Category: News Feeds

WASHINGTON
—
The
surprise,
complex
operation
to

capture
Venezuelan
President
Nicolas
Maduro
was
the
result
of
long-term
planning
between
the
US
military
and
its
intelligence
agencies,
Chairman
of
the
Joint
Chiefs
Gen.
Dan
Caine
said
today.

“The
word
integration
does
not
explain
the
sheer
complexity
of
such
a
mission,
an
extraction
so
precise
it
involved
more
than
150
aircraft
launching
across
the
western
hemisphere
in
close
coordination,
all
coming
together
in
time
and
place
to
layer
effects
for
a
single
purpose,
to
get
an
interdiction
force
into
downtown
Caracas
while
maintaining
the
element
of
tactical
surprise,”
he
said.

“Failure
of
one
component
of
this
well-oiled
machine
would
have
endangered
the
entire
mission.”

Speaking
after
President
Donald
Trump
announced
the
results
of
what
was
termed
“Operation
Absolute
Resolve,”
Caine
laid
out
details
of
the
operation
while
noting
he
would
only
speak
in
generalities
because
“there
is
always
a
chance
that
we’ll
be
tasked
to
do
this
type
of
mission
again.”

For
several
months,
the
US
has
been
building
up
its
military
capacity
in
the
region.
The
biggest
arrival
came
in
mid-November,
when
the
USS
Gerald
Ford
carrier
strike
group
arrived
in
the
region.

By
“early
December,”
Caine
said,
the

intel
community
had
provided
enough
information
—

including
details
on
Maduro’s
daily
habits
down
to
the
names
of
his
pets
—
that
the
Pentagon
felt
it
could
execute
the
operation
when
called
upon.
However,
the
weather
proved
to
be
a
factor,
which
delayed
launching
the
effort.

However,
the
weather
cleared
enough
that
at
10:46
pm
ET
last
night,
Trump
gave
the
go
order.
At
that
point,
aircraft
began
launching
from
20
different
bases
around
the
Western
Hemisphere,
Caine
said.

“In
total,
more
than
150
aircraft
— bombers,
fighters,
intelligence,
reconnaissance,
surveillance
[aircraft],
rotary
wing
—
were
in
the
air
last
night,”
the
chairman
said.
“Thousands
and
thousands
of
hours
of
experience
were
airborne.
Our
youngest
crew
member
was
20
and
our
oldest
crew
member
was
49.”

Among
those
in
the
air
were
the
extraction
force,
made
of
an
unidentified
number
and
type
of
helicopters
flying
100
feet
above
the
water.
Caine
indicated
non-kinetic
effects
from
US
Space
Command
and
US
Cyber
Command
were
used
to
suppress
Venezuelan
defenses
—
at
least,
ahead
of
kinetic
strikes
from
an
escort
force
began.

“Those
forces
were
protected
by
aircraft
from
the
United
States
Marines,
the
United
States
Navy,
the
United
States
Air
Force
and
the
Air
National
Guard,”
he
said
of
the
helicopters.
The
protection
force
included
F-22s,
F-35s,
F-18
E/As,
B-2s,
B-1s
“and
other
support
aircraft,
as
well
as
numerous
remotely
piloted
drones.”

By
1:01
AM
eastern,
the
helicopter
force
arrived
at
Maduro’s
compound.
The
“apprehension”
team
“descended
into
Maduro’s
compound
and
moved
with
speed,
precision
and
discipline
towards
their
objective,”
Caine
said.

While
Caine
didn’t
dive
into
details
of
what
happened
during
the
capture,
Trump
said
that
he
watched
the
operation
in
real-time
and
said
Maduro
was
attempting
to
flee
to
a
safe
room
when
US
troops
grabbed
him.
While
this
was
going
on,
Caine
said,
“the
helicopters
came
under
fire,
and
they
replied
[to]
that
fire
with
overwhelming
force
and
self-defense.”
One
aircraft
was
hit
but
all
aircraft
involved
in
the
operation
were
able
to
return
home.

That
would
not
be
the
only
exchange
of
fire:
“There
were
multiple
self-defense
engagements
as
the
force
began
to
withdraw
out
of
Venezuela,”
Caine
said.
“The
force
successfully
exfiltrated
and
returned
to
their
afloat
launch
bases,
and
the
force
was
over
the
water
at
3:29
am,
Eastern
Standard
Time,
with
indicted
persons
on
board”
the
USS
Iwo
Jima.

At
the
end
of
the
day,
no
American
personnel
or
vehicles
were
lost
in
the
operation.
Caine
marked
that
down
to
the
joint
training
the
US
force
maintains.

“What
we’ve
witnessed
today
is
a
powerful
demonstration
of
America’s
joint
force.
We
think,
we
develop,
we
train,
we
rehearse,
we
debrief,
we
rehearse
again
and
again,
not
to
get
it
right,
but
to
ensure
that
we
cannot
get
it
wrong,”
Caine
added.
“Our
forces
remain
in
the
region
at
a
high
state
of
readiness,
prepared
to
project
power
[or]
defend
themselves
and
our
interests
in
the
region.”

Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.

Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.

Happy
First
Monday! On
the
first
Monday
of
each
month,
you
get
a
longer
version
of
the
Roundup
with
the headlines plus reading
recommendations, job
postings, events,
and
many
other
features.

After
a
month
away,
we
have
much
to
catch
up
on.
Yes,
it
has
been
over
a
month
since
my last
post
in
November! I
wrapped
up
many
writing
deadlines
during
my
December
break
and
spoke
with
a
few
reporters
on
different
matters
including Karen
Zraick at
the New
York
Times about
the
ethics
of
amicus
briefs.
You
can
read
more
about
that
below
at
headline
#1.

I
also
spent
some
quality
time
with
family,
including
a
holiday
on
Anna
Maria
Island.
Off
the
coast
near
Tampa,
it
is
a
charming
beach
town
with
no
stoplights,
high
rises,
or
chain
stores.
I
discovered
it
20
years
ago
thanks
to
this New
York
Times article “Perfecting
the
Fine
Art
of
Doing
Nothing,” and
fortunately
AMI
remains
delightfully
untouched
by
modern
tourism.
But
I
missed
our
weekly
LER
connections.
I’m
so
happy
to
be
back
in
your
inbox!

