Category: News Feeds

Judge
Ho
Attacks
Judges
With
“Overinflated
Intelligence”:
Stop
hitting
yourself.
Attorney
Indicted
On
91
Felony
Counts:
That’s
a
lot
of
stalking!
Vibes
Can’t
Get
You
That
Far:
Another
hopeful
fails
to
make
U.S.
Attorney.
All
Eyes
On
Them:
See
if
you
can
guess
the
most
searched
law
firms
of
2025!

Yeah,
2026
is
here.
Are
we
happy
about
that?
Now
we
have
the
“Donroe
Doctrine.”
The
rumble
under
our
feet
is
not
an
earthquake
but
our
founding
fathers
and
mothers
turning
over
in
their
graves
at
the
latest
escapade
of
47.
Once
a
real
estate
developer,
always
a
real
estate
developer.
And
we
thought
2025

was
a
dumpster
fire.

Does
anyone
else
feel
ambivalent
about
LinkedIn?
Use
LinkedIn
and
the
end
result
is
the
same:
senses
of
panic,
inadequacy,
insufficiency,
whatever
you
choose
to
call
a
crisis
of
confidence.
And
that
is
the
sense
I
have
every
single
time
I
sign
in
to
LinkedIn.
Who
ARE
these
peeps
who
ask
to
connect?
I
can’t
pick
any
of
them
out
of
a
lineup.

Optimists,
narcissists, 
pessimists,
tireless
self-promoters.
I
understand
the
need
to
put
yourself
out
there,
to
get
noticed,
to
get
hired,
but
where
is
the
boundary
between
marketing
and
shameless
ubermarketing?
Right,
I
guess
there’s
not
one
any
more.

What
is
our
profession
going
to
do
this
year
to
speak
truth
to
power?
Will
we
have
any
constitutional
guarantees
left
by
the
midterms?
What
kind
of
country
do
we
want?
What
kind
of
country
do
we
have
now?
What
kind
of
country
will
be
there
by
the
end
of
this
year?
Will
this
be
another
year
of
silence
and
intimidation,
another
year
of
knee-bending?
Are
we
now
so
dulled
by
the
events
of
last
year,
not
to
mention
the
events
of
last
weekend,
that
we
are
now
fearful
of
even
squeaking
up,
let
alone
speaking
up? 

Meanwhile,
do
you
know
the
saying
that
too
many
cooks
spoil
the
broth?
The
State
Bar
of
California
is
soliciting
comments
from
its
licensees
(such
as
me)
about
the
“future
of
the
bar
exam.” As
licensees,
fka
“members,”

we
have
heard
this
before.

Survey
questions
include
“considerations
for
exam
development,”
whether
the
exam
should
include
a
California-specific
component,
various
future
bar
exam
options
(e.g.,
new
California
bar
exam,
NCBE
Next
Gen,
and
other
choices
to
be
ranked
preferentially). The
State
Bar
also
wants
to
know
what
kind
of
law
school
education
licensees
had,
if
any,
before
sitting
for
the
exam,
how
many
times
needed
to
pass,
and
other
statistical
data.
The
California
Supreme
Court
had

previously
directed
the
State
Bar
to
create
a
new
bar
exam,
not
an
easy
task
under
the
best
of
circumstances,
and
for
my
State
Bar,
circumstances
are
not
the
best.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
the
results
of
the
survey. 

For
so
many
years,
the
mantra
has
been
“critical
thinking,”
which
the
Oxford
Dictionary
defines
as
“the
objective
analysis
and
evaluation
of
an
issue
in
order
to
form
a
judgment.”
That’s
one
of
the
elements
that
has
drawn
a
lot
of
attention
in
terms
of
how
to
redefine
and
rework
the
bar
exam.

Here’s
a
suggestion
for
2026.
It’s
called
“critical
ignoring,”
and
I
am
not
making
this
up.
And
what
should
we
be
critically
ignoring?
How
about
social
media?
If
anyone
has
ever
read
any
of
my
posts
over
the
years
whining
about
social
media
—
aka
“unsocial
media”
—
the
concept
of
“critical
ignoring”
is
very
appealing.  

I
love
the
analogy

Christopher
Mims
used
in
his
recent
column
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal:
“If
social
media
were
a
literal
ecosystem,
it
would
be
about
as
healthy
as
Cleveland’s
Cuyahoga
River
in
the
1960s
—
when
it
was
so
polluted
it
repeatedly
caught
fire.”
While
many
of
you
were
not
even
on
the
planet
then,
we
dinosaur
lawyers
remember.
Today,
the
effects
of
social
media
have
led
to
unhappy
consequences,
intended
and
unintended,
for
lawyers
and
judges,
in
other
words,
the
modern
dumpster
fire.

