Market
forces
such
as
rising
attorney
salaries,
persistent
inflation,
and
unrelenting
demand
in
premium
practices
are
giving
firms
the
confidence
to
push
hourly
rates
beyond
historical
norms.
For
in-house
teams,
rate
negotiations
have
evolved
into
a
strategic
imperative
that
directly
impacts
budget
stability,
operational
efficiency,
and
the
ability
to
secure
top-tier
counsel.
Drawing
on
extensive,
proprietary
PERSUIT
data
and
the
experience
of
the
company’s
Legal
Advisory
Team,
this
report
examines
seven
trends
shaping
rate
negotiations
and
offers
practical
steps
to
strengthen
your
position
and
lead
with
value.
Brad
Karp’s
18-year
run
atop
Paul,
Weiss
ended
yesterday
evening
with
a
carefully
worded
statement
about
“distractions.”
After
days
of
increasingly
uncomfortable
headlines
stemming
from
the
latest
tranche
of
Jeffrey
Epstein
documents,
Karp
announced
he’s
stepping
down
as
chair
of
the
firm
he’s
led
for
nearly
two
decades.
“Leading
Paul,
Weiss
for
the
past
18
years
has
been
the
honor
of
my
professional
life,”
Karp
said.
“Recent
reporting
has
created
a
distraction
and
has
placed
a
focus
on
me
that
is
not
in
the
best
interests
of
the
firm.”
TL;DR
version:
the
firm
would
very
much
like
the
story
to
stop
being
about
its
chair
and
his
emails
with
one
of
the
most
infamous
sex
traffickers
in
modern
history…
but
not
enough
to
cut
ties
with
him
entirely
because
Karp
will
remain
at
the
firm
as
a
partner.
Over
the
last
several
days
Karp
(and
Paul,
Weiss)
have
played
whack-a-mole
with
Epstein-related
fallout:
watching
fawning
emails
with
Epstein
and
favor
requests
get
splashed
out
on
mainstream
media;
hedging
about
regrets;
and
bailing
on
a
speaking
engagement
as
the
documents
dropped.
One
industry
source
summed
up
the
firm’s
mood
bluntly,
saying,
“The
firm
is
circling
the
wagons.
There
are
people
in
the
firm
saying
that
they
think
he’s
been
in
the
headlines
too
much.
They
think
it
may
be
a
good
thing
to
move
on.”
And
there’s
even
more
buried
in
the
3+
million
pages.
Bloomberg
Law
reports
on
emails
from
2019
in
which
Karp
reviewed
and
offered
advice
on
a
draft
filing
related
to
Epstein’s
plea
deal
fight,
a
detail
that
undermines
the
firm’s
longstanding
position
that
Paul,
Weiss
and
Karp
never
represented
Epstein.
“The
draft
motion
is
in
great
shape.
It’s
overwhelmingly
persuasive.
Truly,”
Karp
wrote
to
Epstein
on
March
3,
2019.
He
went
on
to
praise
an
argument
suggesting
that
the
“‘victims’
lied
in
wait
and
sat
on
their
rights
for
their
strategic
advantage,”
a
line
that
is…
a
choice.
And
then
he
goes
on
to
make
a
middling
joke
about
the
sexual
assault
the
victims
allege.
Citing
U.S.
v.
Fokker
Services
to
argue
courts
couldn’t
reject
a
non-prosecution
agreement,
Karp
added,
“Wish
there
was
a
different
case
name
than
‘Fokker,’
but
we
can’t
have
everything.
In
all
seriousness,
I
don’t
see
a
credible
counter
to
our
arguments.
The
case
law
is
totally
stacked
in
favor
of
our
position.”
Those
emails
don’t
read
like
distant,
incidental
contact.
They
read
like
lawyering.
Scott
Barshay
will
step
into
the
chair
role,
offering
the
kind
of
fulsome
praise
that’s
customary
at
moments
like
this.
“Brad
has
made
immense
contributions
to
Paul,
Weiss
over
his
more
than
four
decades
with
the
firm,”
Barshay
said,
crediting
Karp
with
transforming
the
firm
“in
an
unprecedented
way.”
All
of
which
can
be
true
while
also
acknowledging
that
Karp’s
final
chapter
as
chair
is
being
written
by
Epstein
documents.
It’s
also
worth
noting
that
Barshay
was
reportedly
a
leading
voice
behind
last
year’s
deeply
controversial
decision
to
cut
a
deal
with
Donald
Trump,
promising
$40
million
in
pro
bono
services
to
escape
an
onerous
and
likely
unconstitutional
executive
order
targeting
the
firm.
And
thus
the
era
of
Brad
Karp
as
chair
is
over,
even
if
the
fallout
from
the
Epstein
files
very
much
is
not.
