Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
In
the
new
revival
of
The
Muppet
Show,
what
legal
subplot
is
guest
host
Sabrina
Carpenter
involved
in?
Hint:
This
comes
after
Miss
Piggy’s
“arrest”
at
the
final
show
of
Carpenter’s
Short
n’
Sweet
Tour
for
being
too
hot.
See the
answer
on
the
next
page.
In
2013,
the
Legal
Services
Corporation
published
the
landmark
study,
Report
of
The
Summit
on
the
Use
of
Technology
to
Expand
Access
to
Justice.
The
report
forcefully
made
the
case
that
technology
could
be
a
powerful
–
indeed,
essential
–
tool
in
narrowing
the
justice
gap,
and
its
recommendations
helped
shape
the
last
decade
of
legal
innovation
in
the
United
States.
“Technology
can
and
must
play
a
vital
role
in
transforming
service
delivery
so
that
all
poor
people
in
the
United
States
with
an
essential
civil
legal
need
obtain
some
form
of
effective
assistance,”
that
report
presciently
asserted.
Now,
marking
its
most
comprehensive
technology
initiative
since
that
seminal
report,
the
LSC
has
released
a
new
report,
The
Next
Frontier:
Harnessing
Technology
to
Close
the
Justice
Gap,
which
represents
the
findings
of
an
extensive
two-year
Technology
Summit
process
that
kicked
off
with
LSC’s
50th
anniversary
in
2024.
Related:
LawNext
Episode
58:
Jim
Sandman,
President
of
the
Legal
Services
Corporation.
Like
its
predecessor,
this
new
report
offers
an
ambitious
roadmap
for
leveraging
technology
to
narrow
America’s
justice
gap.
It
presents
seven
detailed
recommendations
aimed
at
helping
the
nation’s
130
LSC-funded
legal
services
organizations
adopt
cutting-edge
technologies
–
particularly
artificial
intelligence
–
to
expand
access
to
justice
for
low-income
Americans.
The
report,
which
was
published
in
December,
is
the
end
result
of
a
deliberative
process
that
started
when
more
than
50
technology
leaders,
legal
services
practitioners,
court
personnel,
and
other
stakeholders
participated
in
a
full-day
workshop
in
Charlotte,
N.C.,
in
February
2024,
ahead
of
LSC’s
Innovations
in
Technology
Conference
that
year.
(I
was
among
the
50
who
participated
that
day.)
The
process
continued
over
subsequent
months
through
four
focused
workgroups
that
examined:
The
initiative
also
included
extensive
stakeholder
interviews,
focus
groups
with
field
experts
and
grantees,
and
strategic
conversations
among
LSC
leadership
about
strengthening
the
LSC’s
Technology
Initiative
Grant
(TIG)
program
–
which
has
awarded
923
grants
totaling
more
than
$92
million
since
2000.
The
report
opens
with
sobering
context:
LSC’s
2022
Justice
Gap
Report
found
that
low-income
Americans
received
inadequate
or
no
legal
help
for
92%
of
their
civil
legal
problems.
Whether
facing
eviction,
unemployment,
child
custody
issues
or
domestic
violence,
too
many
low-income
Americans
navigate
the
legal
system
alone.
Despite
this
need,
LSC
grantees
had
to
turn
away
one
of
every
two
requests
for
help
they
received
in
the
prior
year
due
to
limited
resources.
To
help
address
this
justice
gap,
the
summit
produced
seven
interconnected
recommendations
that
LSC
characterizes
as
“a
call
to
action”
for
accelerating
transformative
technology
use:
The
report’s
first
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
support
grantees
in
treating
technology
investments
as
essential
to
their
core
mission
–
not
as
a
luxury
–
by
providing
training,
technical
assistance
and
resources
that
help
leadership
prioritize
and
integrate
state-of-the-art
technology
into
service
delivery.
The
report
notes
that
legal
services
organizations
often
struggle
with
a
“scarcity
mindset”
that
causes
them
to
eschew
potentially
game-changing
technology
investments.
The
report
cites
a
2024
survey
that
found
that
45%
of
nonprofits
said
they
spend
too
little
on
technology,
with
“lack
of
available
budget”
cited
as
the
most
common
barrier.
The
report
identifies
several
ways
in
which
LSC
can
encourage
and
support
LSOs
to
embrace
“culture
change”
on
issues
of
technology.
Among
them:
The
second
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
create
user-friendly,
centralized
resources
to
help
grantees
meet
and
exceed
the
LSC
Technology
Baselines
–
a
guide
to
the
key
technologies
LOSs
should
have
in
place
–
while
also
fostering
innovation,
including
facilitating
replication
and
scaling
of
successful
technology
projects.
