Garcia
Wants
To
See
Some
Consequences
When
They
Violate
Court
Orders:
He’s
pushing
for
sanctions.
Too
Bad
To
Punish:
Ethics
authority
opts
out
of
charging
Brendan
Carr.
A
Record-Setting
Year
For
M&A!:
Which
businesses
will
be
the
next
to
combine?
So
Long,
Judge
Ryan!:
“New
Racist”
judge
finally
calls
it
quits
after
collecting
free
money
for
15
months.
Appearing
Healthy
Is
Good
For
Business:
Your
colleagues
might
not
be
as
healthy
as
they’re
letting
on.
Last
year,
how
many
American
Bar
Association-accredited
law
schools
in
the
United
States
welcomed
a
new
dean
to
lead
the
school
(including
interim
appointments)?
Hint:
According
to
AALS
Rosenblatt’s
Deans
Database,
that
includes
six
top-tier
law
schools
that
brought
in
a
new
dean.
WASHINGTON
—
New
restrictions
on
defense
contractor
share
buybacks
and
dividends
may
need
to
be
written
by
Congress
into
law
in
order
to
withstand
legal
challenges,
the
top
Democrat
on
the
Senate
Armed
Services
Committee
said
today.
“Frankly,
if
Congress
doesn’t
codify
it,
they’ll
go
into
court.
My
sense
[is]
it’s
really
difficult
to
justify
tax
changes
because
the
president
wanted
to
change
them,”
Sen.
Jack
Reed,
D-R.I.,
told
reporters.
“I
think
they
[lawmakers]
would
have
to
because
they
[defense
firms]
have
no
shortage
of
lawyers,
and
they’ll
go
into
court
and
say,
‘This
is
not
within
the
tax
code.
You
can’t
do
it,’”
he
said.
On
Wednesday,
President
Donald
Trump
released
a
long-awaited
executive
order
limiting
defense
companies’
ability
to
pay
dividends
to
shareholders
or
buy
back
stock,
telling
CEOs
in
a
Truth
Social
post,
“This
situation
will
no
longer
be
allowed
or
tolerated!”
Specifically,
the
EO
directs
the
Defense
Department
to
review
contractor
performance,
and
that
poor
performers
that
are
unsuccessful
at
resolving
their
issues
with
the
Pentagon
will
be
penalized.
Future
contracts
will
also
be
written
in
a
way
that
limits
stock
buybacks,
dividends
and
executive
compensation
if
contractors
fail
to
meet
performance
metrics,
the
EO
states.
While
Reed
didn’t
go
so
far
as
to
say
he
supported
the
restrictions
written
into
the
executive
order,
he
said
it
“represents
a
realization
that
these
companies
have
done
extraordinarily
well,
and
yet
we’re
behind
in
so
many
different
systems.
“And
at
the
same
time
they’re
not
making
their
targets
on
budget
and
on
time,
they’re
giving
themselves
significant
benefits
through
stock
buybacks,”
he
said.
A
key
Republican
on
the
committee
—
South
Dakota
Sen.
Mike
Rounds,
who
leads
SASC’s
cybersecurity
subcommittee
—
praised
the
EO
for
putting
pressure
on
contractors
to
make
larger
capital
investments.
“I
think
these
defense
contractors
understand
that
it’s
not
very
popular
with
the
American
public,”
he
said
of
stock
buybacks
and
dividends.
“We
want
to
see
this
money
go
into
real
infrastructure
and
being
able
to
respond
to
the
country’s
needs.
We’re
not
producing
our
weapons
quickly
enough
or
more
efficiently
enough.
And
so
if
we
put
the
resources,
and
if
we’re
going
to
contract
with
them,
we
want
them
to
do
a
good
job
of
actually
getting
the
facilities
in
place
long-term
that
will
help
our
country.”
In
the
nearly
24
hours
since
the
EO’s
release,
few
defense
companies
have
commented
on
the
new
restrictions,
and
none
have
publicly
voiced
concerns
about
the
new
policy
or
signaled
that
they
will
take
legal
action.
During
a
roundtable
with
reporters
today,
HII
CEO
Chris
Kastner
said
the
shipbuilder
is
still
waiting
for
further
details
on
how
the
order
will
be
implemented,
but
he
doesn’t
expect
it
to
change
the
company’s
capital
allocation
plans,
as
it
had
already
stopped
stock
buybacks.
“We’ve
been
investing
more.
I
expect
us
to
grow
more,
and
I
expect
to
be
held
accountable
to
meet
the
commitments
I
make
in
my
contracts.
So
I
don’t
see
that
as
different,”
he
said.
“When
I
read
the
executive
order,
it
felt
like,
okay,
we’re
doing
the
right
stuff.
We’re
going
down
the
right
path.”
