Category: News Feeds

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.

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

This
vote
was
more
overwhelming
than
I
could
ever
hope
for.

The
partnership
vote
has
demonstrated
that
everyone’s
bought
in
and
everyone
wants
to
move
fast
because
the
market’s
moving
fast.
We
have
the
opportunity
and
we’re
determined
to
take
it.

— 

Charles
Severs,
global
co-CEO
of
DLA
Piper,
in
comments
given
to

Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
the
firm’s
recent
partnership
vote
to

abandon
the
verein
structure
that
has
governed
its
international
operations
since
2005.
Severs
went
on
to
call
the
vote
“a
massive
catalyst”
that
will
allow
the
firm
to
make
bold
moves
to
attract
and
retain
talent
on
a
worldwide
scale. As
of
May
1,
a
new
global
holding
company
will
oversee
DLA
Piper
US
and
DLA
Piper
International.

---

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.

Spring
has
sprung,
and
you
know
what
that
means:
we’re
now
seeking
submissions
for
our
annual law
revue
video
contest.
As
far
as
last
year’s
submissions
are
concerned,
some
of
them
were
funny,
some
of
them
were
“meh,”
and
some
of
them
made
us
want
to
close
our
heads
inside
of
our
laptops.
Trust
us
when
we
say
you
do
NOT
want
to
be
in
the
last
category.

If
you
think
you
can
carry
a
tune
or
tell
a
joke,
we
ask
that
you
send
us
your
very
best
law
revue
videos
so
that
we
—
and
the
Above
the
Law
audience
—
may
pass
judgment
upon
them.
Prepare
for
the
worst,
but
hope
for
the
very
best.

Those
responsible
for
the
winning
video
will
get
Above
the
Law
prizes
and
the
pleasure
of
knowing
they’re
the
envy
of
their
law
school
peers.
As
always,
there
will
be
complete
and
total
exoneration
for
the
losers.
There’s
always
next
year.

Before
you
start
sending
us
your
videos,
we’ve
got
some
rules.
As
future
members
of
the
legal
profession,
we
hope
you’ll
be
able
to
follow
them.

1. Your
   video
   must
   be publicly
   available
   online somewhere.
   Send
   us
   the
   link
   at [email protected] with
   the
   subject
   line “Law
   Revue
   Video
   Contest
   Submission
   –
   [School
   Name].” We’ll
   accept
   submissions
   of
   any
   videos
   posted
   after
   April
   25,
   2025
   (the
   deadline
   for
   our
   last
   contest).
2. To
   avoid
   complaints
   from
   competitors
   (see,
   e.g., West
   Virginia’s
   2013
   winning
   entry),
   your
   primary
   performers
   must
   come
   from
   within
   the
   law
   school
   community
   (but
   cameos
   from
   outsiders
   are
   okay).
   How
   do
   we
   define
   a
   “primary
   performer”?
   Don’t
   test
   us,
   gunners.
   We’ll
   know
   a
   violation
   when
   we
   see
   it.
3. Send
   us
   your
   submission
   by FRIDAY,
   MAY
   1,
   at
   5:00
   P.M. (Eastern
   time).
   That’s
   not
   a
   soft,
   law
   school
   deadline;
   it’s
   a
   hard,
   law
   firm
   deadline.
   (NO
   EXCEPTIONS,
   so
   don’t
   even
   try
   pleading
   with
   us;
   if
   you’re
   reading
   this
   post
   after
   the
   deadline,
   you
   don’t
   read
   ATL
   frequently
   enough.)
4. Your
   editors
   here
   at
   ATL
   will
   make
   a
   list
   of
   our
   favorites,
   the
   competition
   finalists,
   and
   post
   them.
5. We
   will NOT watch
   videos
   longer
   than 5
   minutes.
   Use
   editing
   tools,
   people.
6. Please
   submit no
   more
   than
   two
   entries
   per
   school (one
   per
   school
   is
   even
   better).
   Try
   to
   collaborate
   with
   your
   fellow
   students
   and
   submit
   no
   more
   than
   two
   entries.
   If
   the
   leadership
   of
   Law
   Revue
   can
   come
   up
   with
   “official”
   submissions,
   that
   would
   be
   ideal.
7. ATL
   readers
   will
   then
   vote
   to
   choose
   the
   funniest
   of
   the
   finalists.
   The
   winning
   team
   will
   receive
   ATL
   prizes
   (limit
   five
   prizes).