The
report
acknowledges
that
while
LSC,
LSNTAP
(Legal
Services
National
Technology
Assistance
Project),
and
others
provide
various
resources,
grantees
need
“curated
information
and
guidance”
to
cut
through
what
one
participant
called
the
“firehose”
of
technology
developments.
To
that
end,
the
report
recommends
that
LSC:
The
report’s
third
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
explore
alternative
funding
models
for
technology
projects
to
better
match
the
pace
of
technological
change
and
grantees’
evolving
needs.
The
current
TIG
process
–
from
application
to
grant
approval
to
beginning
work
–
can
take
10
months
to
a
year.
“Sometimes
there’s
a
sense
that
you
are
designing
a
tech
project
and
then
you
have
to
twiddle
your
thumbs
to
fill
time,”
said
Eli
Mattern
of
Community
Legal
Services
in
Orlando.
The
report
recommends
several
activities
LSC
can
pursue
to
explore
new
funding
approaches
and
ensure
that
the
TIG
program
remains
a
key
driver
of
technology
innovation.
Among
them:
Fourth
of
the
recommendations
is
that
LSC
should
invest
in
tools,
guidance
and
infrastructure
that
enable
grantees
to
maximize
their
available
data
for
strategic
planning,
operational
decisions
and
service
delivery,
the
report
recommends.
The
report
highlights
success
stories
such
as
Legal
Aid
Society
of
Cleveland’s
discovery
through
website
analytics
that
driver’s
license
suspensions
related
to
unpaid
fines
was
a
major
concern,
leading
to
research
and
a
report
that
helped
change
state
policy.
However,
the
report
says
that
summit
participants
identified
an
array
of
barriers
that
keep
them
from
making
data-informed
practices
more
central
to
their
work.
These
include:
To
address
these
issues
and
encourage
more
data-driven
decision
making,
the
report
says
that
LSC
should:
The
next
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
modernize
its
evaluation
approach
for
the
TIG
grant
program
by
developing
a
flexible,
adaptive
evaluation
framework
that
supports
innovation,
measures
impact
and
informs
future
investment,
the
report
says.
Current
evaluation
requirements
can
feel
like
“rote
compliance”
exercises.
The
report
calls
for
evaluation
formats
that
better
match
project
scope
and
complexity.
These
might
include:
In
addition,
the
report
recommends
that
LSC:
The
sixth
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
coordinate
responsible
AI
innovation
and
broader
technology
adoption
by
promoting
experimentation,
collaboration
and
development
of
shared
tools,
policies
and
practices
across
the
access-to-justice
community.
This
is
perhaps
the
report’s
most
forward-looking
recommendation.
While
acknowledging
concerns
about
AI
accuracy,
ethics
and
privacy,
summit
participants
expressed
strong
support
for
LSC
helping
legal
services
organizations
identify
the
best
current
AI
uses
while
exploring
safety
and
security
issues.
The
report
cites
survey
data
from
LSC’s
AI
Peer
Learning
Labs
(which
had
enrolled
570
legal
aid
providers
as
of
summer
2025)
showing
significant
openness
to
this.
Eighty-five
percent
of
participants
rated
their
organizations
as
moderately
to
very
open
to
working
with
AI,
although
70%
cited
“lack
of
knowledge
about
AI
and
how
to
use
it”
as
a
barrier.
To
advance
the
responsible
use
of
AI
in
legal
services,
the
report
says,
LSC
should:
The
report
highlights
several
promising
LSC-funded
AI
projects,
including:
The
report’s
final
recommendation
is
that
LSC
should
support
development
and
modernization
of
high-quality
self-help
tools
that
leverage
emerging
technologies
to
improve
access
for
self-represented
litigants.
The
report
quotes
David
Bonebrake,
deputy
director
of
LSC’s
Office
of
Program
Performance,
who
said
that,
with
LSOs
turning
away
half
of
all
help
requests,
low-income
people
are
not
just
facing
an
access-to-justice
gap.
“There’s
also
a
self-help
gap
where
people
lack
high-quality,
usable
tools
to
navigate
the
legal
process
themselves.”
To
address
this,
the
report
recommends
that
LSC:
Throughout
the
report,
LSC
highlights
successful
TIG-funded
projects
demonstrating
the
potential
of
these
recommendations.
They
include:
Comparing
the
Summit
Reports
While
both
the
2013
and
2025
summit
reports
share
the
goal
of
transforming
legal
services
delivery
through
technology,
they
reflect
dramatically
different
technological
landscapes.
The
2013
report
focused
on
then-emerging
technologies
such
as
mobile
access,
cloud
computing
and
statewide
legal
information
websites.