What
exactly
is
“critical
ignoring?”
It’s
avoiding
red
flags;
it’s
protecting
your
own
vulnerability
to
social
media
by
constant
vigilance.
It’s
ditching
social
media
for
mental
health.
It’s
ignoring
all
the
online
garbage,
abandoning
our
online
addiction.
Social
media
has
captured
your
attention:
what
do
you
believe
and
how
did
you
reach
that
conclusion?
Mims
says
that
the
number
one
job
is
“…
to
fight
our
evolutionary
instinct
to
absorb
all
available
information,
and
instead
filter

out
unreliable
sources
and
bad
data.”

We
forget
that
attention
is
a
scarce
resource
—
and
growing
scarcer
every
day,
especially
with
AI.
We
need
to
be
able
to
turn
away
from
social
media,
from
its
fake
news,
exaggerations,
and
downright
malicious
mischief.
Social
media
has
become
the
village
town
crier,
and
you
know
what
can
happen
to
messengers. 

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].

A
classic
archetype
of
right-wing
media
is
the
ostensible
“Democrat”
expert
who
appears
like
clockwork
to
tell
conservative
audiences
that

even
this
ole
liberal
has
to
admit
that
the
Republicans
got
this
right!
They
bring
unearned
credibility
based
on
their
—
presumed
—
statements
against
interest.
They
show
up
on
Fox
News
like
a
character
in
a
sophistry
wrestling
match,
to
embody
free-floating
prejudices
about
hated
liberals
before
performing
a

face
turn
to
the
drooling
delight
of
the
viewers.
After
a
while,
you’d
think
people
would
put
it
together
that
this
character
who
hasn’t
agreed
with
the
Democrats
on
a
single
substantive
issue
in
decades
is
no
more
committed
to
the
Democrats
than
the
Iron
Sheik
was
committed
to
Middle
East
terror
groups,
but
we’re
not
talking
about
America’s
best
and
brightest
here.

George
Washington
Law
professor
Jonathan
Turley
relishes
his
role
in
this
disingenuous
pageant,
eager
to
trade
his
credibility
as
an
academic
to
advance
sillier
and
sillier
arguments
in
exchange
for
cable
news
hits.

It’s
a
messy
business,
but
business
is
booming
because
the
Trump
administration
needs
someone
to
concoct
legal
apologies
on
an
almost
daily
basis.
Do
you
realize
it’s
not
even
been
seven
days
since
America
used
150
warplanes
to
kill
40-80
people
while
kidnapping
the
president
of
a
sovereign
nation
for
possession
of
a
machine
gun…
in
his
own
country?
Turley

defended
the
legality
of
that
one
—
even
though
he’d
taken
the

opposite
position
when
it
was
Obama
—
and
then
the
next
day
had
to

vomit
up
a
new
article
after
Donald
Trump
spent
his
press
conference
admitting
the
rationale
that
Turley
defended
was
a
lie.

But
that
was,
again,
less
than
a
week
ago,
and
this
is
now!
The
Department
of
Homeland
Security
has
flooded
every
corner
of
Minneapolis
(except
the
erstwhile
Hampton
Inn)
with
ICE
agents.
Given
that
the
administration
has
suited
up
a
regular
Keystone
Kops
unit
that
struggled
to
pass
basic
entrance
requirements,
the
inevitable
happened
yesterday
when
ICE
shot
and
killed
a
legal
observer
for
turning
her
car
around.

That’s
basically
the
Bat
Signal
for
Turley.

Accepting
the
mission
to
launder
state
violence
through
performative
civility
scolding,

Turley
produced
a
banger
for
Fox
explaining
that
—
as
a
legal
matter
—
this
killing
is
best
understood
not
as
a
horrifying
exercise
of
unaccountable
force,
but
as
a
teachable
moment
about
Democrats
being
too

angry
about
it.

If
that
framing
sounds
grotesque,
then
congratulations!
You
still
have
a
functioning
moral
compass.