In
an
appearance
on
Bloomberg
TV
on
Wednesday,
Anduril
founder
Palmer
Luckey
defended
the
administration,
saying
that
Trump
isn’t
“anti-defense
company”
and
that
companies
funded
by
the
government
should
be
held
to
account.
“When
you
are
working
on
the
taxpayer
dime,
there
is
no
level
of
oversight
or
intervention
that
I
am
against
conceptually,”
he
said. “Now
I
think
some
of
these
might
be
bad
moves.
They
might
not
necessarily
help
the
defense
base,
but
in
concept,
I
think
everything
should
be
on
the
table.”
Defense
firm
Kratos,
which
today
announced
a
contract
win
for
a
Marine
Corps
collaborative
combat
aircraft
program,
expressed
“strong
support”
for
the
EO
in
a
statement
earlier
today,
noting
that
it
“does
not
have
a
practice
of
conducting
stock
buybacks
or
paying
dividends,
choosing
instead
to
reinvest
capital
directly
into
the
development,
production,
and
fielding
of
affordable,
mission-ready
technologies
for
the
warfighter.”
In
a
statement
that
did
not
reference
the
EO
directly,
Lockheed
Martin
said
it
“shares
President
Trump’s
and
the
Department
of
War’s
focus
on
speed,
accountability,
and
results,
and
will
continue
to
invest
and
innovate
at
scale
to
ensure
our
warfighters
maintain
a
decisive
advantage
and
are
never
sent
into
a
fair
fight.”
But
belying
the
public
praise,
some
industry
officials
have
expressed
concern
behind
the
scenes,
especially
when
it
comes
to
potential
jitters
on
Wall
Street.
“This
administration
is
really
focused
on
getting
on
these
companies
putting
more
money
up
front
with
no
contracts
on
the
horizon.
And
money
is
in
search
of
money.
If
these
investors
sense
that
they’re
not
going
to
get
the
return
they
need
from
this
investment,
they’ll
take
it
someplace
else,”
one
industry
official
said
on
the
condition
of
anonymity.
“You’re
messing
with
the
ability
of
companies
to
reward
the
investment
of
their
investors,
and
so,
are
you
chasing
that
investment
away?”
Digital
marketing
is
one
of
those
exciting-yet-frustrating
fields
in
which
any
technique
you
master
is
virtually
guaranteed
to
need
an
update
as
soon
as
you
have
gotten
comfortable
with
it.
The
upside
for
those
of
us
working
in
the
industry
is
that
we
never
have
a
chance
to
get
bored!
The
challenge
for
our
clients
is
that,
no
matter
how
recently
we
have
answered
a
question
about
the
“best”
way
to
get
views
and
clicks
online,
we
are
probably
going
to
find
ourselves
answering
again
almost
before
we
have
a
chance
to
catch
our
breath.
For
the
past
several
months,
many
of
the
most
pressing
questions
I
have
been
hearing
from
clients
have
come
from
GEO:
What
is
it,
should
I
be
worried
about
it,
how
can
I
make
sure
my
law
firm
is
actually
visible
in
all
these
AI
answers?
Here’s
what
your
law
firm
needs
to
know
to
stay
relevant
as
the
search
landscape
evolves.
What
Is
GEO,
Anyway?
GEO
stands
for
Generative
Engine
Optimization,
and
the
term
is
one
of
several
competing
names
for
the
set
of
techniques
that,
depending
on
whom
you
ask,
may
be
thought
of
as
a
successor
to
SEO
(search
engine
optimization)
or
its
natural
continuation.
GEO
builds
on
many
of
the
same
principles
as
SEO,
but
adapts
their
implementation
to
account
for
differences
in
the
ways
“answer
engines”
leverage
generative
AI
access
and
present
information
when
compared
to
the
familiar
operations
of
established
search
engines
(e.g.,
Google).
How
Do
AI
Search
Tools
Source
Information?
The
first
thing
you
probably
need
to
know,
if
you
are
developing
a
law
firm
GEO
strategy,
is
that
AI
search
tools
(at
least
for
now)
overwhelmingly
source
their
information
from
“traditional”
search
engines.
The
dominant
player
in
the
search
engine
space
is
still
Google,
but
ChatGPT
has
been
known
to
prioritize
results
from
Bing.
Even
accounting
for
the
differences
between
the
various
search
engines
currently
managing
a
share
of
total
search
traffic,
these
tools
operate
on
essentially
similar
principles.
This
means
they
also
tend
to
use
closely
related
criteria
for
evaluating
topical
relevance
when
determining
which
sources
to
return
in
response
to
a
query.
Longevity
of
SEO
People
sometimes
lose
sight
of
one
of
the
“big
picture”
implications
of
the
information-sourcing
behavior
used
by
answer
engines.