Here
are
some
unofficial
rules:

• Please
  send
  funny
  videos
  only.
• You
  have
  no
  idea
  how
  short
  our
  attention
  spans
  are.
  If
  you
  use
  the
  full
  five
  minutes,
  it
  better
  be
  absolutely
  freakin’ HILARIOUS.
• Gratuitous
  shout-outs
  to
  Above
  the
  Law
  are
  appreciated
  and
  encouraged.
• Video
  quality
  matters.
  A
  shaky
  clip
  shot
  on
  a
  handheld
  from
  a
  third-floor
  balcony
  is
  probably
  not
  going
  to
  make
  the
  cut.
• Don’t
  make
  us
  hate
  you.

Send
those
videos
in.
Best
of
luck
—
we
have
a
feeling
the
competition
will
be
even
fiercer
than
usual,
so
you’re
going
to
need
it!!!
We
look
forward
to
judging
you.

---

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
government
needs
more
funding
than
ever,
which
is
kind
of
hilarious
when
you
realize
the
Tea
Party
of
the
Obama
era
was
the
predecessor
of
this
Big
Government
version
of
the
GOP.

The
DHS
can’t
even
get
itself
a
budget
at
the
moment.
Sure,
it
will
get
some
money
thrown
to
it
sooner
or
later
and
the
administration
won’t
let
the
lack
of
tax
revenue
offsets
stop
it
from
feeding
billions
more into
its
Bigotry
Machine.

But
that’s
not
all.
Behold
our all-but-officially-declared
war in
Iran,
currently
headed
by
the
Department
of Defense War Little
Excursion,
which
is
adding
billions
of
dollars
weekly
to
the
national
deficit.
After
all,
as
right-leaning
libertarians
like
to
point
out,
the
government
doesn’t
actually
“make”
anything.
The
private
sector
builds
the
bombs
and
missiles.
And unlike
TSA
agents,
they
expect
to
be
paid.

You
know
who could help
this
country
offset some
of
its
insane
expenditures? It’s
the
same
people we’re
spending
billions
to remove from
the
country:

Immigrants
accounted
for
more
US
income
and
generated
more
revenue
for
the
government
because
they
were,
on
average,
over
12
percentage
points
more
likely
to
be
employed
than
the
US-born
population.
This
means
that
even
if
immigrants
earn
lower hourly wages,
they
can
still
account
for
more
total
income
per
capita
than
the
US-born
population
by
working
cumulatively
more
hours. This
higher
employment
rate
was
driven
by
the
fact
that
immigrants
were,
on
average,
20
percentage
points
more
likely
to
be
of
working
age.
Immigrants
usually
arrive
in
the
US
as
young
adults
and
often
leave
before
retirement.

More
succinctly,
immigrants
out-punch
their
weight
class
when
it
comes
to
erasing
budget
deficits:

Accounting
for
savings
on
interest
payments
on
the
national
debt,
immigrants
saved
$14.5
trillion
in
debt
over
this
30-year
period.

[…]

Without
the
contributions
of
immigrants,
public
debt
at
all
levels
would
already
be
above
200
percent
of
US
GDP—nearly
twice
the
2023
level
and
a
threshold
some
analysts
believe
would
trigger
a
debt
crisis.

But
that
help
is
apparently
no
longer
welcome.
The
Trump
administration
has
succeeded
in eliminating
the
firewall between
the
IRS
and
ICE,
allowing
ICE
agents
to
use
this
data
to hunt
down
taxpayers who
work
harder
and
pay
more
taxes
than
the
white,
natural-born
citizens
that
this
administration
pretends
make
America
great.