Turley
opens
by
invoking
Democratic
Representative
Dan
Goldman,
a
former
federal
prosecutor,
for
concluding,
“It
was
an
outright
murder.”
For
voicing
this
assessment
of
the
case,
Turley
brands
Goldman
as
the
American
Madame
Defarge,
an
analogy
that
I
can
only
assume
he
threw
in
because
classical
literary
references
reinforce
Turley’s
waning
liberal
bona
fides.
Like
Million
Dollar
Man
flashing
a
wad
of
bills
to
the
crowd
to
remind
them
that
he
was
appropriately
rich
and
arrogant.

Have
I
stumbled
into
the
reverse
by
ham-fistedly
citing
all
these
1980s
wrestlers?
Perhaps.

Goldman
has
made
a
career
of
dismissing
due
process
for
his
political
opponents
while
engaging
in
willful
blindness
of
the
conduct
of
his
allies.
He
has denied the
existence
of
Antifa
as
an
organization
as
well
as
claiming
that
he
has
seen
no
evidence
of
an
increase
in
attacks
on
ICE
officers.

Right…
but
Antifa
is
not
an
organization.
A
lot
of
organizations
are
antifascist,
but
there’s
no
massive,
coordinated
entity
out
there
called
Antifa.
Inventing
organized
conspiracies
where
they
don’t
exist
is
a
conservative
shibboleth.
Sort
of
like
how
Cartel
de
los
Soles
isn’t
real
either,
which
the
Department
of
Justice
begrudgingly
had
to
admit
after
claiming
it
was
the
massive
drug
trafficking
cartel
that
Nicolas
Maduro
ran.
Just
delulu
all
the
way
down.

Rejecting
Goldman’s
assessment,
Turley
asserts
that
“The
video
does
not
support
such
a
claim”
because
law
enforcement
is
allowed
to
use
lethal
force
in
self-defense.

In
this
case,
the
officer
had
a
fraction
of
a
second
to
decide
whether
to
fire
his
weapon
after
Good
sped
toward
him.
Good
appears
to
have
been
attempting
to
flee
the
officers
and
flight
alone
is
not
a
justification
for
the
use
of
lethal
force.
However,
when
you
speed
toward
an
officer,
he
may
treat
the
vehicle
as
a
weapon
and
discharge
his
weapon
in
self-defense.

When
Donald
Trump
posted
his
preferred
video
clip
of
the
incident
—
the
one
from
far
down
the
street,
through
trees
—
he
slowed
it
down
to
super
slo-mo.
That’s
a
deliberate
editing
choice.
In
this
case,
the
effect
of
slowing
it
down
is
to
obscure
how
much
“speed”
was
actually
involved
and
to
infuse
more
drama
to
the
victim’s
DMV-approved
K-turn
than
real-time
clips
provide.

Turley
acknowledges
that
“flight
alone
is
not
a
justification
for
the
use
of
lethal
force”
—
a
concession
to
legal
accuracy
—
and
one
that
should
raise
some
questions
about
the
officer
intentionally
moving
to
block
the
vehicle
as
she
tried
to
leave.
He
also
doesn’t
address
the
implications
raised
by
the
video
appearing
to
show
the
officer
firing

after
the
vehicle
passed
him
and
therefore

after
he
was
no
longer
in
any
conceivable
danger.
He
also
conveniently
omits
that,
after
pumping
bullets
into
Renee
Nicole
Good,
ICE
agents
allegedly

refused
to
render
aid
while
she
bled
out
in
her
car.
Self-defense
doctrine
generally
does
not
extend
to
“and
then
watch
her
die.”
These
are
all
legal
factors
worth
at
least
acknowledging.
Even
if
he
didn’t
want
to
get
into
the
more
problematic
facts,
he
could
still
give
the
“good”
legal
news
to
his
audience
and
explain
how
qualified
immunity,
and
sovereign
immunity,
and

Bivens
will
combine
like
Vigilantism
Voltron
to
allow
the
officer
to
escape
consequences
no
matter
what.
But
conceding
even
a
hint
that
the
shooting
might
not
be
justified
could
upset
his
fans.

More
importantly,
getting
bogged
down
in
actual
“legal
analysis”
would
complicate
the
preferred
narrative
that
Dan
Goldman
is
a
Dickensian
caricature.

Goldman
is ramping
up
his
rhetoric to
appeal
to
the
radical
left
from
promising
impeachments
to
calling
for
the
prosecution
of
this
officer.
This
officer
is
no
longer
a
human
being,
he
is
a
prop
to
be
used
for
political
gain.
If
he
has
to
go
to
jail
to
secure
a
third
term
for
Goldman,
he
is
viewed
as
a
small
price
to
pay.

