surprising.
But
it
stings.
This
is
the
crown
jewel
of
the
firm’s
appellate
litigation
practice
walking
out
the
door.

To
briefly
recap,
Paul,
Weiss
became
the
first
major
Biglaw
firm
to

bend
the
knee
to
Donald
Trump,
signing
a
deal
that
included
$40
million
in
pro
bono
services
and
the
elimination
of
all
DEI
programs
in
exchange
for
the
rescission
of
an
executive
order
targeting
the
firm.
The
fallout
has
been
considerable.
Litigation
co-chair
Karen
Dunn,
along
with
partners
Bill
Isaacson
and
Jeannie
Rhee,

bolted
to
start
their
own
boutique
to
practice
free
from
the
constraints
of
the
Trump
deal.
Former
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
Damian
Williams

departed
for
Jenner
&
Block
—
one
of
the
firms
actually
fighting
the
executive
orders
in
court,
adding
a
certain
poetic
quality
to
the
move.
And
that
was
just
the
beginning;

even
more
litigation
partners
followed
them
out
the
door
in
the
weeks
that
followed.
Former
Homeland
Security
Secretary

Jeh
Johnson
retired
after
four
decades
at
the
firm.
Through
all
of
it,
the
firm’s
official
posture
was
essentially
that

everything
was
fine,
actually.

And
now
Shanmugam.

To
his
credit,
Shanmugam
was
one
of
the
only
Biglaw
partners
to
say
anything
publicly
about
the
firm’s
deal
with
Trump,
though
his
comments
were
more
in
the
way
of
explanation
than
full-throated
endorsement.
At
the
Aspen
Ideas
Festival
last
June,
when
asked
directly
to
explain
why
Paul,
Weiss
decided
to
“cave,”
he
acknowledged
the
weight
of
the
decision.
The
executive
orders
targeting
firms,
he
said,
“raise
real
issues
concerning
the
rule
of
law
and
our
legal
system.”
But,
he
added,
“for
the
law
firms
that
are
on
the
receiving
end
of
this,
there
are
very
practical
considerations
concerning
the
implications
for
the
firms’
clients,
and
those
implications
were
very
real.”
He
described
the
firm
as
being
“in
the
vortex”
of
competing
imperatives.
And

at
Pepperdine’s
Caruso
School
of
Law,
Shanmugam
described
the
broader
attacks
on
legal
institutions
as
“regrettable,”
while
also
allowing
that
the
legal
profession
doesn’t
exactly
have
a
viewpoint
diversity
problem
working
in
its
favor.

The
Shanmugam
departure
has
to
be
understood
in
the
context
of

Paul,
Weiss’s
ongoing
identity
crisis.
Following
Brad
Karp’s
resignation
—
itself
coming
after
revelations
about
his
relationship
with
Jeffrey
Epstein,
compounding
the
reputational
damage
from
the
Trump
deal
—
the
firm’s
new
chair
is
M&A
heavyweight
Scott
Barshay.
Barshay
was,
by
insider
accounts,
a
vocal
internal
champion
of
the
Trump
capitulation,
reportedly
framing
the
cave
as
pragmatism.
But
the
message
his
elevation
sends
is
unmistakable:
the
future
of
Paul,
Weiss
is
transactional
work.

Turns
out,
the
lateral
move
may
have
been
telegraphed
in
a
move
we
missed.

Legal
watchers
were
puzzled
earlier
this
week
when,
in
the
Supreme
Court
case

T.M.
v.
University
of
Maryland
Medical
System
Corporation,
Shanmugam,
who
had
been
counsel
of
record
from
the
cert
petition
through
the
merits
briefs,
did
not
argue
the
case.
Former
Solicitor
General
Elizabeth
Prelogar
of
Cooley
LLP
appeared
on
the
docket
and
argued
in
Shanmugam’s
place,
despite
not
appearing
anywhere
on
the
briefs.

(Now,
about
that
Prelogar
angle,
because
it’s
too
good
to
skip
over.
Longtime
Above
the
Law
readers
may
recall
that
Shanmugam
and
Prelogar
have
a…
bit
of
a
history.
Back
in
2023,

we
covered
the
controversy
when
Shanmugam’s
supplemental
brief
in
a
SCOTUS
case
described
Prelogar’s
government
brief
as
—
and
this
is
a
direct
quote
from
the
filing
—
“a
hot
mess.”
Twitter
had
thoughts!
The
legal
world
had
thoughts!
Prelogar

had
thoughts!
Now
Prelogar
stepped
in
to
argue
a
case
he’d
briefed
from
scratch.
The
universe,
apparently,
has
a
sense
of
humor.)

But,
over

on
Bluesky
appellate
litigator
Bob
Loeb
of
Orrick
sussed
out
the
clear
signal
Shanmugam
was
out
at
Paul,
Weiss
:
“I
knew
something
was
up
when
I
saw
Kannon
enter
his
name
into
the
appellate
transfer
portal.”