It
proposed
ambitious
visions
for
document
assembly,
triage
systems
and
data
integration,
many
of
which
have
since
been
implemented.
The
2025
report
builds
on
that
foundation
but
reflects
the
AI
revolution.
Where
the
2013
report
discussed
basic
automation
and
information
access,
the
2025
report
grapples
with
generative
AI,
chatbots
capable
of
real-time
legal
guidance,
and
intelligent
systems
that
can
draft
documents
and
analyze
case
patterns.
The
new
report
also
places
much
greater
emphasis
on:
Perhaps
most
significantly,
the
2025
report
is
more
action-oriented
and
specific.
Where
the
2013
report
was
more
a
visionary
blueprint,
this
latest
report
is
more
an
operational
roadmap.
Rather
than
painting
a
broad
vision,
it
provides
detailed,
implementable
recommendations
with
concrete
suggested
actions
for
LSC.
As
one
summit
participant,
Margaret
Hagan,
executive
director
of
the
Legal
Design
Lab
at
Stanford
University,
said
in
the
report:
“Now
is
the
time
to
strike.
More
and
more
people
are
open
to
using
these
technologies
as
they
hear
more
about
their
potential.
“If
our
goal
is
to
close
the
justice
gap
and
get
more
legal
services
to
more
people,”
she
continued,
“then
it’s
time
to
demonstrate
the
power
and
effectiveness
of
these
AI
tools
in
making
that
happen.”
LSC
has
pledged
to
act
on
these
recommendations
“in
ways
that
support
its
grantees
in
leveraging
technology
in
civil
legal
services
to
ensure
that
more
low-income
Americans
can
find
the
legal
advice,
support
and
representation
they
need.”
But
the
organization
acknowledges
that
it
cannot
and
should
not
do
it
alone
–
funders,
courts,
law
schools,
technology
vendors
and
others
must
play
important
roles
in
a
field-wide
effort,
it
says.
For
legal
aid
organizations,
technology
vendors,
and
access-to-justice
advocates,
this
report
provides
a
thoughtful
roadmap
for
the
next
phase
of
legal
services
innovation.
Its
emphasis
on
AI,
data-driven
practices,
and
user-centered
design
reflects
the
route
we
should
all
follow
to
meaningfully
narrow
the
justice
gap.
“Technology
alone
will
not
close
the
justice
gap
in
the
U.S.
today,”
the
report
says,
“but
it
can
and
must
play
a
vital
supporting
role.”
Most
young
lawyers
don’t
lose
cases
because
they
don’t
know
the
law.
They
lose
cases
because
they
don’t
run
the
case.
They
don’t
drive
it.
They
don’t
manage
it.
They
don’t
control
it.
They
let
it
control
them.
And
then
one
day,
they
look
up
and
realize
discovery
closed
last
week,
the
client
is
asking
why
nobody
has
taken
the
key
depo,
the
adjuster
wants
a
status
report
“by
the
end
of
the
day,”
and
the
partner
is
asking
the
question
that
makes
your
stomach
drop:
“Where
are
we
on
this
file?”
If
you
want
to
run
a
case
from
beginning
to
end,
here’s
the
mindset
shift:
You
are
not
assigned
to
the
file.
The
file
is
assigned
to
you.
Own
it.
And
yes,
it’s
a
lot,
which
is
why
we’re
going
to
reduce
it
to
basics,
blocking
and
tackling,
and
turn
chaos
into
a
workflow.
Because
everything
we
do
can
be
reduced
to
workflows,
checklists,
and
decision
trees,
and
if
you
build
the
right
ones,
you
stop
reacting
and
start
running
the
show.
Here’s
the
playbook
from
intake
to
closing
letter.
1.
Start
With
The
End
Before
you
do
anything,
do
the
thing
nobody
does:
Start
with
the
end.
Not
a
trial.
Not
summary
judgment.
The
end.
What
is
the
best
realistic
outcome
for
your
client?
What
is
the
worst?
What
does
“winning”
look
like
in
this
jurisdiction,
with
this
judge,
with
this
plaintiff,
with
this
venue?
What’s
the
hill
we’re
trying
to
take?
If
you
don’t
know
the
hill,
you’ll
be
sprinting
in
random
directions
until
you
collapse.
So:
read
the
complaint.
Then
read
it
again.
Then
read
it
like
you’re
the
plaintiff’s
lawyer
trying
to
beat
you.
Identify:
Then
create
your
case
theme
in
one
sentence.
Not
a
paragraph.
One
sentence.
If
you
can’t
say
it
in
one
sentence,
you
don’t
own
the
case
yet.