Not
to
be
crass,
but
the
person
who
is
no
longer
a
human
being
is
the
woman
who
got
killed
by
the
administration’s
racial
profiling
unit.
Does
Turley
have
any
sympathy
there?
Not
really.
Because
she’s
a
prop
to
be
used
for
his
publicity
gain.

That
was
evident
in
the
profane,
unhinged
diatribe
of
Minneapolis
Mayor
Jacob
Frey
who
immediately
not
only
declared
the
officer
a
murderer
but
called
claims
of
self-defense
“bllsh*t”
and
told
ICE
“get
the
f–k
out”
of
the
city.

When
many
of
us
denounced
his
conduct,
he
mocked
his
critics
by
apologizing
if
his
profanity
“offended
their
Disney
princess
ears.”

Credit
Turley
for
seamlessly
setting
up
the
Amazon
affiliate
link
to
his
“Age
of
Rage”
book.
Everyday
I’m
hustlin’
as
the
Bard
sang.
And
Turley’s
got
to
sell
some
books
to
all
those
Fox
viewers
who
would

really
rather
not
discuss
where
they
were
on
January
6,
assuring
them
that
it’s
Democrats
with
a
“rage”
problem
because
sometimes
they’ll
use
the
impolite
F-word.

And
by
that,
we
mean
“fascism.”

For
now,
however,
no
one
will
out
rage
Goldman
or
others.
They
remain
on
a
political
hair-trigger
to
find
triumph
in
the
tragedies
of
our
times.

He
closed
an
article
about
an
ICE
agent
going
straight
for
his
gun
to
kill
someone
with
the
word
“hair-trigger.”
This
is
what
peak
performance
looks
like
for
a
ragebaiter.

“It
was
an
Outright
Murder.”
Democratic
Politicians
Pander
to
the
Mob
on
ICE
Shooting
[JonathanTurley.com]

Earlier:

ICE
Kills
A
Woman
In
Minneapolis
And
Will
Probably
Get
Away
With
It

Homeland
Security
&
Hilton
Introduce
Us
To
Third
Amendment
Jawboning!

---

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.

Law
firms
dramatically
accelerated
their
technology
investments
in
2025,
with
spending
on
tech
and
knowledge
management
tools
growing
9.7%
and
10.5%
respectively
—
the
fastest
real
growth
likely
ever
experienced
in
the
legal
industry,
according
to
the
newly
released

2026
Report
on
the
State
of
the
US
Legal
Market
from
Thomson
Reuters
and
Georgetown
Law’s
Center
on
Ethics
and
the
Legal
Profession.

The
surge
in
technology
spending
comes
as
firms
race
to
deploy
generative
AI
capabilities
while
simultaneously
managing
record
demand
growth
that
saw
billable
hours
increase
2.5%
for
the
year,
hitting
as
high
as
4.4%
growth
in
July.
However,
the
report
warns
that
“tectonic
forces”
in
the
legal
industry
are
creating
fundamental
tensions
between
transformative
technology
investments
and
outdated
billing
structures.

“The
tech
revolution
this
time
around
isn’t
the
gentle
cycle
that
law
firms
experienced
when
online
research
replaced
sprawling
legal
libraries
or
when
email
supplanted
fax
machines,”
the
report
says.
“Such
changes
streamlined
workflows
but
left
the
fundamental
practice
of
law
untouched.

“Now,
the
use
of
advanced
AI-driven
technology
like
generative
AI
represents
something
different:
A
technology
that
can
draft
briefs,
analyze
contracts,
and
synthesize
case
law
in
ways
that
can
actually
alter
how
legal
work
gets
done. For
an
industry
that’s
operated
essentially
the
same
way
since
Langdell
introduced
the
case
method
in
the
1870s,
this
is
uncharted
territory.”

The
technology
spending
increase
represents
a
seven
percentage
point
jump
above
core
inflation,
making
it
the
most
significant
investment
acceleration
since
at
least
the
global
financial
crisis
of
2007,
the
report
suggest.
Combined
with
talent
costs
rising
8.2%,
firms
are
making
unprecedented
bets
that
AI-enhanced
capabilities
will
justify
premium
pricing
and
drive
competitive
advantage.

The
strategy
appears
to
be
paying
dividends
for
firms
with
intentional
AI
deployment
plans,
the
report
says,
noting
that
law
firms
with
a
formal
AI
strategy
are
3.9
times
more
likely
to
experience
critical
benefits
compared
to
those
without
significant
plans
for
AI
adoption.