That’s
going
to
cause
even
more
problems
for
an
administration
that
is
spending
far
more
liberally
than
any
“liberal”
it
blames
its
current
budget
problems
on. Here’s
how
that
looks
on
the
ground as
Tax
Day
has
come
and
gone
in
the
United
States:

By
the
time
Tax
Day
rolls
around
every
April
15,
accountant
María
José
Solís
usually
has
more
to
do.
More
clients.
More
paperwork.
More
phones
ringing,
more
emails
and
WhatsApp
messages
pinging.

But
this
year,
she
said,
more
than
550
of
her
regular
clients
have
disappeared.
That’s
about
15
percent
of
her
customer
base
at
Toro
Taxes,
the
bilingual
firm
in
Wheaton,
Maryland,
that
Solís
runs.

There’s
your
anecdote,
albeit
one
that’s
being
repeated
around
the
nation.
Here’s
the
data:

The
Yale
Budget
Lab estimates that
the
IRS
stands
to
lose
between
$147
billion
and
$479
billion
over
the
next
decade
as
migration
to
the
U.S.
declines,
deportations
increase
and
immigrants
of
various
statuses
disengage
from
the
formal
economy
for
what
some
experts
say
may
be
an
extended
period.

That
estimate
will
likely
be
low
if
the
Trump
administration
continues
to
purge
migrants
at
the
rate
it
has
since
Trump
returned
to
office.
It
will definitely be
lower
if
another
similarly
bigoted
GOP
lawmaker
succeeds
him
as
president.

And
it’s
not
just
the
losses
up
front.
There’s
money
leaking
out
the
back
as
well.
It’s
a
double-dip,
because
migrants
with
ITINs
(individual
tax
identification
numbers)
pay
taxes
for
services
they
can’t
actually
access,
like
Social
Security
and
Medicare.
They’re
actually
subsidizing
citizens
who
pay
fewer
taxes,
work
fewer
hours,
and commit
more
crimes than
they
do.

This
nation
continues
to
become
poorer,
not
just
in
terms
of
financial
viability,
but
in
heart
and
spirit.
Migrants
made
this
nation
great.
Now,
a
bunch
of
ungrateful
people
who
hate
people
who
aren’t
white
are
not
only
driving
us
deeper
into
debt,
but
they’re
eliminating
a
source
of
income
that
never
asked
for
anything
more
than
a
chance
to
survive.

US
Going
Deeper
Into
The
Red
Now
That
The
IRS
Is
Sharing
Tax
Data
With
ICE

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Wireless
Giants
To
Get
Off
The
Hook
For
Spying
On
Your
Daily
Movements
For
Years

Arkansas
Tried
To
Pass
An
Unconstitutional
Social
Media
Law.
Again.
It
Lost.
Again.

Hypocritically,
The
Origin
Of
The
Supreme
Court’s
‘Shadow
Docket’
Was
An
Attempt
To
Curb
Executive
Power

Ed.
note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Aftershocks
from
‘The
Shadow
Papers’;
Publication
of
a
trove
of
confidential
Supreme
Court
memos
ignited
debates
in
the
legal
academy”: Adam
Liptak
has this
new
installment of
his
“The
Docket”
newsletter
online
at
The
New
York
Times.

“Paul
Clement
Will
Argue
for
Trump-Targeted
Law
Firms
Next
Month”: Justin
Henry
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Originalist
Judges
Are
Spitting
On
the
Constitution
and
Think
You
Won’t
Notice;
A
law
in
Texas
requires
every
public
school
to
display
the
Ten
Commandments
in
every
single
classroom;
No
problem,
says
the
Fifth
Circuit”: Jay
Willis
has this
post online
at
his
“Balls
&
Strikes”
Substack
site.