If
the
AI
search
tools
are
getting
the
information
they
compile
and
synthesize
to
provide
their
users
with
concise
answers
to
direct
questions
(rather
than
lists
of
relevant
links
for
the
users
to
review
on
their
own)
by
running
searches
themselves,
then
SEO
cannot
logically
go
anywhere
if
you
want
your
law
firm
website
to
show
up
in
those
answers.
It
doesn’t
matter
whether
the
search
is
initiated
by
a
human
being
or
a
large
language
model
(LLM):
If
your
page
is
not
in
the
search
results,
nobody
will
be
seeing
it,
much
less
visiting
it.
Multi-Query
Search
That
does
not
mean
that
there
are
no
differences
between
an
AI
tool’s
search
behavior
and
what
you
or
I
would
do
if
we
sat
down
to
enter
a
Google
query.
The
exact
protocols
tend
to
be
closely
guarded
secrets,
but
one
common
theme
across
all
of
the
generative
engine
search
tools
currently
in
widespread
consumer
use
is
that
they
use
a
technique
similar
to
what
Google
calls
the
“query
fan-out”
method.
You
can
find
several
detailed
explanations
of
how
query
fan-out
works
online,
but
for
the
sake
of
simplifying
a
complex
topic
with
a
lot
of
caveats,
let’s
just
say
that
the
way
LLMs
handle
requests
for
search-based
answers
is
that
they
take
the
question
the
user
has
asked,
and
then
they
generate
a
set
of
additional
questions
that
are
intended
to
be
subsidiary
to
the
original
query.
When
the
method
works
well,
these
sub-queries
are
one
or
both
of
the
following:
Questions
the
user
would
need
the
answers
to
in
order
to
understand
the
answer
to
their
original
query
Questions
from
whose
answers
a
reasonable
person
could
infer
the
answer
to
the
original
query
Some
tools,
like
Perplexity,
will
be
so
obliging
as
to
show
the
sub-queries
generated
in
order
to
locate
the
information
they
will
use
to
answer
the
original
user
query.
Implications
for
Law
Firm
GEO
Strategy
At
this
point,
we
can
begin
to
draw
some
inferences
of
our
own.
Let’s
walk
them
out
together.
#1.
Content
Pillars
Are
More
Important
Than
Ever
If
you
are
familiar
with
the
structure
and
function
of
content
pillars,
you
know
that
these
treasure
troves
of
content
work
by
creating
a
large
set
of
interrelated
articles/pages,
each
rich
in
keywords,
and
cross-linking
them.
Usually
you
will
find
that
pillars
follow
something
of
a
pyramidal
structure:
A
very
long
central
“pillar”
that
aims
to
provide
comprehensive
coverage
of
a
topic,
3-4
somewhat
shorter
pages
covering
different
aspects
of
that
topic
in
greater
detail,
and
then
3-4
smaller
articles
for
each
of
these
“subtopic”
pages.
This
structure
is
absolutely
phenomenal
for
creating
the
sub-query
relevance
that
helps
to
place
a
page
within
a
generative
answer
engine’s
list
of
reviewed
sources.
#2.
Keyword
Gap
Strategy
Still
Works
Traditional
content
pillars
are
often
based
on
the
concept
of
“keyword
gap”
coverage.
Keyword
gap
analysis
is
a
mainstay
of
SEO
strategy
that
works
by
identifying
keywords
for
which
your
competitors
are
ranking
well
in
search
results,
but
your
site
is
not.
One
of
the
main
functions
of
content
pillars
is
to
“plug”
the
keyword
gap,
to
make
sure
that
your
website
is
effectively
covering
high-value
keywords
for
which
your
competitors
are
consistently
out-performing
you.
The
kind
of
coverage
this
exercise
creates
lends
itself
naturally
to
a
spread
that
captures
a
wide
range
of
possible
subqueries
for
the
pillar’s
“core”
keyword.
A
content
pillar
is
usually
a
single,
massive
project
(that
may
sometimes
get
updates,
as
needed),
so
to
build
on
the
foundation
it
establishes
many
SEOs
will
also
use
keyword
gap
analysis
in
establishing
a
set
of
content
“buckets”
that
will
be
used
to
define
topics
you
want
to
target
going
forward.
This
same
technique
can
be
deployed
very
effectively
in
modern
GEO:
Adjust
your
“buckets”
to
align
with
questions
and
their
likely
subqueries
related
to
your
practice
area(s).
#3.
Comprehensiveness
Is
Key
The
bad
news,
for
law
firms
seeking
to
upgrade
their
GEO
strategy,
is
that
the
subquery
generation
technique
used
by
LLMs,
in
all
their
multiple
variations,
strongly
privileges
comprehensive
topical
coverage.