2.
The
First
72
Hours:
Triage,
Don’t
Tour
New
file
comes
in.
Everyone
panics.
People
start
doing
busywork.
They
“tour
the
file.”
Don’t
tour
the
file.
Triage
it.
Like
the
ER.
Who
is
bleeding?
What
is
time-sensitive?
What
is
about
to
explode?
Start
with
three
lists:
Calendar
is
king.
Set
the
answer
date.
Set
every
downstream
deadline
you
can
reasonably
predict.
Set
reminders
in
the
calendar
that
prompt
you
to
act
early,
not
on
the
due
date.
The
due
date
is
a
tombstone.
And
call
your
client
early.
Not
to
recite
the
complaint.
To
establish
trust.
Clients
don’t
want
a
lawyer
who
sounds
smart.
They
want
a
lawyer
who
sounds
like
they
have
a
plan.
So
give
them
the
plan.
High
level.
Calm.
Confident.
3.
Early
Case
Evaluation:
Numbers
And
Reality
One
of
the
most
difficult
jobs
for
trial
lawyers
is
placing
a
dollar
value
on
a
case
and
making
decisions
based
on
that
valuation.
You
can’t
run
a
case
if
you
don’t
know
what
it’s
worth.
So
early
on,
do
a
disciplined
evaluation:
And
here’s
a
line
that
should
live
in
your
head:
A
different
jury
may
agree
with
them.
That
sentence
keeps
you
humble
and
strategic.
It
reminds
you
that
litigation
isn’t
math.
It’s
human
beings.
So
build
a
range.
Not
one
number.
A
range.
Then
revisit
it
as
facts
develop.
Update
the
number,
or
the
number
will
update
you.
4.
Pleadings:
Don’t
Just
Answer,
Position
Pleadings
are
not
paperwork.
They’re
positioning.
Yes,
you
answer
the
complaint.
But
you’re
also
laying
tracks
for
the
train
you
want
to
run
six,
12,
18
months
from
now.
Ask
yourself:
And
if
you’re
going
to
file
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
motion
for
more
definite
statement,
don’t
do
it
because
it’s
what
lawyers
do.
Do
it
because
it
moves
the
case.
Motion
practice
without
strategy
is
just
exercise.
5.
Discovery:
Build
The
Map
Before
You
Start
Walking
Most
associates
approach
discovery
like
a
buffet.
A
little
of
this.
A
little
of
that.
No
plan.
Start
with
the
map.
Here’s
the
workflow:
A.
Written
discovery
Your
first
set
should
be
aligned
with
your
theme
and
valuation
drivers.
Not
“standard
interrogatories”
because
someone
used
them
in
2009.
Think:
B.
Document
strategy
Documents
are
where
cases
are
won
quietly.
Set
up
a
system
so
you
can
find
things
fast
later.
Because
“I
know
it’s
in
there
somewhere”
is
not
a
strategy.
It’s
a
cry
for
help.
If
you
can’t
find
it
in
30
seconds,
it
doesn’t
exist.
C.
The
discovery
plan
Write
it
down.
One
page.
That
one
page
becomes
your
compass
when
the
file
starts
trying
to
drag
you
into
the
weeds.
6.
Depositions:
You’re
A
Human
Lie
Detector
Depositions
are
not
theatre.
They
are
intel
gathering.
In
deposition,
you
are
a
human
lie
detector.
Set
a
baseline
early
with
easy
questions
and
note
changes
in
tone,
cadence,
pauses,
and
body
language
when
you
get
pointed.
That’s
not
just
a
cool
line.
It’s
a
method.
Start
with
a
baseline.
Then
apply
pressure.
And
keep
this
in
mind:
a
deposition
is
often
less
about
the
transcript
and
more
about
the
story
you’re
building
for
trial.
You’re
collecting:
Also:
use
the
phone.
The
actual
phone.
You
know
that
thing
we
hold
in
our
hands
all
day?
It
makes
phone
calls.
Call
opposing
counsel.
Call
the
court
reporter.
Call
the
witness
coordinator.
It
works
wonders.
A
lot
of
“litigation
problems”
are
actually
“nobody
talked
to
anyone”
problems.
7.
Experts:
Don’t
Wait
Until
You’re
Desperate
Experts
are
not
a
checkbox.
They’re
your
translator
to
the
jury.
Identify
early:
Then
budget
it
and
communicate
it
to
the
client
before
it
comes
as
a
surprise
invoice.
Here’s
the
rule:
No
surprises.
No
excuses.
8.
Mediation
And
Settlement:
Give
Them
A
Way
To
Save
Face
Settlement
is
not
a
weakness.
