Category: News Feeds

HHS
released
a
new
proposed
rule
this
week
aimed
at
rolling
back
several
Biden-era
health
IT
policies
and
slimming
down
the
federal
health
IT
certification
program.
The
proposal,
called

HTI-5,
would
remove
or
revise
nearly
70%
of
current
certification
criteria
against
which
health
tech
products
are
certified. 

There
are
currently
60
certification
criteria
within
HHS’
health
IT
certification
program
—
this
plan
seeks
to
remove
34
and
revise
seven.
HHS
said
the
goal
is
to
cut
costs
and
reduce
regulatory
hurdles
for
health
tech
developers. 

Notably,
the
rule
would
do
away
with
proposed
transparency
requirements
for
healthcare
AI
tools
—
including
so-called
“model
cards”
that
would
have
required
vendors
to
disclose
how
clinical
AI
models
are
trained,
deployed
and
tested. 

The
Assistant
Secretary
for
Technology
Policy
and
the
Office
of
the
National
Coordinator
for
Health
Information
Technology
(ASTP/ONC)
argued
there
is
no
evidence
that
these
transparency
requirements
have
improved
patient
outcomes.

ASTP/ONC
estimated
that
the
proposed
changes
would
save
healthcare
tech
developers
more
than
1.4
million
compliance
hours
in
the
first
year
—
or
about
4,000
hours
per
organization,
on
average

As
for
dollars
saved,
the
ASTP/ONC
predicted
that
the
new
rule
could
save
$1.53
billion
in
total.

In
the
proposed
rule,
HHS
also
said
that
it
plans
to
clarify
the
definition
of
information
blocking
to
make
clear
that
it
applies
to
automated
access
and
data
use,
including
by
autonomous
AI
systems. 

The
agency
said
it
is
moving
to
tighten
several
information
blocking
exceptions,
arguing
they
are
being
misused
by
some
health
tech
developers
to
restrict
data
sharing
and

disadvantage
competitors.
In
particular,
HHS
would
remove
or
revise
policies
that
allow
organizations
to
unnecessarily
delay
or
deny
access
to
health
data
through
technical
or
contractual
barriers.
The
proposal
would
also
remove
a

TEFCA-related
exception
that
HHS
says
is
no
longer
necessary
and
may
be
creating
problems
for
organizations
trying
to
share
data.

HHS
said
its
plan
aligns
with
President
Donald
Trump’s
executive
orders
on
deregulation
and
dismantling
anti-competitive
regulatory
barriers.
The
proposed
rule
is
open
for
public
comment
for
60
days.

Photo:
da-kuk,
Getty
Images

Businesses
facing
financial
problems
or
other
types
of
challenges
usually
need
to
hire
lawyers. For
instance,
companies
being
sued
by
disgruntled
investors
for
mismanagement
may
need
to
secure
counsel,
and
businesses
headed
for
restructuring
might
need
lawyers
to
handle
the
complicated
bankruptcy
process. Such
companies
may
want
to
cut
costs
to
focus
on
vital
business
operations,
and
this
might
mean
stiffing
the
lawyers
they
hired. However,
this
tactic
can
be
shortsighted
and
cost
businesses
dearly
in
the
long
term.

One
reason
why
distressed
businesses
should
not
skimp
out
on
paying
their
lawyers
is
that
attorneys
can
minimize
the
amounts
owed
by
such
companies
or
delay
payment
of
sums. For
instance,
if
a
lawyer
represents
a
company
that
owes
money
to
a
creditor,
the
lawyer
can
be
essential
in
raising
defenses,
delaying
payment
of
sums
owed,
and
negotiating
a
payment
plan
that
might
make
it
easier
for
the
company
to
pay
off
the
debt. However,
if
a
business
does
not
have
counsel,
the
creditor
can
conceivably
obtain
a
default
judgment
and
begin
using
that
to
create
difficulties
for
a
business. The
amount
of
money
a
business
may
owe
in
legal
fees
is
small
in
comparison
to
the
pain
that
could
be
caused
by
going
without
counsel
altogether.