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].
Trump
Calls
Leonard
Leo
A
Sleazebag:
Second
time’s
the
charm!
What
A
Time
To
Enter:
Anthropic
enters
as
legal
tech
free
falls.
Jumping
Over
Failure:
The
DOJ’s
“Emergency
Jump
Teams”
are
a
drastic
attempt
to
fix
poor
staffing
issues.
What
Happens
When
The
Plaintiff
Is
Also
The
Defendant?:
Let’s
look
at
what
happens
when
the
government
fights
itself.
Federal
Judge’s
Name
Pops
Up
In
Epstein
Files:
Weird
place
to
see
unexpected
names!
Survey
Says
Most
Adults
Don’t
Like
ICE:
The
law
students
were
on
the
right
side!
In
the
movie
Legally
Blonde,
what
was
Elle
Woods’s
undergraduate
major?
Hint:
Not
necessarily
a
traditional
path
to
law
school,
but
as
Above
the
Law
readers
know
all
too
well,
it’s
really
only
about
your
LSAT
score
(Woods’s
was
a
near
perfect
179).
Things
aren’t
great
at
the
Department
of
Justice,
and
rather
than
get
to
the
root
of
the
issue,
they’ve
come
up
with
a
bold
new
staffing
strategy
involving
duct
tape,
vibes,
and
whatever
warm
bodies
happen
to
be
nearby.
According
to
reporting
from
Bloomberg
Law,
the
latest
brainchild
out
of
Main
Justice
is
something
called
“emergency
jump
teams,”
which
sounds
less
like
a
serious
prosecutorial
strategy
and
more
like
a
rejected
pitch
for
a
CBS
procedural.
According
to
a
February
2
memo
from
Francey
Hakes,
the
director
of
DOJ’s
Executive
Office
for
U.S.
Attorneys,
each
of
the
nation’s
93
U.S.
attorney’s
offices
has
until
February
6
to
volunteer
one
or
two
assistant
U.S.
attorneys
who
can
be
rotated
into
high-need
areas
facing
“urgent
assistance
due
to
emergent
or
critical
situations.”
DOJ
has
blown
a
hole
in
its
own
staffing
model
and
is
now
slotting
in
prosecutors
to
be
human
sandbags.
Trump’s
personal
law
firm,
which
is
how
the
once
venerable
DOJ
was
rebranded
at
the
start
of
the
Trump
II
term,
is
leaking
attorneys
like
a
sieve.
But
that’s
what
happens
when
career
prosecutors
are
asked
to drop
corruption
cases as
part
of
a
corrupt
political
bargain
or sign
off
on
baseless
prosecutions of
Trump’s
enemies
or
be
part
of
a
fascist
machine
that
ignores
court
orders
and
the
Constitution.
DOJ
lawyers
are
burning
out,
walking
out,
or
in
one
memorable
case,
asking
a
judge
to
hold
them
in
contempt
just
so
they
can
finally
get
some
sleep.
Instead
of
reconsidering
whether
flooding
line
prosecutors
with
legally
dubious
ICE
cases
is
a
great
idea,
DOJ
has
opted
for
the
institutional
equivalent
of
shouting
“NEXT!”
and
grabbing
whoever
hasn’t
escaped
yet.
Before
landing
on
jump
teams,
DOJ
tried
plugging
the
gaps
with
military
lawyers.
Then
came
recruiting
prosecutors
on
social
media,
which
is
a
real
thing
that
happened.
Now,
with
morale
somewhere
beneath
the
Mariana
Trench,
DOJ
wants
AUSAs
to
sign
up
for
short-term
deployments
to
wherever
the
latest
crisis
has
erupted
—
crises
that,
it
should
be
noted,
the
federal
government
largely
created
for
itself.
And
let’s
be
very
clear
about
what
some
of
these
“emergent
or
critical
situations”
are
supposed
to
involve.
Hakes’s
memo
explicitly
ties
the
jump
teams
to
carrying
out
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s
December
directive
ordering
law
enforcement
to
“root
out”
antifa
and
other
left-associated
anti-government
groups.
Because
nothing
says
neutral
law
enforcement
quite
like
emergency
prosecutorial
squads
mobilized
to
chase
the
attorney
general’s
preferred
political
boogeymen.
The
DOJ
is
treating
career
prosecutors
as
replaceable
widgets
while
also
demanding
they
shoulder
legally
questionable
cases
at
breakneck
speed.
That
is
unsustainable,
and
this
plan
is
literally
rearranging
deck
chairs
on
a
ship
that
keeps
springing
new
leaks.
And
no
amount
of
jumping
is
going
to
save
that.
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].