If
you’re
attending
the Association
of
American
Law
Schools
Annual
Meeting this
week
in
New
Orleans,
I’d
love
to
say
hello.
You
can
find
me
at
the
Professional
Responsibility
Main
Program
and
Awards
Ceremony
on
Thursday
from
2:35-3:50PM
where
I’ll
be
moderating
a
panel
discussion
on
“The
Law
Professor’s
Role
in
Protecting
our
Legal
System”
with Scott
Cummings (UCLA), Matthew
Diller (Fordham), Rachel
Lopez (Temple)
& Milan
Markovic (Texas
A&M).
For
more
details
about
that,
plus
other
legal
ethics
related
programming
and
NOLA
recommendations,
visit LER
Bonus
Content
Post
No.
21.

Now,
let’s
get
started
with
the
headlines.
You
get
twenty-five(!)
this
week
to
make
up
for
the
December
pause.
(Believe
it
or
not,
that’s
narrowed
down
from
more
than
forty
I
collected.) Don’t
forget
to
keep
scrolling
down
to
the
very
end
for
all
the
“First
Monday”
extra
features,
including
job
postings,
recommended
reading,
legal
ethics
in
pop
culture,
trivia,
and
more. Enjoy!

Highlights
from
the
Past
Month –
Top Ten Twenty-Five
Headlines


#1
“Greenpeace’s
Fight
With
Pipeline
Giant
Exposes
a
Legal
Loophole.” From The
New
York
Times: “Friend-of-the-court
briefs,
or
amicus
briefs,
are
increasingly
being
used
as
a
litigation
tactic
rather
than
for
their
intended
purpose,
said Renee
Knake
Jefferson,
a
law
professor
at
the
University
of
Houston.
The
filings
are
supposed
to
offer
‘additional
concerns
the
court
should
consider,’
but
often
one
party
is
‘going
behind
the
cloak
of
the
amicus
brief
to
continue
its
own
advocacy,’
Ms.
Jefferson
said.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#2
“‘Indeed
Frivolous’:
Appeals
Court
Upholds
$1
Million
Penalty
Against
Trump
and
His
Lawyer.” From Raw
Story: “A
federal
appeals
court
upheld
a
$1
million
penalty
against President
Donald
Trump and
his
former
lawyer Alina
Habba for
filing
a
‘frivolous’
lawsuit
against Hillary
Clinton, James
Comey and
others.”
Read
more here.

#3
“Ex-DLA
Piper
Partner
Accused
in
Lawsuit
of
Raping
Associate.” From Bloomberg
Law: “A
former
DLA
Piper
partner
is
accused
of
raping
an
associate
he
mentored
after
a
work
dinner
at
the
firm’s
Delaware
office,
according
to
a
lawsuit
filed
Monday.”
Read
more here.

#4
“NYT
Video
Essay:
U.S.
District
Judge
Esther
Salas
on
the
Consequences
of
Partisan
Rhetoric.” From Duke’s
Bolch
Judicial
Institute: “In
a
powerful New
York
Times
video
essay, U.S.
District
Judge
Esther
Salas explains
how
escalating
political
attacks
are
undermining
public
confidence
in
the
federal
judiciary
and
fueling
threats
against
judges.”
Read
more here.

#5
“US
Judge
Found
Guilty
of
Helping
Migrant
Evade
Immigration
Agents.” From
the BBC: “A
judge
in
the
US
state
of
Wisconsin
has
been
found
guilty
of
obstruction
for
trying
to
help
a
Mexican
man
evade
immigration
officials
during
an
arrest
attempt. Milwaukee
County
Circuit
Judge
Hannah
Dugan was
arrested
in
April
after
ushering Eduardo
Flores-Ruiz,
a
Mexican
national
facing
battery
charges,
out
of
her
courtroom
through
a
side
door.”
Read
more here.

#6
“Say
Goodbye
to
the
Billable
Hour,
Thanks
to
AI.” From The
Wall
Street
Journal: “With
AI
taking
over
their
grunt
work,
lawyers
and
other
professionals
may
have
to
charge
for
outcomes
rather
than
time
spent.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#7
“Ex-Prosecutor
Sues
Over
Arrest
While
Protesting
Law
Firm
Skadden’s
Deal
with
Trump.” From Reuters: “A
retired
prosecutor
has
sued
New
York
City
and
Brookfield
Properties
in
federal
court,
alleging
he
was
wrongfully
arrested
while
protesting
in
a
public
space
against
law
firm
Skadden
Arps
over
its
deal
with President
Donald
Trump to
provide
free
legal
work. David
O’Keefe said
in
his
lawsuit
filed
on
Thursday,
that
he
was
arrested
while
staging
a
solo
protest
in
April
in
a
privately-owned
but
public
space
outside
Skadden’s
Manhattan
office.
He
opposed
Skadden’s
agreement
to
provide
$100
million
in
pro
bono
services
for
Trump-backed
initiatives,
calling
it
a
threat
to
the
rule
of
law.”
Read
more here.

#8
“How
Charlie
Javice’s
Legal
Fees
Hit
$74
Million:
Gummy
Bears
and
Star
Lawyers.” From The
Wall
Street
Journal: “A
list
of
legal
expenses
from
her
lawyers
included
$530
in
gummy
bears,
a
seafood
tower
and
thousands
of
dollars
on
hotel
upgrades,
new
court
documents
reveal.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#9
“Judges
Who
Ruled
Against
Trump
Say
Harassment
and
Threats
Have
Changed
Their
Lives.” From NBC
News: “More
than
100
pizzas
were
delivered
to
the
homes
of
judges
and
their
families
this
year,
some
with
signs
of
foreign
involvement.
Judges
say
the
message
is
clear:
We
know
where
you
live.”
Read
more here.