“New
Alito
book
reveals
details
on
Jan.
6
case,
flag
controversy;
New
books
about
Alito
are
being
published
after
much
speculation
about
when
the
conservative
justice
might
retire”: Maureen
Groppe
of
USA
Today
has this
report.

“Chapman
on
Indoctrinating
Thy
Neighbor;
Assessing
Nathan
v.
Alamo
Heights
Independent
School
District”: Nathan
Chapman
has this
guest
post at
the
“Divided
Argument”
Substack
site.

“11th
Circuit
shoots
down
challenge
to
machine
gun
ban;
The
federal
government
maintained
the
Second
Amendment
does
not
cover
machine
guns
or
the
machine
gun
conversion
device
that
led
to
a
two-year
prison
sentence
for
a
Fort
Lauderdale
man”: Alex
Pickett
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.

*
Justice
Department
charges
soldier
who
made
$400,000
betting
on
Maduro
capture.
Weirdly,
no
action
at
all
on
whoever
keeps
making
million
dollar
oil
shorts
minutes
before
Trump
announces
imaginary
Iran
deals.
[ABC]

*
Freshfields
partners
with
Anthropic
to
build
AI
tools.
[Legal
IT
Insider]

*
Davis
Polk
unveils
new
appellate
practice
after
snagging
Paul
Weiss
practice
co-chair.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Spirit
Airlines
likely
to
get
taxpayer
bailout.
The
government
should
give
them
the
bare
minimum,
and
then
charge
extra
for
each
additional
necessity.
[Law360]

*
PE
eyes
PI
practice.
[Law.com]

*
Judge
Salas
on
the
dangers
of
weakening
data
privacy
laws.
[Reuters]

*
Junior
lawyer
makes
pageant
finals.
[Legal
Cheek]

Fifth
Circuit’s
Stuart
Kyle
Duncan
Shows
You
Can
Go
Far
Without
Doing
The
Reading:
Also,
the
Establishment
Clause
doesn’t
matter
anymore.
Keeping
It
Real
About
Real
Estate
Law:
These
schools
should
be
at
the
top
of
your
list!
Exercise
Judgment:
AI
can
help
you,
but
you
still
need
to
be
at
the
helm.
Goodbye,
DEI:
Companies
have
given
up
the
commitment
to
diversity
song
and
dance.
Law
Student
Is
On
An
Amazing
Jeopardy
Run!:
Representing
New
Jersey
and
Seton
Hall!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
data
collected
by
ALM,
which
Am
Law
100
firm
has
the
lowest
average
compensation
for
all
partners?

Hint:
On
average,
partners
make
$380,000
at
the
firm,

less
than
senior
associates
at
firms
at
the
top
compensation
scale.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Clio
has
made
Clio
Work
—
the
AI
workspace
for
legal
research,
analysis
and
strategy
it
launched
last
October
—
available
as
a
standalone
product
for 
solo,
small
and
mid-sized
law
firms,
removing
the
requirement
that
customers
also
subscribe
to
its
flagship
practice
management
platform,
Clio
Manage.

The
Vancouver-based
company,
which
describes
itself
as
the
global
leader
in
legal
AI,
said
the
expansion
opens
the
product
up
to
the
wider
legal
market
after
a
six-month
period
in
which
it
was
limited
to
Clio
Manage
subscribers.
Clio
said
that
Clio
Work
has
been
the
fastest-adopted
product
in
the
company’s
history
since
its
October
launch.

“Firms
of
all
sizes
are
turning
to
Clio
Work
to
get
work
done,”
CEO
and
founder
Jack
Newton
said
in
the
announcement.
“Its
rapid
adoption
shows
that
legal
AI
is
becoming
where
work
begins,
and
Clio
is
defining
that
starting
point.
Expanding
access
to
the
wider
legal
market
is
the
next
step,
giving
more
firms
direct
access
to
the
AI
setting
the
standard
for
the
profession.”