Are
you
among
the
many
lawyers
overwhelmed
by
a
deluge
of
new
technology?
Is
your
firm
looking
for
the
best
ways
to
vet
technology
vendors?
Are
you
tired
of
time-wasting
demos?
In
this
episode
of
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech,”
host
Jared
Correia
welcomes
Caspar
Roxburgh,
GM
of
Draftable,
to
discuss
solutions
for
law
firm
tech
overload
and
explore
fresh
paths
in
legal
technology
innovation.
Too
Much
Tech
If
you’re
like
most
smartphone
users,
there
are
numerous
unused
apps
lurking
in
the
background,
serving
no
purpose
other
than
slowing
you
down
and
potentially
costing
you
money.
Here,
Caspar
explores
a
similar
dynamic
for
law
firms.
Respecting
Your
Time
While
the
content
of
a
software
demo
is
important,
there
are
broader
issues
that
can
help
you
vet
your
vendors.
Here,
Caspar
explains.
Feedback
as
a
‘Best
Practice’
An
effective
technology
vendor
will
constantly
be
gathering
feedback
to
improve
their
customers’
experience.
Here’s
Caspar’s
take.
Hear
the
Full
Conversation
Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.
“Eagle”
Ed
Martin,
the
Trump
loyalist
that
even
this
Republican
Senate
found
too
incompetent
to
confirm
when
he
sought
to
head
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
in
D.C.,
has
managed
to
find
a
new
way
to
confirm
that
skepticism.
Earlier
this
week,
we
heard
that
the
DOJ
relieved
Ed
of
his
tasks
as
the
driving
force
behing
the
DOJ’s
anti-weaponization
initiative
—
the
ironically
named
group
working
to
actively
weaponize
the
DOJ
against
Trump’s
political
enemies.
Every
accusation
really
is
a
confession,
as
they
say.
Now
we
may
know
why
Eagle
Ed
had
his
wings
clipped.
According
to
CNN,
a
DOJ
review
found
Martin
leaked
grand
jury
material
from
the
Trump
administration’s
politically
motivated
investigations
into
Adam
Schiff
and
Letitia
James:
The
department
found
that
Martin
had
shared
the
secret
grand
jury
material
in
the
Schiff
case,
one
of
the
sources
said.
The
person
said
Martin
initially
denied
sharing
the
material
with
unauthorized
people
when
asked
by
department
leaders,
but
emails
soon
surfaced
showing
that
Martin
had
in
fact
shared
the
grand
jury
material.
Generally,
we
keep
grand
jury
material
secret
for
a
reason.
It
protects
investigative
integrity
and
the
rights
of
the
accused.
When
prosecutors
leak
that
material,
it’s
at
least
contemptuous
and
at
worst
obstruction
of
justice.
That’s
one
of
those
actual
crimes,
not
the
made-up
“somebody
criticized
Elon
Musk”
crimes
Martin
threatened
people
with
during
his
tenure
as
interim
D.C.
U.S.
Attorney.
Deputy
AG
Todd
Blanche
reportedly
oversaw
the
review,
resulting
in
Martin’s
exile
from
the
weaponization
project
to
concentrate
on
his
role
overseeing
pardons
for
a
president
almost
assuredly
selling
pardons.
But
Blanche
isn’t
going
to
sell
out
a
fellow
MAGA
warrior.
In
his
statement
to
CNN,
Blanche
offers
a
masterclass
in
lawyerly
semantics:
[T]here
are
no
misconduct
investigations
into
Ed
Martin.
Ed
is
doing
a
great
job
as
Pardon
Attorney.
The
present
tense
does
some
conspicuous
heavy
lifting
here.
No
misconduct
investigations
currently,
but
don’t
ask
Blanche
the
follow-up
about
investigations
they’ve
already
concluded.
Ed
may
be
doing
a
great
job
as
Pardon
Attorney
—
he’s
not,
but
he
may
have
been
—
but
how’s
he
doing
as
Weaponization
Working
Group
chief,
Todd?
Fittingly,
the
whole
reason
this
investigation
came
to
light
was
also
quite
dumb.
Back
in
December,
a
witness
named
Christine
Bish
showed
up
at
a
Maryland
courthouse
after
receiving
a
subpoena.
Investigators
asked
her
about
two
people
who
claimed
to
be
working
on
fraud
cases
alongside
Martin
and
FHFA
Director
Bill
Pulte
that
the
DOJ
was
investigating
these
individuals
for
impersonating
federal
agents.
Shocking
theory
that
the
FBI
wouldn’t
have
the
same
appetite
for
wild
goose
chases
as
a
couple
of
bros
informally
deputized
to
poke
into
the
half-baked
theories
Martin
and
Pulte
keep
pinning
on
Trump’s
enemies.