#10
“Trump
Suffers
Several
Defeats
in
Effort
to
Punish
Opposing
Lawyers.” From The
Washington
Post: “Since
taking
office
for
the
second
time, President
Donald
Trump has
suffered
multiple
losses
in
his
efforts
to
strip
security
clearances
from
political
opponents
and
prestigious
Washington
law
firms.
…
The
president’s
latest
loss
came
this
week,
when
a
federal
judge
in
Washington
temporarily
blocked
Trump’s
efforts
to
strip
a
security
clearance
from
national
security
attorney Mark
Zaid.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#11
“He
Was
a
Supreme
Court
Lawyer.
Then
His
Double
Life
Caught
Up
With
Him.” From The
New
York
Times: “Thomas
Goldstein was
a
superstar
in
the
legal
world.
He
was
also
a
secret
high-stakes
gambler,
whose
wild
10-year
run
may
now
land
him
in
prison.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#12
“Notorious
Crypto
Con
Man
Sam
Bankman-Fried
Has
a
Prison
Passion
Project:
Giving
Legal
Advice
to
Other
Inmates.” From Fortune: “The
founder
of
FTX
has
brought
his
entrepreneurial
spirit
behind
bars.
He
has
advised
several
high-profile
inmates,
like
former Honduran
President
Juan
Orlando
Hernandez and
rapper Sean
Combs,
according
to reporting by
the
New
York
Times.”
Read
more here.

#13
“FTC
Says
ABA
is
a
‘Law
School
Accreditation
Monopoly’.” From Reuters: “The
U.S.
Federal
Trade
Commission
…
called
the
American
Bar
Association’s
accreditation
of
law
schools
a
‘monopoly’
that
increases
the
cost
of
a
law
degree
and
limits
the
supply
of
new
lawyers.
The
agency
made
the
assessment
in
a letter to
the
Texas
Supreme
Court,
which
invited
public
comment
after
saying
in
September
that
it
plans
to
end
the
state’s
reliance
on
the
ABA
for
law
school
oversight.”
Read
more here.

#14
“Judges
Who
‘Unretired’
After
Trump
Win
Didn’t
Breach
Ethics
Code.” From Bloomberg
Law: “Three
federal
judges
who
decided
to
‘unretire’
after President
Donald
Trump won
the
election
didn’t
violate
judicial
ethics
rules,
a
chief
judge
held. Chief
Judge
Debra
Ann
Livingston of
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Second
Circuit
threw
out
the
conservative
Article
III
Project’s
misconduct
complaints
against Judges
James
Wynn
Jr. of
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit, Max
Cogburn
of
the
US
District
Court
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and Algenon
Marbley of
the
US
District
Court
for
Southern
District
of
Ohio.”
Read
more here.

#15
“Grand
Jury
Declines
to
Re-Indict
Letitia
James
in
Virginia.” From Fox
News: “The
Department
of
Justice
failed
to
bring
an
indictment
against Letitia
James on
Thursday
after
a
federal
judge
tossed
the
initial
indictment
last
week,
according
to
a
DOJ
source.
The
DOJ
attempted
to
persuade
a
grand
jury
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
to
indict
James
a
second
time,
the
source
said,
after Judge
Cameron
Currie found
that
the
prosecutor
who
brought
the
first
indictment, Lindsey
Halligan,
was
serving
unlawfully
as
interim
U.S.
attorney.
The
revelation
that
a
grand
jury
did
not
indict
James,
one
of President
Donald
Trump’s top
political
foes,
is
a
blow
to
the
DOJ
as
it
is
rare
that
grand
juries
do
not
find
enough
probable
cause
to
bring
charges.”
Read
more here.

#16
“Calif.
Atty
Slams
‘Protectionist’
ABS
Fee-Sharing
Ban.” From Law360: “A
California
attorney
has
pushed
back
on
opposition
from
California’s
attorney
general
and
the
state’s
bar
association
amid
his
efforts
to
block
enforcement
of
a
ban
on
fee
sharing
with
out-of-state
law
firms
owned
by
nonattorneys
arguing
the
new
state
law
is
a
‘protectionist
act,
in
defiance
of
the
constitution.’”
Read
more here.

#17
“Judge
Emil
Bove
Faces
Ethics
Complaint
for
Attending
Trump
Rally.” From The
New
York
Times: “Judge
Emil
Bove
III,
a
federal
appeals
court
judge
who
made
his
career
as
a
stalwart
supporter
of President
Trump,
is
now
facing
a
complaint
over
his
attendance
at
a
campaign-style
rally
held
by
Mr.
Trump
at
a
Pennsylvania
casino
resort
on
Tuesday.
The complaint,
which
was
filed
on
Wednesday
with
the
chief
judge
of
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Third
Circuit
and
was
written
by Gabe
Roth,
who
heads
the
advocacy
group
Fix
the
Court,
said
that
Judge
Bove’s
attendance
at
the
rally
violated rules that
prohibit
judges
from
‘the
appearance
of
impropriety’
and
engaging
in
‘political
activity.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#18
“North
Dakota
Names
First
Female
Supreme
Court
Chief
Justice.” From
the North
Dakota
Monitor: “Lisa
Fair
McEvers has
been
elected
the
first
female
chief
justice
of
the
North
Dakota
Supreme
Court.
She
earned
about
83%
of
the
vote
by
sitting
justices
and
district
court
judges.
…
North
Dakota
is
the
only
state
where
the
chief
justice
is
elected
by
a
vote
of
the
sitting
justices
and
district
court
judges,
said State
Court
Administrator
Sally
Holewa,
who
led
the
ballot
count.”
Read
more here.

#19
“Why
Lawyers
Buy
So
Many
Billboards.” From The
Hustle: “The
American
Tort
Reform
Association,
a
lobbying
group
that
advocates
for
caps
on
award
damages
and
changes
to
current
civil
liability
laws,
estimates
that
in
2024
attorneys spent $541m+ on
out-of-home
and
outdoor
ads,
a
category
that
includes
billboards
as
well
as
space
on
buses,
subways,
and
other
public
areas.
This
is
an
increase
of
$70m
compared
to
2023
and
nearly
$200m
from
2022.
Morgan
&
Morgan,
the
country’s
largest
personal
injury
firm,
reportedly
spends
a
staggering $350m
annually on
marketing
alone.
So
why
are
so
many
law
firms,
from
single-attorney
practices
to
firms
with
thousands
of
employees,
investing
so
heavily
in
billboards?”
Read
more here.

#20
“Over
200
Ex-Staffers
Decry
Destruction
of
DoJ
Civil
Rights
Arm:
‘America
Deserves
Better’.” From The
Guardian: “More
than
200
former
employees
in
the
justice
department’s
civil
rights
division signed
a
letter released
on
Tuesday
decrying
the
‘near
destruction’
of
the
agency
that
is
supposed
to
enforce
US
civil
rights
laws
and
accused
political
leadership
of
waging
a
campaign
to
purge
career
experts
from
its
ranks.
There
was
a
mass
exodus
of
lawyers
earlier
this
year
after
political
appointees
removed
career
managers,
detailed
employees
to
menial
work,
unilaterally
dropped
cases,
and
made
it
clear
the
division’s
focus
would
be
enforcing
Donald
Trump’s
priorities.
By
1
May
of
this
year,
the
department
had
lost
about
70%
of
its
attorneys
–
a
staggering
number.
”
Read
more here.