Another
reason
why
it
is
usually
best
for
distressed
businesses
to
pay
their
counsel
is
since
such
lawyers
might
be
essential
to
the
continued
operation
of
a
business. For
instance,
distressed
companies
might
seek
restructuring
to
help
them
survive
a
financial
crisis. This
usually
requires
that
bankruptcy
lawyers
and
other
types
of
attorneys
complete
the
appropriate
filings
and
take
other
legal
action
to
ensure
that
the
restructuring
process
is
successful.
If
this
process
is
not
complete,
shareholders
can
lose
far
more
money
if
a
company
goes
out
of
business
than
they
would
have
to
pay
if
the
businesses
had
competent
lawyers
working
on
a
problem.

It
also
usually
does
not
pay
for
distressed
companies
to
delay
payment
to
lawyers
or
make
it
difficult
for
attorneys
to
receive
their
fair
compensation. Lawyers
usually
have
numerous
clients
and
limited
time
they
can
devote
to
client
tasks.
Attorneys
therefore
spend
the
most
time
on
clients
that
treat
them
well
by
paying
invoices
promptly
and
not
giving
the
lawyer
issues
in
other
aspects
of
the
representation. In
addition,
lawyers
may
not
want
to
accept
new
matters
from
clients
that
have
payment
issues,
and
businesses
then
would
have
inefficiencies
in
having
to
secure
additional
counsel
that
might
not
be
as
familiar
with
a
company’s
needs.

Distressed
companies
often
need
premium
legal
services
the
most
since
any
defenses
that
can
be
raised
or
money
that
could
be
saved
from
the
work
of
counsel
might
have
a
monumental
impact
on
a
business. However,
such
businesses
can
jeopardize
the
type
of
representation
they
receive
by
not
paying
their
lawyers
or
by
otherwise
making
it
difficult
for
lawyers
to
receive
their
fair
compensation.
As
a
result,
it
is
extremely
short-sighted
for
businesses
to
short-change
their
lawyers,
since
this
usually
has
a
negative
impact
on
the
company
in
the
long-term.

Some
companies
have
such
limited
resources
that
they
simply
do
not
have
the
money
to
pay
their
vendors,
including
their
lawyers,
and
such
companies
cannot
avoid
letting
legal
invoices
go
unpaid. But
if
distressed
companies
have
resources,
and
need
to
decide
where
to
best
apply
such
resources,
they
should
understand
that
paying
lawyers
and
keeping
them
happy
can
have
long-term
dividends
for
a
business
facing
difficulties.

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.

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.

Click

here
to
take
the
quiz.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I’m
sure
she’ll
take
it
under
consideration
and
look
at
it
seriously.
…
Trump
hasn’t
made
a
secret
about
the
retribution
that
he
is
asking
some
of
his
U.S.
attorneys
to
take
against
his
perceived
enemies.
It
is
an
extraordinary
request,
but
maybe
this
is
an
extraordinary
situation.

—
Professor

Carl
Tobias
of
the
University
of
Richmond
School
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com,
concerning
a
request
made
by
ex-CIA
Director
John
Brennan’s
lawyers
to
Chief
District
Judge
Cecilia
Altonaga
of
the
Southern
District
of
Florida,
to
block
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
from
hearing
the
case.
The
letter
submitted
by
Brennan’s
lawyers
to
Altonaga
reads,
in
relevant
part:
“The
United
States
attorney’s
efforts
to
funnel
this
investigation
to
the
judge
who
issued
this
string
of
rulings
that
consistently
favored
President
Trump’s
positions
in
previous
litigations
should
be
seen
for
what
it
is.”

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.

Ed.
note: A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Emergency
Docket
Tops
Year’s
Highlights
at
Supreme
Court”: Justin
Wise
and
Jordan
Fischer
of
Bloomberg
Law
have this
report.

“Judges
who
ruled
against
Trump
say
harassment
and
threats
have
changed
their
lives;
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.” Lawrence
Hurley
of
NBC
News
has this
report.