If
you
want
your
individual
pages
to
stay
“on-topic”
(a
key
factor
in
demonstrating
page
relevance
for
the
search
engines
on
whose
results
the
answer
tools
will
be
drawing),
then
the
need
to
cover
any
topic
you
want
to
“rank”
for
(”list”
might
be
a
better
word
than
“rank”
when
it
comes
to
GEO)
will
likely
mean
that
you
need
to
increase
the
number
of
individual
pieces
of
content
on
your
law
firm
website,
and
in
some
cases
the
rate
at
which
you
are
adding
to
your
website
content
(the
current
frequency
of
your
website
updates
will
obviously
matter
here).
The
good
news,
if
you
are
worried
about
how
to
adapt
your
law
firm
content
marketing
strategy
for
the
new
era
of
GEO,
is
that
almost
any
legal
topic
can
be
covered
from
many
different
angles.
The
fact
that
LLM-based
answer
engines
will
be
examining
several
of
them
every
time
they
review
sources
to
generate
an
answer
in
response
to
a
user’s
request
means
that
these
AI
search
tools
actually
give
your
law
firm
more,
not
fewer,
chances
to
be
recognized
as
relevant
and
therefore
show
up
in
the
results
eventually
displayed
to
users.
To
take
advantage
of
the
multiplying
opportunities,
what
you
will
want
to
do
is
work
with
a
digital
marketing
professional
(or
agency)
who
can
help
you
round
out
a
truly
comprehensive
GEO
content
creation
strategy
that
starts
with
the
keyword
“classics”
familiar
from
SEO
and
builds
outward
to
answer
an
ever
wider
set
of
thematically-related
questions.
Take
GEO
as
an
Opportunity,
Not
Just
a
Challenge
Generative
answer
engines’
use
of
traditional
search
engines
to
source
information
in
response
to
user
requests
will
continue
to
keep
SEO
relevant,
even
as
the
digital
marketing
industry
continues
to
evolve
alongside
customers’
behavior.
If
your
law
firm
has
an
effective
SEO
strategy
already:
Build
on
it!
If
your
law
firm’s
SEO
game
has
been
weak,
now
is
the
time
to
address
the
underlying
issues
that
are
keeping
your
site
from
ranking.
In
either
case,
rather
than
moving
away
from
SEO
toward
GEO
you
will
want
to
look
at
ways
to
enhance
your
total
content
strategy
based
on
the
way
answer
engines
select
their
sources
and
present
their
responses.
Work
with
an
experienced
digital
marketing
specialist
to
identify
high-value
topics
and
subqueries
in
your
practice
area,
and
start
working
to
build
your
comprehensive
suite
of
answers
to
the
real
questions
people
really
ask
about
the
type
of
cases
your
firm
handles.
Annette
Choti,
Esq.,
has
over
two
decades
of
legal
experience
and
is
the
Founder
&
CEO
of Law
Quill,
a
concierge
legal
marketing
agency
for
law
firms.
Annette
authored
the
bestselling
book
Click
Magnet:
The
Ultimate
Guide
To
Digital
Marketing
For
Law
Firms,
hosts
the
popular
Legal
Marketing
Lounge
podcast,
and
founded
Click
Magnet
Academy
where
she
teaches
professionals
to
leverage
the
powerful
LinkedIn
platform.
As
a
sought
after
speaker
for
Bar
Associations,
Legal
Associations,
and
Marketing
Conferences,
Annette
provides
legal
marketing
insight
along
with
an
entertaining
twist.
Annette
used
to
do
theatre
and
professional
comedy,
which
is
not
so
different
from
the
legal
field
if
we
are
all
being
honest.
Annette
can
be
found
on LinkedIn or
directly
through
email
at
A[email protected]
As
a
finite
supply
of
business
exists
in
the
legal
industry,
practitioners
need
to
compete
against
each
other. Clients
consider
many
attributes
when
selecting
counsel,
including
abilities,
costs,
and
the
capability
to
handle
a
given
representation. When
a
lawyer
suffers
a
health
issue,
it
can
create
difficulties
in
maintaining
client
connection,
since
clients
might
believe
that
they
should
select
other
counsel
without
the
same
health
challenges.
For
this
reason,
many
lawyers
may
try
to
hide
health
issues
from
clients,
which
can
create
a
number
of
problems
in
an
attorney-client
relationship.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
worked
in
an
area
of
the
law
that
was
dominated
by
a
particular
firm
in
our
region. I
never
worked
for
this
firm
myself,
but
I
knew
many
lawyers
who
did
at
one
time
or
another
and
who
loved
to
share
stories
about
the
sometimes
unconventional
practices
at
that
shop. Multiple
lawyers
told
me
that
a
name
partner
at
this
shop
suffered
a
health
setback
while
working
there. This
became
a
source
of
gossip
at
the
firm,
since
attorneys
could
tell
that
this
name
partner
was
not
available
while
he
dealt
with
health
issues.