It’s
a
strategy.
Prepare
like
it’s
a
trial
—
because
if
you
don’t,
you’ll
negotiate
from
fear.
And
remember
the
truth
that
too
many
young
lawyers
learn
too
late:
If
you
corner
someone,
they
don’t
surrender;
they
bite.
So
give
the
other
side
a
path.
A
narrative
they
can
tell
their
client.
A
way
to
save
face.
That’s
how
deals
get
done.
Also,
don’t
walk
into
mediation
without
updating
your
evaluation.
See
above.
Update
the
number,
or
the
number
will
update
you.
9.
Pretrial:
Make
It
Boring
The
best
trial
lawyers
make
trial
prep
boring.
Not
because
the
trial
is
boring.
Because
they’ve
built
systems
that
remove
chaos.
Pretrial
is:
Win
the
file
before
you
walk
into
the
courtroom.
Trial
is
often
the
final
act.
The
verdict
is
the
applause
(or
the
booing).
The
work
was
done
months
earlier.
10.
Trial:
Mission
Mindset
I
once
knew
a
trial
lawyer
who
described
himself
as
a
mercenary
dropped
into
the
jungle:
fulfill
the
mission,
seize
the
hill,
blow
up
the
target,
get
out
in
one
piece.
That’s
not
bad
framing.
At
trial,
you
need
blinders.
You
need
purpose.
You
need
to
be
calm.
And
you
need
to
remember:
jurors
don’t
care
how
hard
you
worked.
They
care
whether
your
story
makes
sense.
So
tell
a
story
they
can
repeat
at
dinner.
11.
Post-Trial
And
Closing:
Finish
Like
A
Pro
A
case
is
not
over
when
the
verdict
comes
in.
Post-trial
is:
Do
a
debrief
even
if
you
“won.”
Especially
if
you
won.
Because
the
goal
isn’t
to
win
one
case,
the
goal
is
to
become
a
lawyer
who
wins
consistently.
And
if
you’re
in
the
middle
of
it
right
now,
overwhelmed,
behind,
staring
at
a
deadline
like
it’s
a
guillotine,
here’s
what
you
do:
Start
with
one
thing.
One
call.
One
email.
One
outline.
One
calendar
entry.
One
task
completed.
Then
do
the
next
thing.
Keep
going.
You
got
this.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.
The
aftermath
will
go
on
for
months
[because
of
the
sudden
change
in
management].
How
many
people
are
going
to
be
really
ultimately
comfortable
going
through
this
major
upheaval
and
can
stand
by
new
management?
It’s
a
big
question
mark.
[This
is]
going
to
have
profound
ripples
in
the
marketplace.
— A
concerned
industry
source,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
Brad
Karp’s
sudden
resignation
as
Paul,
Weiss
chair,
in
light
of
his
presence
in
the
Epstein
files,
and
what
it
will
mean
for
the
firm
and
the
profession
going
forward.
This
source
claims
that
partners
at
the
firm
immediately
began
submitting
their
resumes
elsewhere
upon
Karp’s
unexpected
announcement.
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.
A
flurry
of
stories
hit
the
legal
world
all
at
once
last
week,
with
the
government
responding
to
another
ICE
killing
in
Minnesota
by…
arresting
journalists
and
dumping
Epstein
files.
And
while
the
Epstein
files
don’t
represent
the
entire
universe
—
or,
perhaps,
even
the
most
relevant
files
about
Epstein’s
dealings
—
they
have
set
off
downstream
shockwaves
in
the
legal
industry.
Meanwhile,
another
judge
learns
that
we
frown
upon
judges
arbitrarily
handcuffing
lawyers.
Finally,
it’s
time
for
the
profession
to
come
together
behind
helping
our
self-regulators
hold
Trump
administration
lawyers
accountable.
The
ethical
breaches
keep
adding
up
and
while
there’s
never
going
to
be
the
warranted
criminal
law
reckoning,
we
can
at
least
make
sure
our
profession
is
protected
by
disbarring
all
these
administration
lawyers
getting
caught
affirmatively
lying
to
courts…
and
worse.
By
now,
you’ve
all
heard
of
Charlie
Adelson,
the
man
accused
of
taking
part
in
a
conspiracy
to
kill
Florida
State
law
professor
Dan
Markel.
And
that
could
be
part
of
the
problem.
After
being
sentenced
to
life
in
prison
back
in
2023,
Adelson
has
attempted
to
get
his
time
in
prison
reduced.
Now,
he’s
moving
for
a
whole
new
trial.