#21
“Judicial
Use
of
AI:
Ethical
Issues.” From Reuters: “An
expert
Q&A
on
the
legal,
ethical,
and
practical
considerations
and
emerging
issues
regarding
judicial
use
of
AI,
including
judicial
independence,
appropriate
use
cases,
oversight
obligations,
disclosure
expectations,
and
data
protection.”
Read
more here.

#22
“Inside
the
17-year
Lawsuit
Between
a
Trump
Official
and
His
Interior
Designers.” From The
Washington
Post: “Suing
your
opponent’s
lawyer
because
you
disagree
with
how
they
handled
the
case
is
‘facially
ludicrous,’
said Melissa
Mortazavi,
a
law
professor
at
the
University
of
Oklahoma
who
focuses
on
legal
ethics
and
reviewed
the
docket.
‘That
person
doesn’t
owe
you
a
duty
of
care.
…
It
just,
to
me,
is
a
sign
that
the
person
who
made
the
motion
has
actually
filed
a
frivolous
motion.’”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#23
“Supreme
Costs:
A
Condensed
Version
of
Our
Series
on
the
‘Obscene’
Spending
on
Wisconsin
Justices.” From Wisconsin
Watch: “A
quarter-century
ago,
the
total
cost
of
every
state
Supreme
Court
race
in
the
country
reached
an
unprecedented
$45.6
million,
prompting
the
Brennan
Center
for
Justice
at
New
York
University
to
warn
‘a
new
and
ominous
politics
of
judicial
elections’
posed
a
‘threat
to
fair
and
impartial
justice.’
Yet
in
2025,
spending
on
one
Wisconsin
Supreme
Court
seat
reached
$144.5
million,
even
more
than
the
$100.8
million
spent
on
68
state
high
court
contests
in
the
nation
in
2021
and
2022.”
Read
more here.

#24
“ABA
AI
Task
Force
Report
Examines
Opportunities,
Challenges
for
Legal
Profession.” From
the ABA
Journal: “The
American
Bar
Association’s
Task
Force
on
Law
and
Artificial
Intelligence
released
its
final
report
recently.
The
AI
Task
Force
‘Year
2
Report
on
the
Impact
of
AI
on
the
Practice
of
Law’
focuses on
the
future
of
AI
and
the
law.
…
Recognizing
AI’s
enormous
potential
for
the
legal
profession
and
beyond,
the
task
force
addressed
some
of
the
most
pressing
and
challenging
legal
issues
facing
society
today,
including
the
profound
impact
of
AI
on
the
legal
profession
and
the
rule
of
law,
the
courts,
legal
education,
access
to
justice,
governance
and
risk
management,
as
well
as
challenges
presented
by
generative
AI
and
ethical
dilemmas.”
Read
more here.

#25
“Legal
Ethics:
2025
Year
in
Review.” From Slaw: “As
2025
draws
to
a
close,
this
column
looks
back
on
three
high-profile
areas
of
development
in
Canadian
legal
ethics
and
lawyer
regulation
over
the
past
year.
It
also
flags
several
major
court
cases
and
disciplinary
proceedings
from
2025,
as
well
as
cases
to
watch
for
in
the
year
ahead.”
Read
more here.

Ethics
Reform
Watch
⚖️

The
ABA
issued
a
new
ethics
opinion
in
December
providing
guidance
for
disclosure
and
confidentiality
rules
when
a
lawyer
moves
to
withdraw
from
a
representation
under
Rule
1.16.
Here’s
the
summary
of
Formal
Opinion
519
“Disclosure
of
Information
Relating
to
the
Representation
in
a
Motion
to
Withdraw
From
a
Representation:”

When
moving
to
withdraw
from
a
representation,
a
lawyer’s
disclosure
to
the
tribunal
is
limited
by
the
duty
of
confidentiality
established
by
Rule
1.6(a)
of
the
ABA
Model
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct.
Unless
an
explicit
exception
to
the
duty
of
confidentiality
applies
or
the
client
provides
informed
consent,
the
lawyer
may
not
reveal
“information
relating
to
the
representation”
in
support
of
a
withdrawal
motion.
Disclosure
of
information
relating
to
the
representation
is
not
“impliedly
authorized
in
order
to
carry
out
the
representation”
under
Rule
1.6(a)
or
otherwise
impliedly
authorized
even
when
Rule
1.16(a)
requires
the
lawyer
to
seek
to
withdraw.
If
disclosure
is
permitted
by
an
exception
to
the
duty
of
confidentiality,
such
as
when
disclosure
is
required
by
a
court
order,
it
must
be
strictly
limited
to
the
extent
reasonably
necessary
and,
whenever
possible,
made
through
measures
that
protect
confidentiality
such
as
by
making
submissions
in
camera
or
under
seal.

The
Model
Rules
require
that
any
disclosure
in
support
of
withdrawal
be
narrowly
tailored,
protective
of
the
client’s
interests,
and
undertaken
only
within
the
scope
of
an
applicable
exception.
When
the
client
does
not
give
informed
consent
to
disclosing
information
relating
to
the
representation
in
support
of
a
motion
to
withdraw,
and
there
is
no
applicable
exception
to
the
duty
of
confidentiality,
lawyers
should
proceed
in
stages:
begin
with
a
motion
citing
only
“professional
considerations”
or
employing
similar
language
to
justify
the
motion;
if
the
court
seeks
further
information,
assert
all
non-frivolous
claims
for
maintaining
confidentiality
consistent
with
Rule
1.6(a);
and,
if
ordered
to
disclose
additional
information
relating
to
the
representation,
do
so
in
the
narrowest
possible
manner.
Ultimately,
the
lawyer’s
paramount
duty
is
to
preserve
client
confidentiality,
even
at
the
risk
that
the
tribunal
may
deny
the
motion
to
withdraw.

Download
the
full
Formal
Opinion
here.