Days
later,
a
social
media
user
highlighted
that
ongoing
probe
and
referenced
Pulte
and
Martin
being
under
investigation.
Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi
responded
by
seemingly
trying
to
correct
the
record,
without
elaborating.
“There
is
no
investigation
into
Bill
Pulte”
she
wrote
on
X.
When
he
took
over
the
weaponization
group,
he
said
of
the
work,
“If
they
can
be
charged,
we’ll
charge
them.
But
if
they
can’t
be
charged,
we
will
name
them.
And
we
will
name
them,
and
in
a
culture
that
respects
shame,
they
should
be
people
that
are
ashamed.”
It
seems
this
DOJ
has
little
interest
in
pursuing
charges
here.
So
I
guess
we’ll
have
to
rely
on
the
shaming.
And,
hopefully,
an
ethics
probe.
Some
law
schools
and
law
students
have
been
doing
their
part
to
push
back
against
ICE.
The
University
of
Maine’s
law
school
dean
spread
info
on
an
anti-ICE
hotline
to
the
community
and
students
at
Georgetown
and
George
Washington
tried
their
best
to
keep
ICE
from
attending
their
virtual
job
fair.
But
it
can
be
hard
to
tell
if
these
students
are
just
members
of
a
vocal
minority
when
it
comes
to
resisting
ICE
or
part
of
a
larger
trend.
Thankfully,
a
recent
Marquette
University
Law
School
national
survey
has
some
results
that
should
answer
that
question.
From
Fox:
A
new
Marquette
University
Law
School
poll
found
60%
of
adults
nationwide
disapprove
of
the
way
U.S.
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement,
known
as
ICE,
is
handling
its
job.
The
poll
was
conducted
after
the
shooting
in
Minneapolis
of
Renee
Good.
Most
interviews
were
completed
before
the
shooting
of
Alex
Pretti
on
Jan.
24,
2026.
Over
half!
Hard
data
really
does
make
the
go-to
“the
silent
majority
approves
of
this
because
some
mandate
given
to
us
back
in
2024”
argument
less
credible.
There’s
a
strong
divide
on
party
lines
—
a
whopping
80%
of
Republicans
approve
of
what
ICE
is
doing
according
to
the
poll
—
but
things
may
change
as
the
operation
scales
up.
The
party
has
done
a
phenomenal
job
of
practicing
cognitive
dissonance
whenever
facts
confront
their
world
view,
but
public
attacks
against
the
Second
Amendment
so
ICE
can
“do
the
jobs”
they
lack
jurisdiction
to
do
has
been
a
hard
selling
point
for
many.
What
this
dude
says
right
here
should
scare
the
shit
out
of
everyone.
“This
started
as
a
pretext
about
immigration
and
fraud,”
and
now
ICE
is
gunning
for
our
1st,
2nd,
4th
and
6th
amendment
rights.
The
Constitution
is
on
serious
life
support,
#NoWarrantNoICE
wake
up
America‼️
pic.twitter.com/1X4JDZcVoH
To
the
60%
of
adults
who
are
unhappy
with
ICE,
welcome
to
the
club.
As
for
the
other
40%,
here’s
one
last
push:
Those
geometric
designs
and
skulls
aren’t
SS
tattoos
but
definitely
Norse
and
Viking
symbols.
and
shouldn’t
be
automatically
considered
Nazi
adjacent.
Except
for
here,
this
ICE
agent
is
absolutely
a
Nazi.
https://t.co/Ugztj4YY82
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.
Equity
partners
report
the
highest
satisfaction
across
all
measures,
highlighting
a
clear
satisfaction
gap.
[Satisfaction]
generally
rises
with
tenure
overall,
but
longest-tenure
nonequity
partners
are
among
the
least
satisfied,
equity
partners
rebound
after
an
early-career
dip,
and
associates
improve
through
mid-career
before
leveling
off.
— An
excerpt
from
a
Law.com
flash
survey,
where
it
was
revealed
that
across
firms
of
all
sizes,
equity
partners
had
the
highest
levels
of
satisfaction
(with
scores
of
3.8
to
~4.3),
on
a
scale
of
one
(very
dissatisfied)
to
five
(very
satisfied),
while
nonequity
partners
posted
the
lowest
average
satisfaction
scores
on
a
range
of
topics,
including
compensation
(~3.08),
current
standard
rates
(~3.14),
and
more
broadly,
their
current
role
(~3.54).
Kayla
McCaleb,
research
manager
and
compensation
research
lead
for
Law.com
Intelligence,
noted
in
light
of
the
survey
results
that
at
times,
nonequity
partners
“feel
like
glorified
associates.”
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.
Kathryn