The
Billing
Model
Crisis

Despite
these
significant
technology
investments,
the
report
identifies
a
fundamental
disconnect:
90%
of
legal
dollars
still
flow
through
standard
hourly
rate
arrangements,
according
to
data
drawn
from
Thomson
Reuters
Legal
Tracker.
This
creates
what
the
report
calls
“an
almost
absurd
tension”
where
firms
deploy
technology
that
can
accomplish
work
in
minutes
that
once
took
hours,
then
try
to
bill
for
it
by
the
hour.

“The
math
doesn’t
work
unless
firms
can
negotiate
rate
increases
steep
enough
to
offset
the
efficiency
gains,”
the
report
states.
“However,
clients
aren’t
eager
to
see
all
their
productivity
benefits
flow
straight
to
law
firm
profits.
Nor
are
they
prepared
for
the
sticker
shock
of
a
$2,000
hourly
bill
from
an
associate,
even
if
what
they’ve
accomplished
in
that
time
may
have
taken
10
hours
to
complete
previously.”

Both
law
firms
and
their
clients
are
locked
in
a
standoff
over
pricing
innovation,
the
report
suggest.
Corporate
legal
departments
want
their
outside
firms
to
propose
billing
solutions
that
incorporate
AI’s
efficiencies,
while
firms
complain
that
procurement
teams
still
evaluate
everything
by
converting
it
back
to
hourly
rates.

“Why
spend
months
developing
a
sophisticated
value-based
pricing
model
when
the
procurement
team
will
just
divide
the
total
by
estimated
hours
and
compare
it
to
last
year’s
rates?”
the
report
asks.

Making
matters
worse,
most
clients
do
not
even
know
whether
or
how
their
outside
firms
are
using
gen
AI
—
a
disconnect
that
suggests
neither
side
is
having
honest
conversations
necessary
to
break
the
impasse.

The
Value
Squeeze

The
technology
spending
surge
is
occurring
against
a
backdrop
of
intensifying
client
pressure,
the
report
indicates.
It
documents
that
corporate
legal
departments
have
led
law
firms
in
gen
AI
adoption
ever
since
its
introduction
in
2022,
giving
in-house
teams
firsthand
experience
with
AI-driven
efficiency
gains.

When
GCs
see
their
own
departments
using
AI
to
handle
routine
work
at
a
fraction
of
traditional
costs,
they
increasingly
question
why
outside
firms
charging
premium
hourly
rates
are
not
delivering
similar
efficiencies.

This
dynamic
is
creating
what
Thomson
Reuters
Market
Insights
research
calls
a
“client
value
squeeze.”
Nearly
90%
of
GCs
report
that
resource
limitations
are
preventing
them
from
delivering
the
level
of
strategic
impact
their
organizations
expect,
forcing
intense
scrutiny
over
external
counsel
spending.

The
pressure
is
reflected
in
declining
net
spend
anticipation
(NSA)
among
corporate
buyers,
which
has
dropped
to
levels
not
seen
since
the
pandemic
struck
in
2020.
While
41%
of
buyers
at
companies
with
more
than
$1
billion
in
annual
revenue
planned
to
increase
legal
spending
in
Q3
2025,
22%
planned
to
decrease
it
—
resulting
in
a
net
anticipation
of
just
19%,
down
from
23%
the
previous
quarter.

The
Mobile
Demand
Phenomenon

One
consequence
of
these
technology
and
pricing
dynamics
is
accelerating
“mobile
demand”
—
the
movement
of
legal
work
from
the
most
expensive
Am
Law
100
firms
to
less
costly
alternatives.
Midsized
firms
captured
nearly
5%
demand
growth
in
the
latter
half
of
2025,
while
the
Am
Law
100
struggled
to
crack
2%,
creating
the
largest
gap
between
segments
since
the
Global
Financial
Crisis.

“With
the
average
Am
Law
100
lawyer’s
standard
rates
cracking
the
$1,000
barrier
in
2025
—
while
everyone
else
averaged
around
$600
—
the
math
became
irrefutable,”
the
report
says.
General
counsel
needed
to
do
far
more
legal
work
with
the
same
budgets,
and
shifting
matters
to
firms
charging
40%
less
provided
necessary
breathing
room.