WTXL
has
coverage:
Michael
Ufferman,
representing
Adelson,
along
with
Laurel
Cornell
Niles,
told
the
appellate
court
that
40%
of
potential
jurors
screened
already
had
preconceived
notions
about
his
client’s
guilt.
He
argued
this
level
of
bias
made
it
impossible
to
select
an
impartial
jury.
…
Ufferman
pointed
to
specific
instances
where
potential
jurors
allegedly
lied
about
their
knowledge
of
the
case.
He
cited
two
examples
where
jurors
denied
forming
opinions
about
guilt
or
posting
on
social
media,
despite
evidence
showing
they
had
made
posts
about
the
case.
You
can
hear
Ufferman
here:
Assuming
he
is
right
about
the
two
jurors,
is
that
enough
to
give
Adelson
a
new
trial?
The
state
argued
that
this
doesn’t
do
enough
to
prove
that
the
entire
jury
pool
was
tainted.
That
said,
who
is
to
say
that
the
two
known
jurors
were
the
only
ones
who
formed
opinions
prior
to
seeing
the
evidence
in
court?
The
panel
of
judges
has
180
days
to
decide
whether
to
grant
the
request.
Due
process
is
a
foundational
pillar
to
the
rule
of
law;
if
it
turns
out
that
there
was
actual
bias
on
the
jury,
Charlie
Adelson
deserves
a
fail
trial
just
as
much
as
everyone
else.
Charlie
Adelson’s
Attorneys
Argue
For
New
Trial,
Citing
Jury
Bias
Concerns
[WTXL]
Earlier:
Judge
Answers
Charlie
Adelson’s
Request
For
Resentencing
9
Years
After
Law
Professor
Murdered,
Jury
Finds
Charlie
Adelson
Guilty
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.
Anthropic
announced
this
week
that
it
will
offer
a
standalone
legal
GenAI
tool
that
could
do
such
things
as
document
review,
flag
risk,
and
even
compliance
work.
The
announcement
sent
legal
tech
vendors
—
and,
more
importantly,
their
investment
—
into
frenzy.
This
immediately
triggered
a
significant
drop
in
stock
prices
of
some
big
legal
tech
providers
like
Thomson
Reuters,
RELX,
and
Wolters
Kluwer.
Anthropic
is
one
of
the
largest
GenAI
providers
to
the
public.
Its
main
product
is
Claude.
The
announcement
means
Anthropic
is
now
in
the
application
business.
Why
It
Matters
The
fear
driving
the
stock
drop
and
has
legal
tech
vendors
shaking
is
that
the
big
GenAI
players
like
Anthropic
will
now
compete
directly
with
the
vendors
and
at
a
lower
price.
The
volcano
effect
that
Melissa
Rogozinski
and
I
have
discussed
in
a
series
of
articles
(see
below)
may
be
about
to
erupt.
And
the
fallout
could
be
severe
not
only
for
legal
tech
providers
but
also
for
the
legal
community
as
a
whole.
The
big
GenAI
players
will
not
only
gobble
up
the
services
now
provided
and
offered
by
legal
tech
providers
but
could
very
well
set
their
sights
on
the
services
lawyers
provide.
Like
Pompeii
residents
when
the
volcano
erupted,
many
seem
surprised
by
the
announcement.
Many
seem
to
pooh-pooh
it.
But
it
shouldn’t
have
been
all
that
unexpected
and
it’s
no
time
to
be
pollyannish
about
the
long-term
impact.
I
have
written
not
once
but
twice
that
such
a
move
was
not
only
possible
but
likely.
A
Predictable
Move
I
first
predicted
such
a
move
by
the
large
GenAI
providers
back
in
October.
My
opinion
was
based
on
a
podcast
interview
with
Winston
Weinberg
and
Gabe
Pereyra,
the
Harvey
founders.
At
the
time,
they
recognized
that
their
biggest
future
competitor
would
not
be
other
legal
tech
providers
but
OpenAI
itself.
Their
fear
was
that
OpenAI
might
enter
the
legal
tech
space
and
compete
with
providers
like
Harvey.
Given
their
meteoric
success
with
Harvey,
I
gave
their
views
a
lot
of
credence.
The
only
thing
they
missed
was
that
it
would
be
Anthropic,
not
OpenAI,
that
would
make
the
first
move.
I
reiterated
this
view
in
a
more
recent
article
in
which
I
opined
that
the
GenAI
market
was
ripe
for
commoditization
and
that
the
first
step
in
that
process
would
be
for
the
big
players
to
offer
services
now
offered
by
legal
tech
vendors.
This,
in
turn,
would
lead
to
fierce
competition
on
price
that
might
squeeze
out
a
lot
of
legal
tech
providers.