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
Bluesky @Kathryn1

The
traditional
law
firm.
Downtown
offices.
Nice
conference
rooms.
Receptionists,
admin
assistants.
Partners
with
large
corner
offices.
Plenty
of
associates
slaving
away
billing
2,000+
hours
per
year
in
hopes
of
grabbing
the
brass
partnership
ring.
It
reeks
of
tradition.

Contrast
that
with
new
age
firms.
AI
does
the
work
of
associates.
Lawyers
are
remote.
Firms
may
even
be
loose
confederations
of
individuals.
And
the
business
model
is
not
based
on
the
billable
hour.

Sounds
cool.
But
can
the
new
age
model
be
sustained?

New
Age
Law
Firms

One
model
of
the
new
age
is
the
AI
first
firm.
These
firms
consist
of
lawyers,
mostly
more
senior,
who
leverage
AI
to
do
most
of
the
work
that
all
those
associates
in
traditional
firms
used
to
do
and
bill
for.
The
theory
is
that
the
value
and
reduced
costs
by
engaging
AI
can
be
passed
along
to
clients.
Clients
who,
in
turn,
flock
to
the
firm,
and
the
firm’s
revenue
and
profit
is
either
maintained
or
even
improved
than
that
of
traditional
firms.
Having
inexperienced
lawyers
in
these
firms
is
frankly
a
drag
on
that
idea
since
they
offer
less
value
and
require
more
supervision.

Another
model
is
the
remote-only
firm.
The
lawyers
in
these
firms
are
all
geographically
remote
from
one
another.
If
they
have
offices,
they
are
small.
Real
estate
costs
are
low
and
because
the
lawyers
can
work
from
anywhere,
the
firm
can
grab
the
best
talent
irrespective
of
where
that
talent
is
located.
Typically,
these
firms
are
tech
driven
and,
like
the
AI
first
firms,
lean
heavily
into
AI.
They
have
few
associates
since
training
and
supervision
is
difficult
given
the
remote
working
environment.

Or
even
more
extreme:
there
is
no
firm
at
all,
just
a
sort
of
loose
network
of
lawyers
who
come
together
to
work
on
a
matter
and
then
move
on
to
the
next
one
while
all
the
while
leveraging
AI.
In
the
words
of
Gertrude
Stein:
there
is
no
there
there.

No
fixed
overhead,
no
infrastructure,
just
collective
expertise
assembled
on
demand.

All
of
these
models,
which
I
call
new
age
law
firms,
disrupt
the
traditional
leverage
model
by
utilizing
technology
and
remote
work
environments.
They
are
no
longer
trapped
by
the
billable
hour
mentality
of
traditional
law
firms,
and
they
can
bill
based
on
things
like
value
and
expertise.
They
hope
to
offset
any
loss
of
revenue
by
moving
away
from
the
billable
hour
and
increased
work,
subscriptions,
and
reduced
costs.

Again,
it
sounds
good.
Particularly
for
clients
who
can
get
better
results
by
having
senior
people
more
intimately
involved
in
their
matters,
benefit
from
their
expertise,
get
lower
legal
bills,
and
welcome
greater
predictability
brought
about
by
the
alternative
billing
methods.

If
all
this
works,
the
traditional
law
firm
model
sounds
like
it
may
be
in
trouble.
Maybe
not
at
the
top
end
where
Am
Law
50
firms
will
always
handle
bet-the-company
matters
and
cost
is
not
a
factor.
But
that’s
less
true
for
smaller
and
midsize
firms.
While
the
theory
that
the
innovative
firms
can
draw
more
and
more
business
in
the
short
run
may
be
valid,
what
about
the
long
term?

The
Traditional
Firm
Pipeline

The
traditional
law
firms
do
have
something
the
new
age
firms
don’t
have
and
which
they
need.
The
traditional
model
assumes
that
associates
will
be
brought
in
from
law
school
largely
untrained
in
the
practicalities
of
the
practice,
the
how
and
the
why
of
being
a
lawyer.
Things
like
strategy
and
vision,
how
to
keep
clients
happy,
how
to
find
solutions
to
problems,
how
to
be
profitable,
how
to
market,
and
how
to
keep
the
lights
on.
In
short,
not
only
the
practice
of
law
but
how
to
run
a
firm.

As
associates
progress
in
the
traditional
law
firm,
they
gradually
learn
and
develop,
take
on
more
responsibility,
become
partners,
bring
in
business,
and
become
firm
leaders.
It’s
that
opportunity
to
become
an
experienced
lawyer
that
the
traditional
firm
has
historically
offered.