This
trend
has
implications
for
technology
strategy.
The
report
notes
that
firms
outside
the
Am
Law
100
grew
their
fees
worked
at
a
pace
equal
to
or
faster
than
larger
competitors
despite
significant
rate
disadvantages,
suggesting
traditional
hierarchies
may
be
fundamentally
shifting.

Technology
investments
that
enable
smaller
firms
to
deliver
sophisticated
work
previously
reserved
for
elite
practices
could
accelerate
this
redistribution.

Tech
As
A
Talent
Multiplier

Rather
than
using
AI
to
reduce
headcount,
as
other
industries
have
done,
law
firms
are
taking
the
opposite
approach.
The
report
finds
that
if
AI
augmentation
makes
lawyers
more
efficient
and
valuable,
firms
believe
this
only
increases
manpower’s
worth.

Lawyer
full-time
equivalent
(FTE)
growth
remained
strong
at
2.9%
in
2025,
marking
the
third
consecutive
year
of
historically
robust
hiring.

“Whereas
other
industries
may
be
touting
AI-induced
layoffs
to
promote
efficiency,
the
legal
industry
has
chosen
the
opposite
course,”
the
report
says,
noting
that,
since
January
2023,
the
average
midsized
and
Am
Law
second-hundred
firm
has
grown
headcount
by
more
than
8%.

This
strategy
is
particularly
notable
for
associates,
whose
realization
rates
average
just
85.6%
and
whose
work
is
already
being
written
off
at
significant
rates.

“This
creates
a
buffer
in
which
AI
can
absorb
the
inefficient
portions
without
touching
collected
revenue,”
the
report
explains.
“Firms
can
automate
the
work
that
wasn’t
getting
paid
for
while
keeping
associates
busy
on
higher-value
tasks.”

Warning
Signs
Ahead

Although
the
average
firm
saw
13%
profit
growth
in
2025,
the
report
identifies
multiple
warning
signs
for
2026.

Forecasts
from
Thomson
Reuters
Financial
Insights
point
toward
steep
demand
declines,
with
the
middle
of
2026
potentially
slipping
into
contraction.
The
forecast
shows
quarterly
year-over-year
demand
growth
dropping
from
2.4%
in
Q4
2025
to
potentially
-0.7%
by
Q3
2026.

Historical
patterns
also
raise
concerns.
The
report
notes
that
the
legal
industry
has
a
“peculiar
historical
habit
of
surging
just
before
it
stumbles,”
with
similar
demand
explosions
preceding
both
the
2008
financial
crisis
and
the
2022
inflation
crunch.
In
both
cases,
firms
that
mistook
temporary
peaks
for
permanent
shifts
found
themselves
with
bloated
cost
structures
when
conditions
reversed.

“Law
firms
have
seen
this
movie
before,
and
they
should
remember
how
it
ends,”
the
report
warns.
The
2008
crisis
did
not
just
crater
demand,
it
fundamentally
rewired
the
power
dynamic
between
firms
and
clients,
with
corporate
legal
departments
absorbing
Big
Law
talent
and
transforming
into
sophisticated
operations
that
scrutinized
every
billing
line
item.

The
Tech
Investment
Imperative

The
report
argues
that
now,
during
the
current
boom,
is
precisely
when
firms
should
be
making
strategic
technology
investments
rather
than
waiting
for
the
next
crisis.
However,
those
investments
must
go
beyond
simply
acquiring
AI
tools
to
fundamentally
rethinking
operating
models.

“The
question
isn’t
whether
traditional
operating
models
can
survive
but
whether
law
firms
are
committed
to
truly
transform,”
said
Raghu
Ramanathan,
president
of
Legal
Professionals
at
Thomson
Reuters,
in
a
statement
issued
by
Thomson
Reuters
along
with
the
report.

The
report
identifies
three
critical
transformational
shifts
required:

• Modernizing
  pricing
  models
  that
  no
  longer
  match
  how
  legal
  work
  is
  done.
• Strengthening
  client
  trust
  in
  an
  environment
  where
  legal
  buyers
  are
  increasingly
  selective.
• Deploying
  technology
  in
  ways
  that
  deliver
  measurable
  value
  rather
  than
  marketing
  gloss.

ALSP
Integration
and
Service
Innovation

The
report
says
that
forward-thinking
firms
are
beginning
to
assemble
more
creative
solutions
by
packaging
various
pricing
structures,
automated
services,
and
partnerships
with
alternative
legal
service
providers
(ALSPs)
into
comprehensive
offerings.