Recommended
Reading


So
much
great
reading
in
legal
ethics
is
out
in
the
world
right
now.
I
have
a
stockpile
of
recommendations
to
share
in
the
coming
months.
For
now
you
get
one
book
and
three
law
review
articles.

“The
Pain
Brokers:
How
Con
Men,
Call
Centers,
and
Rogue
Doctors
Fuel
America’s
Law
Suit
Factory” (Simon
&
Schuster
2026)
by Elizabeth
Chamblee
Burch (Georgia).
I
got
to
read
this
one
hot
off
the
press
—
so
hot,
in
fact,
that
you
can’t
buy
it
in
stores
until January
13 but
it
is
available
for pre-order on
Amazon.
(Pre-orders
help
the
author,
so
buy
it
now!)
It’s
the
kind
of
book
that
will
keep
you
up
late
reading,
whether
or
not
you’re
a
legal
ethics
buff,
and
I
can
already
see
it
being
made
into
a
miniseries
(think
Johnathan
Harr’s A
Civil
Action meets
Apple
TV’s Palm
Royale set
in
2015
instead
of
1969).
Here’s
the
back
cover
summary:

For
decades,
late-night
television
has
blared
a
familiar
refrain:
If
you
or
a
loved
one
has
been
injured
by
X
product…
But
behind
those
ads
lies
a
lesser-known
world
where
elaborate
scams
revictimize
the
injured.
Why
else
would
thousands
of
women
with
health
insurance
take
out
loans
with
astronomical
interest
rates
and
fly
to
south
Florida
to
have
their
pelvic
mesh
surgically
removed
at
a
chiropractor’s
clinic?
The
Pain
Brokers,
by
law
professor
Elizabeth
Burch,
is
a
damning
investigation
of
a
scheme
made
possible
by
a
medical
and
legal
complex
that
too
often
views
women’s
bodies
as
cash
machines
and
fails
to
take
their
pain
seriously.
As
Burch
unfurls
each
level
to
the
scheme,
we
meet
an
enthralling
cast
of
characters,
from
a
world
class
scam
artist
who
reaped
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
at
a
south
Florida
call
center,
to
the
ultimate
white
shoe
power
lawyer
who
defended
Big
Pharma
but
became
an
unlikely
hero,
to
a
newly
minted
small-town
Arkansas
attorney
who
advocated
for
the
unseen
and
unheard.
But
at
the
center
are
three
women,
Jerri,
Barb,
and
Sharon,
whose
lives
were
upended
by
the
very
procedure
they
were
told
would
save
them.
A
page-turning,
urgently
necessary
work
of
public
service
journalism,
The
Pain
Brokers
is
not
only
a
chilling
exposé
of
a
legal
system
gone
awry,
but
a
wake-up
call
to
the
ways
in
which
it
harms
those
it
is
meant
to
help.

In
short, The
Pain
Brokers is
a
must-read!

“An
Unreliable
Reporter” by Jon
Lee (Oklahoma).
From
the
abstract:

As
part
of
the
legal
profession’s
tradition
of
self-regulation,
attorneys
have
an
ethical
obligation
to
ensure
that
those
within
it
are
fit
to
practice.
Given
the
gravity
associated
with
accusing
another
lawyer
of
misconduct,
it
is
not
surprising
that
many
are
reticent
to
speak
up.
But
what
would
happen
if
attorneys
were
pressured
to
vigorously
pursue
sanctions
against
their
opponents,
even
if
those
sanctions
may
be
unwarranted?
President
Trump’s
recently-issued
memorandum
arguably
does
just
that,
mandating
the
Attorney
General
to
seek
court
and
disciplinary
sanctions
for
lawyers
and
law
firms
that
appear
to
violate
ethics
rules.
This
Essay
explains
how
this
directive
may
put
some
federal
government
attorneys
in
a
conundrum
where
they
will
have
to
choose
between
placating
the
Administration
or
standing
firm,
and
it
explores
the

ethical
and
other
professional
consequences
that
may
follow
from
their
choice.

Download
here.

“Judicial
Regrets” by Yuvraj
Joshi (Brooklyn).
From
the
abstract:

U.S.
Supreme
Court
Justices
have
often
expressed
regret
about
their
most
consequential
rulings
and
opinions.
Chief
Justice
Earl
Warren
lamented
his
1955
Brown
v.
Board
of
Education
opinion
ordering
desegregation
“with
all
deliberate
speed”—ambiguous
phrasing
that
enabled
delays
in
integration.
Justice
Lewis
Powell
recanted
his
1986
opinion
in
Bowers
v.
Hardwick,
which
upheld
a
Georgia
law
criminalizing
same-sex
intimacy.
Justice
Sandra
Day
O’Connor
predicted
in
Grutter
v.
Bollinger
that
affirmative
action
policies
would
no
longer
be
needed
within
twenty-five
years—a
prediction
she
later
acknowledged
was
mistaken.
These
examples,
among
others
discussed
in
this
Article,
illustrate
that
judicial
regret
is
frequent
and
poignant,
spanning
several
areas
of
law.

Judicial
regret
already
influences
legal
development—shaping
judicial
behavior,
informing
legislative
reform,
and
empowering
social
movements—whether
acknowledged
or
not.
Despite
this
significance,
it
remains
largely
unexplored
in
American
legal
scholarship.
This
Article
provides
the
first
systematic
analysis
of
judicial
regret
by
drawing
on
multidisciplinary
research
on
regret,
previously
unpublished
judicial
survey
data,
and
judicial
case
studies.
It
examines
how
the
law
might
better
account
for
judicial
regret
and
underscores
insights
about
law
and
judging
that
stem
from
deeper
understandings
of
it.
Because
such
regret
can
catalyze
legal
reforms,
rectify
past
harms,
and
influence
legal
interpretations,
this
Article
proposes
ways
to
incorporate
it
into
constitutional
interpretation
and
the
treatment
of
precedent.
By
contemplating
the
legal
and
normative
significance
of
this
neglected
judicial
emotion,
this
Article
aims
to
help
the
legal
community
avoid
collectively
discounting
regret.

Download
here.