What
Clio
Work
Does

Clio
Work
is
designed
to
interpret
facts
and
files,
identify
key
issues,
and
help
shape
legal
arguments.
It
draws
on
a
global
library
of
more
than
one
billion
legal
documents
—
the
corpus
Clio
acquired
through
its
purchase
of
vLex
—
and
combines
that
with
matter-level
context
from
a
firm’s
own
documents,
notes
and
contacts
to
produce
research,
analysis
and
strategic
recommendations.

Users
can
delegate
complex
tasks
through
goal-based
instructions,
and
Clio
Work
plans
and
executes
the
steps
needed
to
complete
them,
the
company
said.
Outputs
are
intended
to
become
more
precise
over
time
as
the
workspace
accumulates
context
from
a
firm’s
ongoing
matters.

Clio
said
the
product
supports
both
litigation
and
transactional
workflows
across
pleadings,
discovery,
depositions,
contracts,
and
policies.

Building
on
Prior
Releases

Today’s
announcement
extends
a
product
launch
that
Newton
first
unveiled
at
ClioCon
in
Boston
in
October
2025,
when
he
described
Clio
Work
as
a
central
piece
of
what

he
called
the
company’s
“intelligent
legal
work
platform”
—
a
vision
aimed
at
dissolving
the
traditional
divide
between
software
for
the
business
of
law
and
software
for
the
practice
of
law.

At
that
keynote,
Clio
Work
was
offered
as
an
additional
product
at
$199
per
user
per
month
and
was
limited
to
Clio
Manage
subscribers.

Earlier
this
month,
Clio
announced
a
significant
update
to
Clio
Work,

adding
agentic
capabilities
that
enable
the
product
to
handle
multi-step
tasks
from
a
single
natural-language
prompt.

Those
capabilities
were
built
on
what
the
company
calls
a
“skills
infrastructure”
that
allows
Clio
Work
to
determine
and
execute
the
sequence
of
steps
needed
for
a
given
goal.
At
the
same
time,
Clio
launched
a
standalone
Vincent
by
Clio
mobile
app
for
iOS
and
Android.

Today’s
move
widens
the
pool
of
firms
that
can
access
those
capabilities,
removing
the
Clio
Manage
subscription
as
a
prerequisite.

The
vLex
Connection

Clio
Work
is
closely
tied
to
Clio’s
$1
billion
acquisition
of
legal
research
provider
vLex,
which

the
company
completed
in
November
2025
alongside
a
$500
million
Series
G
round
that
valued
Clio
at
$5
billion.
That
acquisition
gave
Clio
ownership
of
Vincent,
vLex’s
generative
AI
platform,
and
of
the
vLex
legal
corpus
that
now
underpins
Clio
Work’s
research
and
analysis
capabilities.

In
his
ClioCon
keynote,
Newton
argued
that
the
combination
of
a
practice
management
system’s
contextual
data
with
a
verified
legal
research
corpus
was
what
distinguished
Clio
Work
from
generic
AI
tools.
The
company
has
said
the
vLex
corpus
spans
more
than
110
jurisdictions
and
is
already
used
by
eight
of
the
world’s
10
largest
law
firms.

Early
Customer
Reactions

Clio’s
announcement
included
comments
from
three
early
adopters.
A
partner
at
Williams
&
Hamilton
described
Clio
Work
as
“a
force
multiplier”
that
handles
tedious
tasks.
A
director
at
King
Law
Offices
said
the
product
has
raised
the
baseline
work
product
of
junior
attorneys,
reducing
how
often
senior
attorneys
need
to
step
in.
And
a
firm
owner
at
Matechik
Law
Firm
said
Clio
Work
has
replaced
the
generic
AI
tools
the
firm
previously
relied
on.

Clio
said
a
global
rollout
of
the
expanded
availability
is
underway.
“This
is
just
the
beginning,”
Newton
said
in
the
announcement.
“We
believe
Clio
Work
will
become
the
foundation
for
how
the
next
generation
of
legal
professionals
engages
with
technology,
and
we
are
excited
to
lead
that
transformation.”