I
heard
from
colleagues
that
once
this
name
partner
returned
after
handling
those
health
issues,
he
made
sure
to
tell
people
not
to
discuss
his
health
issues. He
said
that
discussing
his
health
issues
could
make
it
more
difficult
for
the
firm
to
generate
new
business
and
might
convince
clients
to
move
to
different
shops. Accordingly,
it
was
in
everyone’s
best
interest
to
keep
the
lawyer’s
medical
issues
under
wraps.
I
also
once
worked
at
a
shop
that
was
run
by
several
partners
who
were
in
their
late
60s. The
partners
at
the
firm
had
a
practice
of
going
to
a
gym
by
the
office
during
lunchtime
most
days. I
have
to
admit,
the
main
partner
at
that
law
firm
was
in
amazing
shape!
Not
just
for
someone
in
his
60s,
but
for
any
age. One
time,
I
was
discussing
the
partner’s
fitness
ritual
with
him,
and
he
told
me
that
being
healthy
and
in
shape
was
important
to
clients’
perceptions
of
him
and
the
law
firm.
He
said
that
clients
want
to
know
that
lawyers
are
vigorous
and
they
might
not
want
to
assign
work
to
lawyers
who
might
appear
elderly
and
less
capable
of
handling
matters.
Hiding
health
issues
from
clients
obviously
raises
a
number
of
ethical
and
practical
concerns. If
a
lawyer
cannot
handle
a
representation
due
to
a
physical
or
mental
limitation,
they
should
make
arrangements
to
have
another
lawyer
step
in. In
many
situations,
it
might
be
important
to
inform
clients
of
arrangements
that
are
taken
to
ensure
that
the
lawyer
can
continue
to
work
on
a
matter
with
clients
even
though
the
lawyer
is
suffering
from
medical
issues.
However,
it
is
probably
unavoidable
that
lawyers
will
try
to
hide
medical
issues
and
problems
related
to
aging
from
clients. So
long
as
the
legal
industry
remains
a
competitive
profession,
attorneys
will
try
to
make
themselves
look
as
capable
and
vigorous
to
clients
as
possible.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
Some
people
really
struggle
with
distinguishing
between
individual
and
systemic
responsibility
when
both
are
at
play.
For
example,
as
important
as
it
is
to
make
sure
that
individual
drivers
obey
speed
limits
and
pay
attention
to
the
road
and
that
pedestrians
look
both
ways
before
they
cross
the
street,
intersections
are
a
structural
factor
that
can
amplify
harms
depending
on
how
they’re
planned
and
built.
Judges
ought
to
be
aware
of
all
sorts
of
individual
and
systemic
factors
that
influence
law
breaking.
A
failure
to
understand
one
of
those
factors,
race,
got
Oakland
County
judge
Kathleen
Ryan
in
hot
water
last
September.
A
secret
recording
caught
her
going
off
about
not
being
a
structural
racist
but
a
new
racist,
spurred
on
by
things
like
#BlackLivesMatter.
For
the
record,
if
you
were
pissed
off
about
Black
people
complaining
about
being
killed
extrajudicially,
there’s
nothing
new
about
your
racism
—
I’m
sure
The
Red
Record
would
have
annoyed
you
too
were
you
around
for
it.
Since
we
last
covered
Judge
Ryan,
she’s
decided
to
retire.
WXYZ
has
coverage:
A
controversial
Oakland
County
probate
judge
who
was
accused
of
making
racist
and
homophobic
comments
will
not
be
back
on
the
bench….Judge
Ryan
has
essentially
been
on
paid
leave
for
15
months,
but
her
lawyers
tell
the
7
Investigators
she
is
now
voluntarily
retiring.
There’s
a
special
irony
in
a
judge
who
accused
Black
Americans
of
needing
to
step
up,
do
their
jobs,
and
not
be
lazy
asses
getting
paid
for
a
year
and
some
change
for
doing
absolutely
nothing.
The
real
grift
is
in
saying
racist
shit
and
getting
paid
for
it.
Between
her
and
GoFundMes
for
people
who
get
caught
yelling
slurs,
being
an
ethical
and
impartial
judge
just
leaves
too
much
money
on
the
table.
Maybe
Clarence
Thomas
is
onto
something.
Now
that
the
judge
of
13
years
is
off
the
bench,
her
seat
will
be
open
to
a
jurist
who,
hopefully,
is
not
a
racist
or
one
of
its
limited
edition
flankers.
Fairness
and
impartiality
are
the
hallmarks
of
good
judges
—
it
is
a
shame
that
Ryan
was
able
to
sneak
through
whatever
fail-safes
were
put
up
to
filter
out
bigoted
people
from
donning
the
robes.
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.
The
buzz
this
year
at
CES
isn’t
just
agentic
AI.
It’s
also
wearables
and
their
coming
power
and
use.
And
as
with
agentic
AI,
these
wearables
could
have
significant
implications
and
pose
challenges
for
legal.