“Equal
Justice
&
Generative
AI” by Milan
Markovic (Texas
A&M).
From
the
abstract:

The
United
States
has
long
suffered
from
unequal
access
to
justice,
with
countless
low-and
middle-income
Americans
forced
to
navigate
the
legal
system
alone.
Recently,
prominent
judges,
lawyers,
and
scholars
have
seized
on
generative
AI
as
a
potential
corrective.
These
techno-optimists
maintain
that
ChatGPT
and
other
large
language
models
can
demystify
the
law
and
address
unmet
legal
needs.
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
has
proclaimed
that
AI-based
tools
“have
the
welcome
potential
to
smooth
out
any
mismatch
between
available
resources
and
urgent
needs
in
our
court
system.”
…
This
Article
proposes
two
key
reforms
for
integrating
AI
into
the
civil
justice
system.
First,
it
calls
for
the
training
of
justice
tech
workers
to
counsel
unrepresented
individuals
in
the
responsible
use
of
AI-based
legal
tools.
Second,
courts
should
bolster
existing
ethical
requirements
and
mandate
the
reasonable
verification
of
factual
claims
and
legal
authorities
in
proceedings
that
commonly
involve
unrepresented
parties.
Without
these
reforms,
AI
will
only
entrench
and
amplify
longstanding
inequalities
in
the
justice
system.

Download
here.

Legal
Ethics
in
Pop
Culture
—
Kim
Kardashian’s
Bar
Failure
Hasn’t
Kept
Her
From
Playing
Lawyer


Kim
Kardashian announced
in
December
she
failed
the
bar
exam,
again. Max
Raskin (NYU
Law,
Uris
Acquisitions)
argued
it’s
not
about
her
capabilities,
but
instead
“it’s
about
quantity
control.”
From
his
op-ed
in
the Washington
Post:

It’s
easy
to
laugh
at Kim Kardashian,
who
recently
announced
that
she
failed
the
California
bar
exam,
joining
the
ranks
of
celebrities
such
as Kamala
Harris and Jerry
Brown.
But
Kardashian’s
failure
is
not
a
knock
on
her
—
it’s
an
indictment
of
the
bar,
one
of
the
most
powerful
guilds
in
America.
And
for
the
first
time
in
a
century,
technological
change
may
finally
break
that
cartel’s
grip.

Read
the
full
op-ed here (gift
link).

While
she
still
is
not
yet
a
licensed
lawyer,
Kardashian
is
playing
one
on
TV.
Together
with
a
star-studded
cast
including Naomi
Watts, Glenn
Close, Niecy
Nash-Betts,
and Sarah
Paulson,
she
is
a
partner
in
an
all-female
law
firm
in
the
Hulu
series All’s
Fair, which
has
been
called
“one
of
the
worst
shows
of
all
time”
according
to Slate:

And
yet,
for
all
the
hatred
from
critics
(whose
scorn
initially
earned
the
show
a
rare
zero
percent
rating
on
the
aggregator
site
Rotten
Tomatoes,
before
the
series
gasped
its
way
to
its
current
4
percent),
All’s
Fair
has
actually
been
a
ratings
winner
for
Hulu.
It
enjoyed
more
than
3
million
views
in
its
first
three
days
of
streaming—perhaps
thanks,
in
part,
to
its
abysmal
early
reviews—making
it
the
platform’s
most-watched
scripted
series
premiere
in
three
years.
This
result
was
framed
by
some
as
“a
clear
division
between
viewers
and
critics,”
another
data
point
in
the
apparent
declining
cultural
power
that
reviewers
once
enjoyed.

I
will
confess
—
I’m
one
of
the
3
million
viewers.
And
while
I
can’t
say
that
I
recommend
the
show,
it
certainly
isn’t
the
worst
thing
I’ve
ever
seen.
And
it
does
offer
up
a
few
moments
to
teach
legal
ethics.
Check
out
the trailer
for
All’s
Fair
here.

Legal
Ethics
Trivia
里

From
the
Texas
Center
for
Legal
Ethics,
here’s
the
question
of
the
month:
“How
much
do
you
know
about
reporting
attorney
discipline?” Test
yourself
at
this
website where
you
can
read
a
short
hypothetical,
select
an
answer,
and
see
your
results.
So
far,
55%
have
gotten
it
right.
Will
you?

Get
Hired


Did
you
miss
the
400+
job
postings
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

Assistant
Ethics
Counsel,
North
Carolina
State
Bar
—
Raleigh/Hybrid. From
the
posting:
“This
is
a
unique
opportunity
to
work
at
the
intersection
of
legal
ethics,
public
service,
and
legal
education.
In
this
role,
you’ll
provide
guidance
to
attorneys
on
ethics
issues,
support
the
Ethics
Committee,
and
help
shape
the
ethical
landscape
of
the
legal
profession
in
North
Carolina
by
contributing
to
the
development
of
formal
ethics
opinions
and
amendments
to
the
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct.
You’ll
also
deliver
CLE
presentations,
conduct
legal
research,
and
support
the
State
Bar’s
efforts
in
protecting
the
public
through
the
regulation
of
the
legal
profession.
”
Salary
range
$85,000
to
$110,000
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.

Conflicts
Attorney,
Holland
&
Knight
—
Multiple
Locations/Remote. From
the
posting:
”With
the
appropriate
oversight
from
the
firm’s
Professional
Standards
Partner,
the
Conflicts
Attorney
will
assist
with
managing
the
conflict
resolution
process
related
to
new
business
intake,
while
protecting
the
firm
and
its
clients
from
adversity
and
risk.
Periodic
in-person
presence
is
required
for
annual
or
bi-annual
weekend
team
building
events.
”
Salary
range
$136,000
to
$245,000
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.

Conflicts
Attorney,
Seyfarth
Shaw —
Multiple
Locations/Remote. From
the
posting:
”As
a
Conflicts
Attorney,
you
will
manage
ethical
and
business
risks
presented
by
potential
new
business
opportunities
for
an
Am
Law
100
firm.
Based
on
your
training
and
experience,
you
will
analyze
conflicts
search
reports
to
identify
potential
conflicts
of
interest
with
potential
new
business
and
in
some
instances
with
prior
and
potential
new
business
for
lateral
hires.
You
will
work
independently
with
attorneys
across
the
Firm
to
detect
conflicts
and
resolve
them,
where
possible,
within
the
guidelines
of
prevailing
ethical
rules
and
Firm
policies
and
procedures.”
Salary
range
$145,000
to
$170,000
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.