“Supreme
Court
Rejects
Trump
Bid
to
Use
National
Guard
in
Chicago”: Greg
Stohr
of
Bloomberg
News
has this
report.
You
can
access
today’s
order
of
the U.S.
Supreme
Court at this
link.

“How
Charlie
Javice’s
Legal
Fees
Hit
$74
Million:
Gummy
Bears
and
Star
Lawyers;
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.” Alexander
Saeedy
of
The
Wall
Street
Journal
has this
report.

“Judge
orders
Trump
admin
to
offer
relief
to
men
deported
under
Alien
Enemies
Act;
But
the
judge,
James
Boasberg,
stopped
short
of
ordering
the
Trump
administration
to
facilitate
the
immediate
return
of
the
men
to
the
U.S.” Kyle
Cheney
and
Josh
Gerstein
of
Politico
have this
report.

“Court
watchers
give
SCOTUS
poor
marks
as
Trump
bulldozes
judiciary
in
2025;
Trump’s
return
to
office
served
as
a
stress
test
for
high
court’s
beleaguered
shadow
docket,
highlighting
the
careful
balance
of
power
between
the
judiciary
and
the
executive”: Kelsey
Reichmann
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.

“How
the
Supreme
Court’s
Mail-In
Ballot
Ruling
Could
Affect
Voters;
Hundreds
of
thousands
of
Americans
in
rural
and
urban
areas
alike
could
see
their
votes
rejected
if
the
court
decides
that
ballots
must
arrive
by
Election
Day”: Nick
Corasaniti
and
Christine
Zhang
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.

We’re
updating
our compensation
information for
in-house
law
departments,
and
there’s
still
time
to
provide
your
input.

If
you
work
in-house
as
an
attorney
or
a
legal
operations
professional,
please
take
our brief
survey and
tell
us
about
your
compensation. 

The
survey
is completely
anonymous and
won’t
take
more
than
a
few
minutes
of
your
time. We’ll
share
what
we
learn
in
a
comprehensive
report.

Biglaw
firms
across
the
country
continue
to
announce
bonuses
this
holiday
season.
Just
before
Christmas,
one
of
the
most
successful
law
firms
in
America
let
eligible
associates
know
that
they’d
be
receiving
a
match
of
the
Cravath/Milbank
scale
for

year-end
and

special
bonuses.
But
that’s
not
all
—
the
firm
also
let
associates
know
that
enhanced
performance
bonuses
were
up
for
grabs.

The
firm
in
question
is
DLA
Piper,
which
brought
in
$$4,239,832,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
3
on
the
Am
Law
100.
Bonus
eligibility
at
DLA
is
based
on
seniority,
performance
rating,
productivity
(the
firm
has
a
2000-hour
billable
goal),
compliance
with
firm
policies,
and
good
standing
status.
This
year,
those
who
meet
the
criteria
for
market
bonuses
will
also
receive
special
bonuses.

Here’s
what
the
bonus
grid
looks
like
at
the
firm:

• Class
  of
  2024
  –
  $20,000
  /
  $6,000
• Class
  of
  2023
  –
  $30,000
  /
  $10,000
• Class
  of
  2022
  –
  $57,500
  /
  $15,000
• Class
  of
  2021
  –
  $75,000
  /
  $20,000
• Class
  of
  2020
  –
  $90,000
  /
  $25,000
• Class
  of
  2019
  –
  $105,000
  /
  $25,000
• Class
  of
  2018+
  –
  $115,000
  /
  $25,000

DLA
Piper
is
offering
bonuses
above
and
beyond
the
prevailing
market
rate
for
associates
who
have
gone
above
and
beyond
in
terms
of
billable
hours
and
“exceptional”
client
service,
offering
enhanced
bonuses
for
every
100
hours
above
the
2,000-hour
expectation
as
well
as
for
those
who
earned
qualifying
performance
ratings.

Associates
who
met
their
hourly
goals
by
December
15
will
receive
their
year-end
and
special
bonuses
on
December
26,
with
enhanced
bonus
payouts
to
be
paid
in
February
2026.
Those
who
meet
their
hours
by
December
31
will
receive
all
bonus
payments
in
February
2026.

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
DLA
Piper!

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

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.