The
Rise
of
Wearables
When
we
talk
about
wearables,
we
are
talking
about
things
like
glasses,
watches,
and
necklaces
that
are
not
only
fashion
pieces,
but
which
can
actually
do
things.
While
the
notion
of
wearing
something
like
a
smart
watch
that
can
do
things
like
show
your
emails,
enable
your
smart
devices
to
do
things,
or
track
your
heart
rate
has
been
around
for
a
while,
the
difference
now
is
that
these
wearables
can
combine
with
AI,
agentic
AI,
virtual
reality,
and
augmented
reality
to
do
much
more.
A
simple
such
wearable
is
the
Meta
glasses.
These
glasses
can
read
your
text
messages
and
allow
you
to
take
a
video
or
picture
with
a
touch
of
the
temple.
But
you
can
also
verbally
ask
the
glasses
questions
like
“what
am
I
looking
at?”
or
“tell
me
about
this
painting
I
am
seeing
in
the
museum.”
By
combining
with
AI,
the
glasses
can
whisper
an
answer
in
your
ear
which
no
one
else
can
hear.
And
that’s
just
the
beginning.
I
attended
a
panel
discussion
in
which
Resh
Sidhu,
the
Senior
Director
of
Innovation
of
Snap
Inc.,
talked
about
what
her
company
is
developing.
Snap
is
the
company
behind
the
social
media
tool
Snapchat.
Snapchat
introduced
the
first
glasses
wearable
back
in
2016
and
has
been
working
on
them
ever
since.
Sidhu
showed
a
short
video
of
how
future
versions
of
Snapchat
glasses
could
combine
with
AR,
VR,
and
AI
to
do
amazing
things,
like
line
her
up
for
a
perfect
3
pointer
in
a
pickup
basketball
game.
Or
be
her
companion
on
a
trip
to
Paris
like
an
experienced
tour
guide.
At
the
Lenovo
keynote,
the
presenters
talked
about
a
wearable
necklace
that
could
do
similar
things.
It’s
still
a
proof
in
concept
but
the
direction
is
clear.
Several
presenters
in
several
contexts
talked
about
AI
wearables
that
“see
what
you
see
and
hear
what
you
hear”
and
can
respond
to
your
needs.
The
advantage,
of
course,
is
that
these
wearables
allow
the
wearer
to
“do
things
in
the
moment
without
reaching
out
to
a
screen
that
pulls
us
away,”
according
to
Sidhu.
These
wearables
have
tremendous
potential.
They
can
increase
safety.
They
can
be
training
guides.
They
can
provide
useful
information
and
understanding
of
complex
issues.
They
can
always
be
on
awaiting
you
to
say
“hey
Meta,”
or
whatever
the
command
should
be
(don’t
worry,
“hey
Siri”
still
won’t
get
you
very
far).
Advantages
for
Lawyers
For
lawyers,
it’s
easy
to
see
some
advantages.
Think
about
taking
a
deposition
where
your
glasses
suggest
questions
and
follow
up
while
you
are
looking
at
the
witness
for
body
language
instead
of
your
screen.
Or
one
of
things
that
used
to
bedevil
me
as
a
young
lawyer
in
a
courtroom:
your
glasses
can
tell
you,
“Hey,
object,
hearsay.”
And
tell
you
why.
Or
supply
you
information
to
answer
your
client’s
questions
in
an
in-person
meeting.
Or
combine
with
other
tools
to
explain
what
your
opponent
is
doing
when
he
makes
certain
arguments
to
a
judge
or
takes
a
position.
Or
help
you
deal
with
and
understand
what
a
mediator
is
doing
in
a
mediation.
Lots
of
benefits.
But
also,
some
real
issues
and
therein
lies
the
challenges
to
legal.
Legal
Issues
These
high-powered
wearables
raise
some
interesting
issues.
I
wrote
recently
about
an
AI
proctor
that
detects
if
a
witness
is
using
AI
in
a
remote
interview
in
large
part
by
determining
if
the
person
is
looking
at
a
screen.
Good
idea.
But
what
happens
if
the
person
doesn’t
need
a
screen
to
get
the
AI
answer?
It’s
provided
through
the
witness’s
glasses.
Suppose
a
witness
takes
the
stand
to
testify
wearing
glasses.
How
do
we
know
that
they
aren’t
being
fed
the
answers
by
a
bot?
Do
we
demand
that
the
glasses
be
examined?
I’m
not
sure
our
courts
are
ready
for
that.
The
Bot
is
Lying
And
what
happens
if
the
advice
the
bot
gives
is
wrong
and
someone
acts
on
it.
Most
of
us
know
that
LLMs
make
mistakes
and
hallucinate
regularly.
It’s
one
thing
when
it
provides
the
output
on
a
screen,
it’s
another
when
it
provides
the
output
in
the
moment,
in
your
ear.