Senior
Attorney
–
Ethics
&
Advertising,
The
Florida
Bar
—
Tallahassee. From
the
posting:
“The
Senior
Attorney
provides
oral
and
written
ethics
opinions
providing
advice
on
ethics
issues
to
Bar
members,
reviews
attorney
advertising
for
compliance
with
the
Rules
Regulating
The
Florida
Bar,
and
assists
in
working
with
various
bar
committees.”
Salary
starts
at
$87,804.63
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.

Senior
Attorney
–
Lawyer
Regulation
Headquarters,
The
Florida
Bar
—
Tallahassee. From
the
posting:
“The
Florida
Bar’s
Lawyer
Regulation
Headquarters-Tallahassee
is
seeking
an
experienced
Trial
Attorney.
The
Senior
Attorney
acts
as
counsel
at
investigative
and
trial
levels
of
processing
grievances
against
attorneys.”
Salary
starts
at
$87,804.63
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.

Senior
Attorney
–
Lawyer
Regulation
Tampa
Branch,
The
Florida
Bar
—
Tampa. From
the
posting:
“The
Florida
Bar’s
Lawyer
Tampa
Branch
office
is
seeking
an
experienced
Trial
Attorney.
The
Senior
Attorney
acts
as
counsel
at
investigative
and
trial
levels
of
processing
grievances
against
attorneys.”
Salary
starts
at
$91,316.82
annually.
Learn
more
and
apply here.

---

Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements
️

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
weeks?
Find
them
all here.

• 
  January
  6-9. Association
  of
  American
  Law
  Schools
  Annual
  Meeting,
  Section
  on
  Professional
  Responsibility
  Events. I’ll
  be
  moderating
  the
  Section’s
  main
  program
  on
  “The
  Law
  Professor’s
  Role
  in
  Protecting
  Our
  Legal
  System” which
  will
  be
  held
  January
  8
  from
  2:35-3:50
  PM. Heading
  to
  AALS
  in
  New
  Orleans?
  Here’s
  the
  Guide
  You
  Need
  – LER
  Bonus
  Content
  No.
  21
  (01.01.26)
• 
  February
  7-9.
  Association
  of
  Professional
  Responsibility
  Lawyers,
  Midyear
  Meeting,
  San
  Antonio. Learn
  more
  and
  register here.
• 
  October
  15-16.
  Complex
  Litigation
  Ethics
  Conference,
  UC
  Law
  San
  Francisco. The
  conference
  is
  the
  fourth
  annual
  event
  addressing
  Complex
  Litigation
  Ethics.
  It
  will
  bring
  together
  luminaries
  in
  the
  field—judges,
  scholars,
  lawyers,
  and
  others—to
  discuss
  a
  cutting-edge
  topic
  that
  is
  of
  critical
  importance
  to
  our
  justice
  system.
  Learn
  more here.

---

Keep
in
Touch


• 
  News
  tips?
  Announcements?
  Events? A
  job
  to
  post? Reading
  recommendations? Email [email protected] –
  but
  be
  sure
  to
  subscribe
  first,
  otherwise
  the
  email
  won’t
  be
  delivered.

---

Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social. 

*
Refresher
on
the
legal
arguments
for
“killing
80
people
to
arrest
the
leader
of
a
sovereign
nation
for
possessing
a
machine
gun.”
[One
First]

*
Student
groups
appeal
to
the
ABA
to
intervene
and
stop
the
rapid
associate
hiring
cycle.
[Law.com]

*
Rough
year
for
law
schools
begins
as
Trump’s
student
loan
caps
start
to
bite.
[Reuters]

*
Another
lawyer
disciplined
for
billing
more
hours
than
exist
in
a
day.
[Legal
Cheek]

*
Lawyer
seeks
back
legal
fees
from
O.J.
Simpson
estate.
[Las
Vegas
Review-Journal]

*
Judicial
nominations
poised
to
slow
this
year
with
lack
of
vacancies.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Kat
Von
D
wins
tattoo
IP
case
at
Ninth
Circuit.
[Law360]

Trump
Rule
Made
A
Lot
Of
Public
Service
Work
Ineligible
For
Loan
Forgiveness:
There
goes
helping
your
fellow
man.
Third
Amendment
Aficionados
Perked
Up
For
A
Bit:
The
National
Guard
can’t
sleep
on
your
couch!
Government
Immigration
Attorney
Watch
List
Gets
Leaked:
That’s
a
scary
thing
to
know
is
out
there.
In
Bonus
News:
Norton
Rose
Fulbright
starts
the
year
off
right!

Did
you
have
immigration
lawyer
watch
list
on
your
2025
authoritarianism
BINGO
card?
If
so,
congrats!
But
for
everyone
else,
it’s
yet
another
sad
slide
into
federal
control
to
learn
that
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE)
posted
what
appears
to
be
a
covert
roster
of
immigration
attorneys
buried
on
its
own
website.

The
list
was
discovered
by
attorney
Arlene
Amarante,
who
stumbled
upon
the
list
while
interacting
with
ICE’s
website
and
found
her
own
name
on
it.
The
list
has
since
been
pulled
from
the
website,
which
is
usually
what
agencies
do
when
a
documents
is
totally
normal.
Now
Al
Otro
Lado,
an
immigration
advocacy
group,
has
filed
a
Freedom
of
Information
Act
request
demanding
to
know
who
created
the
list,
why
it
existed,
and
what
ICE
thought
it
was
doing
cataloging
attorneys
in
the
first
place.

Amarante
noticed
something
else
about
the
list
that
raised
even
more
concerns,
as

she
told
WGNO,
“One
of
the
troubling
patterns
I
suppose
that
I
recognized,
was
that
a
large
number
of
these
practitioners
on
the
list
were
people
of
color.”

Which
pushes
this
from
bureaucratic
weirdness
into
civil
liberties
nightmare
fuel.

Amarante
continued:

“Why
does
the
list
exist?
Whether
it’s
an
innocent
incursion
or
something
that
is
more
intentional
or
nefarious,
we
need
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
it.
It’s
troubling
because
there’s
a
pattern
of
threats
by
the
administration
—
the
implication
by
the
government
is
that
offering
support
to
a
client
is
the
harm
in
itself
and
the
names
on
the
list
sort
of
seems
to
support
that.”