ALSP
usage
has
risen
steadily
over
the
past
decade,
and
leading
firms
are
incorporating
these
providers
as
force
multipliers,
the
report
says.

That
said,
North
American
firms
lag
behind
international
competitors
in
this
regard.
Just
27%
of
lawyers
from
North
American
firms
reported
that
their
firm
has
a
non-traditional
legal
services
division
or
partners
with
independent
ALSPs,
compared
to
76%
of
lawyers
across
the
UK,
Europe,
and
Australia.

The
Value
Communication
Gap

One
of
the
most
striking
findings
of
the
report
is
that
there
is
a
gap
between
firm
confidence
in
their
technology
investments
and
their
ability
to
articulate
value
to
clients.

Rather
than
citing
AI
efficiency
as
justification
for
rate
increases
—
which
averaged
7.3%
growth
in
2025,
the
fastest
pace
since
at
least
the
global
financial
crisis
—
firm
leaders
express
concern
about
needing
to
prove
they’re
still
worth
current
rates
in
an
AI
world.

“Their
focus
is
defensive,
not
offensive,
making
them
appear
paralyzed
by
fears
of
value
erosion
rather
than
confident
explanations
of
value
enhancement,”
the
report
says.

Client
value
extends
well
beyond
faster
turnarounds
or
more
work
per
hour,
the
report
suggests.
Legal
departments
need
outside
firms
that
alleviate
current
constraints
—
whether
that
is
through
practical
tools
clients
can
reuse,
seamless
team
integration
or
clear
links
between
legal
advice
and
business
objectives.

“For
AI
efficiency
to
justify
premium
pricing,
firms
must
first
understand
what
value
means
to
each
specific
client
and
then
demonstrate
how
the
firm’s
AI
deployment
serves
those
particular
needs,”
the
report
asserts.

Living
on
a
Volcano

While
previous
demand
surges
were
tied
to
economic
bubbles,
the
report
says,
today’s
growth
is
driven
by
instability
itself
—
trade
wars,
regulatory
chaos,
and
geopolitical
tensions
that
could
sustain
legal
demand
even
through
economic
downturns.

“Viewed
through
this
lens,
the
groundswell
firms
are
riding
suggests
that
the
ground
beneath
them
is
becoming
fundamentally
unstable
—
less
a
mountain
than
a
volcano:
a
risky
evolution
but
still
capable
of
sustaining
them
through
a
long
winter,”
the
report
says.

“Yet
living
on
a
volcano
carries
its
own
perils,
and
firms
may
ultimately
miss
the
relative
predictability
of
the
occasional
tremor.”

The
firms
that
successfully
navigate
this
environment
will
be
those
that
use
the
current
boom
to
fundamentally
reimagine
their
operating
models
—
not
just
to
throw
money
at
technology
and
talent,
but
to
align
their
business
structures
with
the
future
their
clients
are
already
demanding.

“The
law
firms
that
will
define
the
next
era
of
legal
services
will
be
determined
not
by
how
much
they
invest
in
technology
and
talent,
but
by
how
boldly
they
reimagine
their
entire
operating
model,”
Ramanathan
said.
“The
winners
won’t
necessarily
be
determined
by
size
or
legacy,
but
they’ll
be
the
firms
that
act
decisively
now
to
align
with
the
future
their
clients
are
already
demanding.”

Biglaw
firms
are
ranked
in
a
multitude
of
ways,
from
gross
revenue
to
size
to
quality
of
life
and
even
prestige.
But
what
about
what
may
actually
matter
most,
the
number
of
people
who
are
searching
for
these
Biglaw
firms
on
Google?
Those
searching
could
be
associates
and
partners
interested
in
salary
information
or
looking
to
lateral,
existing
or
potential
clients,
and
even
members
of
the
media
interested
in
tracking
down
a
hot
law
firm
story.

So,
which
Biglaw
firms
came
out
on
top
of
this
new
ranking?
For
that,
we
turn
to
the Mad
Clientist
blog
of
BTI
Consulting
Group.
Without
further
ado,
here
are
the
most
searched
Biglaw
firms
(in
alphabetical
order):

DLA
Piper

Jones
Day

Kirkland
&

Ellis

Latham
&
Watkins

Orrick

Paul,
Weiss

Perkins
Coie

Sidley

Skadden

This
list
is
full
of
some
of
the
heaviest
hitters
among
Biglaw
firms
when
it
came
to
dealmaking
and
litigation
in
2025.
You
may
also
note
that
this
list
is
also
full
of
firms
that
capitulated
to
Trump’s
unconstitutional
executive
orders
or
chose
to
fight
against
the
administration
in
court,
so
of
course
they
were
some
of
the
most
searched
firms
throughout
2025.