We
have
enough
problems
with
people
acting
in
the
spur
of
the
moment
with
screen
output;
the
temptation
to
run
with
an
output
whispered
in
your
ear
is
far
more.
Privacy
Issues
There
are
privacy
issues
as
well.
All
these
devices
are
creating
data.
Where
does
it
go?
Who
has
access?
Will
it
be
discoverable?
Imagine
your
client
getting
a
discovery
demand
for
everything
their
glasses
created
and
kept.
We
have
enough
trouble
with
clients
creating
evidentiary
trails
when
they
type
in
inputs
—
wearables
will
increase
the
problems
multifold.
And
it’s
not
just
your
privacy
that’s
at
stake.
I
have
a
pair
of
first-generation
Meta
glasses.
I
can
take
a
picture
or
video
that
those
around
me
would
scarcely
detect,
violating
their
privacy.
The
Impact
on
Dispute
Resolution
Certainly,
that
kind
of
world
would
eliminate
a
lot
of
“he
said,
she
said”
disputes
if
there
is
data
someplace
that
would
clarify
it,
much
like
police
body
cams
often
tell
the
real
story,
provided
they
are
turned
on.
These
kinds
of
disputes
are
often
difficult
to
litigate
since
they
often
turn
on
who
the
fact
finder
finds
more
credible
and
that
can
hinge
on
a
variety
of
the
unpredictable
factors.
But
even
in
those
kinds
of
disputes,
our
litigation
system
is
designed
to
make
determinations
about
who
is
telling
the
truth
based
on
a
totality
of
facts
and
testimony
about
interactions
between
people.
But
AI
wearables
could
easily
turn
the
totality
of
facts
that
explain
behavior
into
a
sound
bite.
And
what
would
that
kind
of
world
be
where
you
have
to
think
about
everything
you
say
or
do?
Can
you
imagine
the
posturing
and
games
that
would
be
played?
Set
ups,
where
one
party
employs
an
orchestrating
letter
or
statement
designed
to
provoke
a
reaction
are
already
pretty
common.
It’s
a
gamesmanship
tactic
I’ve
seen
used
over
and
over
again
by
both
lawyers
and
clients.
Wearables
increase
the
opportunity
and
temptation
to
do
just
that.
A
Lack
of
Guardrails
Right
now,
there
are
few
rules
or
guardrails
in
place
except
for
those
the
vendors
may
provide
out
of
the
goodness
of
their
hearts.
The
only
law
is
the
notion
that
there
must
be
consent
for
a
conversation
to
be
recorded.
While
a
few
states
require
both
parties’
consent,
most
states
only
require
that
one
person
consent,
rendering
the
rule
moot
to
begin
with.
Do
we
need
to
require
those
with
AI
wearables
to
disclose
that
fact
when
interacting
with
others?
Isn’t
there
an
inherent
disadvantage
in
substantive
interactions
where
one
person
has
access
to
AI
and
can
create
a
record
and
the
other
doesn’t?
And
don’t
forget,
there
is
still
the
issue
of
deepfakes.
Outputs
from
AI
wearables
could
easily
be
manipulated
to
make
what
happened
look
a
lot
different
than
what
really
did.
Our
Responsibility
It’s
often
said
to
whom
much
is
given,
much
is
expected.
The
concept
applies
here.
Wearables
offer
tremendous
potential
benefits
across
a
broad
spectrum
of
life.
But
with
those
benefits
comes
our
responsibility
as
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
think
hard
about
the
issues
and
risks
these
wearables
bring
to
the
legal
process
and
to
dispute
resolutions.
We
have
already
seen
the
result
of
a
lack
of
planning
and
thinking
about
the
risks
of
evidence
manipulation
that
deepfakes
have
brought.
Courts
and
litigants
unprepared
to
deal
with
those
scenarios
and
questions.
A
lack
of
rules
and
guidance.
A
threat
to
our
system.
Without
planning
and
forethought,
we
could
end
up
in
the
same
place
with
wearable
issues.
Legal
has
not
only
been
slow
to
embrace
technology,
it’s
also
been
slow
to
understand
the
risks
technology
brings
to
things
like
the
rule
of
law
and
fundamental
fairness.
It’s
been
said
that
insanity
is
doing
the
same
thing
over
and
over
and
expecting
different
results.
The
time
is
now
to
think
about
how
to
manage
the
risks
to
legal
while
appreciating
the
benefits
and
use
of
these
tools
by
society.
Otherwise,
we
will
be
facing
the
same
crisis
with
wearables
as
we
are
with
deepfakes:
scrambling
to
deal
with
technology
we
don’t
understand.
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.