I
even
posed
a
hypothetical
in
which
OpenAI
was
now
the
GenAI
provider
of
choice
for
most
law
firms
and
legal
departments
by
early
2027.
Like
Weinberg
and
Pereyra,
it
looks
the
only
thing
I
may
have
missed
is
the
identity
of
the
first
to
move.
In
both
articles,
I
stressed
that
the
big
players
might
not
be
content
to
sit
back
and
let
legal
tech
vendors
create
the
wares
based
in
part
on
the
large
GenAI
platforms
and
would
make
a
move.
By
and
large,
this
has
not
happened
before
in
part
because
the
legal
market
was
not
big
enough
to
justify
the
investment
in
learning
the
field.
But
GenAI
changes
that
dynamic
since
it’s
much
easier
to
gain
the
skills
and
understanding
needed
to
provide
services
directly
to
lawyers.
So
the
big
providers
might
do
so
simply
because
they
can.
As
I
said
in
October,
“It’s
ironic
too
that
the
very
AI
tool
responsible
in
large
part
for
the
increased
investment
and
explosion
of
products
in
legal
tech
may
itself
enable
and
encourage
the
bigger
players
to
try
to
cut
out
current
legal
tech
providers.”
And
this
may
be
only
the
beginning.
What
Happens
Next?
It
would
seem
likely
that
now
that
Anthropic
has
dipped
its
toe
in
the
legal
market,
it’s
probably
not
going
to
just
rest
on
its
laurels.
I
think
we
will
see
continued
development
of
legal
products.
And
the
other
big
players
will
likely
follow
suit
in
order
to
compete.
That
will
drive
the
commoditization
process
I
referred
to
in
my
article.
That
could
spell
trouble
for
many
of
the
legal
tech
providers
who
can’t
compete
on
price.
It
could
also
make
their
present
and
would-be
investors
very
nervous.
The
net
effect
will
be
the
Pompeii
effect
we
have
talked
about
in
our
series
of
articles:
severe
fallout
in
the
legal
tech
industry.
These
rumblings
beneath
the
foundation
are
visible
now
more
than
ever
and
I
wouldn’t
bet
against
the
big
players
right
now.
But
that’s
not
all.
Once
the
big
players
see
they
can
offer
similar
products
to
that
now
provided
by
the
legal
tech
vendors,
they
could
very
well
push
their
products
to
those
who
need
legal
services
directly.
GenAI
is
already
becoming
ingrained
in
corporate
legal
departments.
If
Anthropic
can
provide
the
same
services
as
the
legal
tech
vendors
at
a
much
lower
price,
in-house
legal
will
flock
to
the
service.
And
those
services
will
do
more
and
more
to
replace
the
need
for
in-house
lawyers
and
in
turn
outside
lawyers
as
well.
It
was
this
kind
of
threat
that
was
described
in
a
recent
article
in
The
Hill
by
John
Mac
Ghionn.
While
the
article
was
not
centered
on
legal,
it
did
paint
a
dystopian
future
where
entire
workforces,
even
those
based
on
judgment,
pattern
recognition,
and
reasoning,
are
displaced
by
GenAI.
It’s
hard
to
see
how
legal
would
be
any
different.
Sure,
there
will
still
be
a
need
for
human
lawyers,
just
nowhere
near
as
many.
And
yes,
the
arrival
of
low-cost
legal
services
provided
by
GenAI
tools
could
be
a
boon
to
access
to
justice
by
making
those
services
more
accessible.
But
make
no
mistake,
when
a
bot
can
do
90%
of
the
work
in
drafting
a
contract,
we
won’t
need
as
many
lawyers
in
the
loop.
So,
buckle
up.
It’s
no
time
to
be
pollyannish.
We
could
be
in
for
a
wild
ride.
We
told
you
so.
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.
The
relationship
between
Jeffrey
Epstein
and
Goldman
Sachs’s
top
lawyer,
Kathryn
Ruemmler,
has
put quite
the
spotlight on
her.
The
Epstein
files
reveal
thousands
of
communications
between
the
pair.
Ruemmler
said
of
their
connection,
“I
was
a
defense
attorney
when
I
dealt
with
Jeffrey
Epstein.
I
got
to
know
him
as
a
lawyer
and
that
was
the
foundation
of
my
relationship
with
him.
I
had
no
knowledge
of
any
ongoing
criminal
conduct
on
his
part,
and
I
did
not
know
him
as
the
monster
he
has
been
revealed
to
be.”
But
documents
in
the
most
recent
Epstein
file
dump
suggest
Ruemmler
knew
something
was
up.