BTI
breaks
down
the
rest
of
the
firms
that
found
search
success
in
2025
by
categorizing
them
as
“strongly
searched”
and
“searched
standouts.”
Click here to
see
the
rest
of
most
searched
Biglaw
firms.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
firms
on
their
searchability
success
in
2025.
Let’s
see
which
firms
will
come
out
on
top
in
2026.

The
22
Most
Searched-for
Law
Firms
of
2025
[The
Mad
Clientist
/
BTI
Consulting]

---

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.

Before
2025,
fake
U.S.
attorneys
weren’t
a
thing.
But
in
his
second
term
in
office,
Donald
Trump
has
been
attempting
to
circumvent
Senate
confirmation
along
with
the
requirements
of
28
USC
§
546
for
lackeys
in
various
U.S.
Attorneys
roles
and
now
it’s
a
full-blown
MAGA
trend.

Judges
have
repeatedly
ruled
that
federal
law
allows
the
president
to
make
only
one
interim
appointment
(lasting
120
days)
as
U.S.
Attorney
in
any
given
federal
district,
after
which
the
position
may
only
be
filled
by
a
Senate-confirmed
nominee
or
a
judicially
installed
placeholder. That
basic
of
statutory
interpretation
has
led
to
the
disqualification
of
New
Jersey
“U.S.
Attorney”Alina
Habba,
Eastern
District
of
Virginia’s

Lindsey
Halligan
(no
matter
what
her

signature
line
currently
says),

Sigal
Chattah
in
Nevada,
and

Bill
Essayli
in
Southern
California.

Today,
the
club
of
DQ’d
federal
prosecutors
got
a
little
bigger
with
the
addition
of
the
Northern
District
of
New
York’s

John
Sarcone
III.
After
getting
the
interim
appointment
from
Trump,
Sarcone
served
his
120
days
then
a
panel
of
judges
declined
to
extend
his
role.
Trump
tried
to
hand
wave
this
snafu
with
some
appointment
shenanigans
—
Pam
Bondi
called
him
a “special
attorney” with
an
“indefinite”
term.

But
that
didn’t
fool
U.S.
District
Judge
Lorna
Schofield.
In
evaluating
subpoenas
Sarcone issued
to

Trump
foe
New
York
Attorney
General
Letitia
James,
Schofield
found
Sarcone
was
illegally
squatting
in
the
role.
“When
the
Executive
branch
of
government
skirts
restraints
put
in
place
by
Congress
and
then
uses
that
power
to
subject
political
adversaries
to
criminal
investigations,”
she
wrote,
“it
acts
without
lawful
authority.”

It’s
yet
another
lesson
for
the
Department
of
Justice
on
how
appointments
work,
let’s
see
if
this
one
sticks.

Read
the
order
below.

---

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].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

[McGlinchey
Stafford
is
a]
well-respected
firm
who
hired
really
good
people.
[Following
the
wind-down
announcement,
they’re]
scrambling
for
jobs.
The
employees,
they
still
don’t
know
anything,
they
don’t
even
know
when
their
last
day
is,
from
those
who
I’ve
talked
to.

—
An
anonymous
source
familiar
with
the
New
Orleans
legal
market,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
concerning
the
fate
of
McGlinchey
Stafford’s
attorneys
and
staff
members
in
the
wake
of
the
firm’s

surprise
wind-down
announcement
made
earlier
this
week.

---

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.

Zimbabwe
experienced
significant
rains
during
the
festive
period,
causing
a
series
of
rain-induced
disasters,
including
drownings,
lightning
strikes,
and
dam
wall
breaches,
the
DCP
told
Xinhua
on
Wednesday.

According
to
the
DCP’s
latest
situation
report,
the
heavy
rains
have
caused
damage
to
public
infrastructure,
including
schools,
health
facilities,
roads,
bridges,
dams,
and
irrigation
infrastructure.

The
report
added
that
due
to
persistent
rains,
some
districts
in
the
country
are
experiencing
dam
spilling
and
breaches,
posing
danger
to
communities
downstream.

Zimbabwe
typically
experiences
its
rainy
season
from
October
to
March,
characterized
by
heavy
rainfall
and
occasional
storms.

Post
published
in:

Featured