Our
clients
speak
to
our
position
in
the
marketplace:
we’ve
advised
over
80%
of
the
Am
Law
100,
including
10
of
the
20
most
profitable
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100,
and
a
broad
range
of
other
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100
and
200,
the
Global
100,
Wall
Street
firms,
Magic
Circle
firms,
and
firms
outside
of
those
groups.
We
have
terrific
relationships
with
large
high-performing
firms,
and
most
of
them
know
us.
We
have
developed
a
sub-specialty
in
recent
years
in
advising
firms
that
are
interested
in
the
possibility
of
combining
with
similarly-sized
or
larger
firms.
— Kent
Zimmermann,
co-chair
of
Zeughauser
Group,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
his
strategic
planning
and
merger
consultancy’s
client
base.
He
continued,
saying
Zeughauser
has
gotten
to
know
firms
outside
of
the
Am
Law
100,
noting,
“We
represent
a
portfolio
of
clients
in
the
50
to
200-lawyer
size
range
that
have
high-quality
practices
in
areas
like
middle-market
M&A,
private
equity,
sophisticated
litigation
and
other
areas,
and
those
are
great
relationships.
That’s
an
expansion
of
our
breadth.
They’re
also
particularly
valuable
because
sometimes
those
firms
combine
with
larger
firms,
and
our
knowledge
of
that
landscape
is
valuable
to
our
clients.”
Zimmermann,
who
was
recently
promoted
the
co-chair
position,
has
been
an
insider
on
major
law
firm
mergers,
including
the
impending
combination
of
Cadwalader
Wickersham
&
Taft
and
Hogan
Lovells,
which
will
be
one
of
the
largest
law
firm
mergers
in
history.
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.
Earlier
this
month,
we
released
our
2025
Outside
Counsel
Rankings,
highlighting
the
go-to
law
firms
for
in-house
counsel.
In
addition
to
telling
us
which
firms
they
engage
for
legal
services,
in-house
lawyers
were
also
asked
to
share
some
feedback
about
these
firms:
“What
are
the
firm’s
particular
strengths
(or
weaknesses)?
Would
you
recommend
hiring
the
firm(s)
to
peers?”
In
this
brief
quiz,
we’ve
included
a
selection
of
comments
about
the
firms
featured
in
the
Top
Tier
of
the
latest
rankings.
See
if
you
can
match
the
firm
to
the
feedback.
We’ll
reveal
the
results
after
the
new
year.
A
new
report
confirms
what
M&A
associates
already
knew
in
their
bones:
the
mergers
and
acquisitions
market
wasn’t
just
hot
last
year,
it
was
record-setting.
According
to
data
released
this
week
by
the
London
Stock
Exchange
Group,
2025
featured
the
most-ever
M&A
mega-deals,
with
68
transactions
clocking
in
at
$10
billion
or
more.
Globally,
M&A
value
hit
a
staggering
$4.6
trillion,
representing
a
49%
increase
over
2024.
And
if
you’re
wondering
who
made
out
like
bandits
in
this
frenzy
of
consolidation,
well,
let’s
just
say
the
usual
suspects
didn’t
exactly
miss
the
party.
Sitting
comfortably
atop
the
rankings
once
again
is
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
which
served
as
principal
adviser
on
$829
billion
worth
of
deals.
Kirkland
was
joined
in
the
stratosphere
by
Latham
&
Watkins,
Wachtell
Lipton
Rosen
&
Katz,
and
Skadden
Arps,
each
advising
on
$600
billion
or
more
in
transactions
last
year.
Michael
Weisser,
a
private
equity
partner
at
Kirkland,
put
it
bluntly
to
Reuters,
“There’s
no
doubt
that
the
legal
market
has
sort
of
bifurcated
and
there
is
a
flight
to
the
top.”
So…
if
you’re
not
already
elite,
good
luck
getting
invited
to
the
table.
Latham’s
Alex
Kelly
echoed
the
point,
predicting
the
stratification
will
only
deepen.
As
deals
grow
“in
volume,
complexity
and
geographic
reach,”
clients
are
increasingly
relying
on
a
smaller
and
smaller
cadre
of
firms
to
get
the
job
done.
Goodwin
Procter
took
the
No.
1
spot
for
number
of
deals,
advising
on
a
whopping
945
transactions
worth
$123
billion.
Vice
chair
Stuart
Cable
told
Reuters
there’s
“no
reason
to
be
anything
other
than
highly
optimistic”
about
2026.
Meanwhile,
Wachtell’s
Adam
Emmerich
and
Jacob
Kling
suggested
that
even
this
banner
year
might
just
be
a
warm-up
act.
“We
are
neck
deep
in
ongoing
deals,
and
the
pipeline
is
bulging
as
well,”
they
said.
Which
is
probably
thrilling
news
if
you’re
a
partner…
and
a
scheduling
nightmare
if
you’re
an
associate
with
a
vacation
request
pending.
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].
Kathryn