Let’s
not
forget,
this
administration
has
not
been
subtle
about
its
hostility
toward
lawyers
in
general
and
immigration
lawyers
in
particular.
In
March
2025,
the
White
House
issued
a
memo
titled
“Preventing
Abuses
of
the
Legal
System
and
the
Federal
Court,”
which
attacked
the
act
of
lawyering,
accused
immigration
attorneys
of
“unscrupulous”
conduct,
and
directed
the
Attorney
General
to
take
action
against
lawyers
and
firms
that
cross
the
Trump
Administration.

Al
Otro
Lado
didn’t
mince
words,
alleging
that
the
database
raises
“grave
concerns
of
political
targeting
and
professional
intimidation
at
a
time
when
the
administration
is
openly
escalating
its
attacks
on
immigrant
advocates.”

Andrew
Fels,
a
staff
attorney
at
Al
Otro
Lado,
put
it
bluntly,
“There
is
no
obvious
legitimate
reason
for
ICE
to
be
compiling
what
appears
to
be
a
covert
roster
of
immigration
lawyers.
We
are
giving
ICE
an
opportunity
to
publicly
explain
the
watch
list’s
purpose.
Publishing
the
underlying
policies
governing
the
watch
list’s
creation
and
inclusion
criteria
will
conclusively
resolve
this
issue.”

Cassandra
Lopez,
Al
Otro
Lado’s
legal
director,
framed
the
situation
as
a
warning
to
all
lawyers.
“History
may
be
repeating
itself.
Once
again,
our
staff
and
colleagues
appear
on
a
government
watch
list
simply
for
doing
our
jobs—defending
the
constitutional
right
to
seek
asylum
and
holding
the
government
accountable
in
court.
The
pattern
is
unmistakable
and
deeply
alarming.”

Lopez’s
warning
is
particularly
poignant.
Since
the
start
of
his
second
term,
Donald
Trump
has
been
aggressively
attacking
lawyers
and
the
very
rule
of
law.
This
watch
list
appears
to
be
the
next
disturbing
step,
with
the
government
treating
adversarial
legal
representation
as
suspect
conduct.
That
is
a
direct
inversion
of
how
the
legal
system
is
supposed
to
function.

The
existence
of
the
list
suggests
a
bureaucratic
culture
that
views
immigration
lawyers
not
as
officers
of
the
court,
but
as
obstacles
to
be
monitored.
And
it
should
concern
anyone
who
still
believes
the
rule
of
law
depends
on
lawyers
being
able
to
do
their
jobs
without
being
cataloged
(or
worse)
by
the
very
agencies
they’re
tasked
with
challenging.

---

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].

Many
readers
of
Above
the
Law
eagerly
await
news
about
annual
bonuses
around
the
end
of
the
year.
Most
Biglaw
law
firms
award
those
bonuses
based
on
seniority
and
perhaps
other
performance-based
metrics. Some
smaller
law
firms
also
have
institutionalized
year-end
bonus
initiatives
through
which
attorneys
may
receive
a
bonus
equal
to
one
or
two
months
of
salary. However,
most
attorneys
work
at
small
law
firms
and
are
much
less
likely
to
receive
an
annual
bonus
at
such
firms.

After
leaving
Biglaw,
I
started
working
at
a
small
insurance
defense
shop
that
was
a
small
fraction
of
the
size
of
the
large
law
firm
at
which
I
previously
worked. I
was
amazed
at
how
this
shop
operated
differently
than
the
Biglaw
firm
that
had
previously
employed
me. For
instance,
this
shop
did
not
reimburse
associates
for
bar
dues
and
did
not
fund
training
and
conference
attendance.

Around
bonus
season,
I
wondered
whether
I
would
receive
an
annual
bonus
like
attorneys
at
many
Biglaw
shops
got. Veteran
lawyers
at
the
firm
could
not
tell
whether
the
shop
would
award
bonuses. I
was
told
that
in
some
previous
years,
the
firm
provided
holiday
bonuses,
which
were
relatively
modest
in
comparison
to
the
bonuses
awarded
at
Biglaw
firms.
However,
in
some
years
in
which
the
law
firm
faced
financial
challenges,
they
skipped
awarding
holiday
bonuses
to
associates.

When
it
came
time
for
my
annual
review
at
that
shop,
I
was
told
I
would
be
receiving
a
pay
raise
for
the
upcoming
year,
which
I
was
happy
about. However,
the
managing
partner
of
the
firm
told
me
that
the
shop
was
not
awarding
holiday
bonuses
because
of
difficult
economic
realities
at
the
shop.
I
remembered
that
one
of
our
court-reporting
vendors
gave
gift
baskets
to
all
of
the
attorneys
of
our
firm,
and
this
was
the
only
holiday
cheer
provided
to
me
as
a
result
of
work.

Additionally,
smaller
shops
are
much
more
likely
to
forgo
giving
individual
associates
a
bonus
based
on
performance
issues
even
if
they
provide
bonuses
to
other
attorneys
at
a
firm. I
once
worked
at
a
law
firm
directly
before
starting
my
own
shop. In
the
months
leading
up
to
my
departure
from
that
firm
to
open
my
own
practice,
my
productivity
declined,
since
I
was
relatively
checked
out
from
my
job
at
the
firm. I
knew
that
I
would
be
opening
my
own
practice
soon,
so
I
figured
it
did
not
make
too
much
sense
to
work
hard
to
line
the
pockets
of
partners
at
the
firm
from
which
I
would
soon
be
departing.

When
it
came
time
for
my
annual
review,
I
was
shocked
to
discover
that
I
had
still
earned
a
pay
raise
at
the
firm,
which
did
not
matter
much
since
I
left
the
shop
shortly
into
the
new
year. 
However,
partners
told
me
that
I
would
not
be
receiving
a
bonus
since
my
performance
had
slacked
off
toward
the
end
of
the
year. 
In
my
opinion,
it
is
more
common
for
Biglaw
to
just
award
lock-step
bonuses
according
to
seniority
rather
than
withhold
bonuses
for
performance
reasons. This
is
probably
because
bonuses
impact
the
bottom
lines
of
smaller
shops
more,
and
it
is
more
difficult
to
do
a
case-by-case
analysis
for
bonuses
at
larger
firms.

In
any
case,
readers
of
this
website
and
others
should
not
think
bonuses
are
common
practice
across
all
law
firms. Smaller
shops
are
more
likely
to
forgo
annual
bonuses
together
or
deny
bonuses
to
individual
attorneys.

---

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.