We
know
that
Epstein
was
deeply
involved
in
plotting
out
Ruemmler’s
career,
offering
advice
and
negotiation
tips
on
job
offers.
And
in
a
June
2016
email
exchange,
the
pair
were
discussing
a
potential
job
at
hedge
fund
Citadel
(Ruemmler
never
worked
a
Citadel,
at
the
time
of
these
emails
was
she
was
a
partner
at
Latham
&
Watkins
and
co-chair
of
its
white-collar
defense
group;
in
2020,
Ruemmler
left
Biglaw
for
the
in-house
world
at
Goldman
Sachs,
where
she
currently
serves
as
Chief
Legal
Officer
and
General
Counsel).
Ruemmler
seems
skeptical
about
the
job,
and
Epstein
says
“there
is
the
off
chance
that
[hedge
fund
founder
Ken
Griffin]
might
just
be
interested
in
a
woman.”
Ruemmler
thumbs
her
nose
at
the
notion
of
DEI,
writing,
“I
ain’t
no
affirmative
action.”
Epstein
responds,
“i
meant
romantically.”
And
then
comes
the
stomach
churning
line,
“Oh,
Jesus
—
meaning
you
are
going
to
trade
one
of
your
Russians
for
my
comp?!!”
Epstein
is
known
to
have
paid
“ostensible
foreign
models,”
and
the
most
charitable
read
is
that
Ruemmler
was
merely
joking
that
trafficking
one
of
Epstein’s
Russian
models
to
her
maybe-boss
might
lead
to
a
more
favorable
compensation
package…
or
she
suspected
that
was
something
the
“monster”
Jeffrey
Epstein
might
really
do
on
behalf
of
a
trusted
friend.
(From
all
appearances,
Griffin
is
just
catching
strays
here,
and
Citadel
said,
“Ken has
never
met
or
communicated
with Epstein.”)
Either
way
it’s
an
awful
look
for
the
prominent
attorney.
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].
It’s
time
to
give
Paul,
Weiss
a
brief
respite
from
the
barrage
of
Epstein
revelations.
There
may
well
be
more
to
come,
but
we
can
give
some
other
law
firms
their
day
in
the
sun.
Like
Jones
Day,
who
apparently
represented
Epstein’s
accomplice
Ghislaine
Maxwell
back
in
2017.
Either
that
or
Maxwell
routinely
deposited
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
into
the
Jones
Day
Client
Trust
Account
for
no
reason
in
particular.
There
are
at
least
four
emails
in
the
files
that
show
Maxwell
transferring
funds
from
UBS
to
the
Jones
Day
trust
account.
The
first
—
that
we’ve
found
—
is
dated
February
6,
2017
and
finds
Maxwell
asking
UBS
to
transfer
$25k
to
the
Jones
Day
Client
Trust
Account.
As
far
as
I
can
tell,
there’s
no
contemporaneous
public
record
of
Maxwell
working
with
Jones
Day.
Next,
on
April
18,
2017,
a
UBS
employee
confirms
that
she
had
completed
a
wire
transfer
requested
by
Maxwell
to
Jones
Day
in
the
amount
of
$31,746.50.
Because
they
farmed
this
production
out
to
a
thousand
drunk
monkeys
at
a
thousand
drunk
typewriters,
it’s
the
exact
same
employee
in
both
emails,
but
the
government
redacted
her
full
name
and
email
in
the
first
one
—
except
in
the
salutation
—
and
left
her
completely
unredacted
in
the
second
email.
In
September
of
that
year,
a
whole
four-person
UBS
team
writes
Maxwell
to
confirm
that
they’ve
passed
along
$218,791.31
to
Jones
Day.
A
November
email
provides
a
summary
of
her
transfers
throughout
the
year.
The
summary
includes
Haddon
Morgan
and
Foreman,
the
Denver-based
firm
that
served
as
Maxwell’s
primary
counsel
in
the
defamation
suit
Virginia
Giuffre
brought
in
2015,
which
makes
sense.
But
how
does
Jones
Day
play
into
all
this?
Were
they
behind-the-scenes
counsel
in
that
case?
Were
they
working
on
some
other
matter
for
Maxwell?
The
Justice
Department
database
is
an
inconclusive
mess
so
we
don’t
really
know.
It’s
not
a
crime
to
represent
an
accused
criminal,
of
course.
It’s
a
pretty
big
part
of
the
job.
But
it
is
a
little
weird
to
find
a
major
law
firm
making
its
first
appearance
in
this
case
so
late
in
the
game.
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.
The post Finance Bros Rejoice: Polo Ralph Lauren’s Quarter-Zip Was Fashion’s Hottest Product Of Q4 2025 appeared first on Above the Law.