The
new
age
firms,
on
the
other
hand,
are
composed
of
primarily
experienced
lawyers,
mainly
poached
from
the
traditional
law
firms.
They
come
fully
formed
and
ready
to
go.
That’s
all
well
and
good
and,
for
that
matter,
fair.
But
the
new
age
firms,
by
and
large,
aren’t
thinking
young
lawyer
development.

The
Future
for
New
Age
Firms

Fast
forward
into
the
future.
The
new
age
firms
don’t
have
associates
to
move
up
the
ladder.
If
traditional
firms
start
to
flounder
or
no
longer
offer
the
kind
of
training
associates
have
historically
received,
who
will
replace
the
experienced
lawyers
in
the
new
age
firms
as
they
age
out?
How
will
they
be
able
to
offer
the
same
expertise
and
talent
if
that
talent
is
not
being
developed
as
elsewhere?

Of
course,
there
will
always
be
traditional
firms
where
associates
learn
to
be
good
lawyers.
But
traditional
firms
will
be
forced,
sooner
or
later,
to
do
some
of
the
things
the
new
age
firms
are
doing
to
stay
competitive.
That
means
greater
use
of
AI
to
do
the
tasks
younger
lawyers
used
to
do.
And
inevitably
it
means
fewer
opportunities
for
young
lawyers
to
grow.

As
a
result,
there
won’t
be
as
many
of
those
experienced
lawyers
around
for
the
new
age
firms
to
grab
up.
What
experienced
lawyers
there
are
will
cost
exponentially
more.
 It’s
simply
supply
and
demand.
And
if
the
pipeline
closes,
the
cost
advantage
of
the
new
age
firms
and,
for
that
matter,
to
clients,
could
wither.

One
other
thing;
I’m
not
big
on
“firm
culture”
since
most
firms
within
certain
size
parameters
that
bill
by
the
hour
have
similar
cultures.
 But
there
is
an
advantage
to
working
at
a
firm
and
come
up
through
the
ranks.
You
know
the
clients,
you
know
the
people,
and
you
know
the
traditions.
And
when
it
comes
to
management,
knowing
how
people
react,
knowing
their
strengths
and
weaknesses
through
experience,
is
valuable.
But
by
definition,
new
age
firms
have
little
of
that
to
fall
back
on.

Bottom
line,
for
the
new
age
firms
to
succeed
long
term,
they
are
going
to
need
the
talent
to
do
the
work
and
the
managerial
skills
to
run
the
firm.

There
Is
an
Alternative

So,
it’s
fair
to
ask
whether
the
new
age
firms
can
survive
in
the
future
if
they
continue
on
the
same
course.
 And
if
clients
are
licking
their
chops
at
this
opportunity
for
lower
and
more
predictable
fees,
they
best
think
twice
as
well.
If
young
lawyers
aren’t
adequately
groomed
for
the
future,
client
service
will
ultimately
suffer,
and
the
cost
of
expertise
will
skyrocket.

There
are
solutions,
however.
It
starts
with
the
recognition
of
the
potential
and
looming
problem.
 From
there,
new
age
firms
will
need
to
somehow
invest
in
training
younger
lawyers
and
thinking
seriously
about
succession.
Succession
not
just
in
terms
of
leadership
but
in
terms
of
experience
and
expertise
in
their
practice.
 

To
do
this,
they
need
to
invest
in
law
schools
and
offer
training
programs
much
like
some
of
the
vendors
are
already
doing.
It
means
investing
in
hiring
younger
lawyers
and
bringing
them
along
like
the
traditional
firms
have
historically
done
even
if
it
negatively
impacts
profit.
It
means
a
commitment
to
more
formal
training
such
as
robust
mentorships
and
simulated
training.

And
it
means
doing
things
like
educating
clients
about
the
need
to
invest
in
the
development
of
younger
lawyers
knowing
there
will
be
a
cost
but
looking
to
the
future
for
the
return.

The
profession
is
not
known
for
this
kind
of
thinking
but
perhaps
new
age
firms,
less
bound
by
tradition,
can
lead
the
way
here
just
as
they
are
with
things
like
work
processes
and
business
models.
For
the
long
term,
new
age
firms
will
need
to
groom
younger
lawyers
and
future
firm
leaders.
The
firms
that
do
so
in
the
future
will
thrive.
Those
that
don’t?
They
may
become
extinct.

It’s
a
different
world.
Thinking
that
there
will
always
be
a
pipeline
of
experienced
lawyers
there
for
the
asking
or
failing
to
plan
for
the
line
to
run
dry
is
also
a
recipe
for
extinction.

Traditional
firms
are
notorious
for
not
looking
down
the
road.
New
age
firms
say
they
think
differently.
That
they
are
on
the
cutting
edge
of
the
future
of
law.
Maybe
so.
But
if
they
want
a
future,
they
also
need
to
invest
in
it,
not
stick
their
heads
in
the
sand
like
their
traditional
brethren
at
whom
they
scoff.

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.