Some
people
may
assume
that
judges
and
other
court
officers
have
predictable
work
schedules. Indeed,
many
government
officials
only
work
Monday
through
Friday
from
9
a.m.
to
5
p.m.
Some
people
may
think
judicial
workers
follow
similar
schedules. However,
court
officers
seemingly
work
all
kinds
of
hours,
and
legal
professionals
should
assume
that
court
officers
might
be
fulfilling
judicial
duties
outside
of
typical
hours.
Not
too
long
ago,
I
was
trying
to
clear
my
desk
on
a
Friday
after
5
p.m.
I
was
getting
ready
to
go
out
to
dinner
and
start
enjoying
my
weekend. Right
before
I
left
for
dinner,
I
saw
that
the
court
uploaded
an
order
to
one
of
my
cases. I
was
surprised
since
it
was
after
5
p.m.
on
a
Friday,
and
I
figured
that
court
officers
would
be
headed
home
for
the
weekend
at
this
point.
The
order
required
me
to
do
something
within
a
short
timeframe,
so
I
had
to
push
my
dinner
plans
back
to
initiate
the
necessary
steps
before
I
left
my
desk. I
was
kind
of
peeved
that
this
order
had
been
uploaded
after
business
hours
right
before
a
weekend,
and
I
could
see
no
reason
why
the
order
was
not
entered
earlier. However,
I
do
not
have
insight
into
judicial
operations,
and
perhaps
the
court
had
other
pressing
tasks
earlier
in
the
day
and
wanted
to
complete
this
task
before
the
weekend.
Interestingly,
a
few
hours
later
(well
after
7
p.m.)
I
got
an
email
notifying
me
that
a
court
officer
in
another
case
had
just
processed
something
related
to
that
matter.
I
doubt
that
I
received
a
notification
even
though
the
task
was
completed
earlier
in
the
day,
since
the
e-filing
system
usually
sends
out
notifications
the
moment
something
is
done
to
a
case. I
wondered
why
a
court
officer
was
working
so
late
on
a
Friday
night,
and
luckily,
this
task
did
not
require
me
to
do
anything
on
my
end.
I
have
a
friend
who
told
me
that
he
was
working
on
a
matter
years
ago,
and
he
had
a
midnight
deadline
to
email
something
to
a
judge.
The
friend
told
me
that
he
stayed
up
late
working
on
the
assignment
and
emailed
the
document
right
before
midnight. This
friend
conveyed
that
the
judge
immediately
emailed
him
back
about
the
assignment
around
midnight,
which
was
impressive
to
me. Either
this
judge
had
horrible
insomnia,
or
he
was
working
on
his
cases
well
into
the
night.
Another
time,
I
appeared
in
front
of
a
judge
on
the
eve
of
trial,
and
the
judge
was
trying
to
convince
the
lawyers
and
parties
to
settle
the
matter. The
judge
conveyed
that
he
worked
on
the
weekends
and
all
hours
of
night,
and
that
if
this
trial
moved
forward,
we
would
probably
need
to
work
on
the
weekends
to
get
everything
ready
for
a
trial
on
short
notice. I
am
not
sure
if
this
was
persuasive
to
the
parties,
but
the
case
eventually
did
settle
and
we
did
not
need
to
test
the
judge
on
his
assertion
that
we
would
all
be
working
over
the
weekend. But
I
did
not
doubt
that
the
judge
indeed
worked
outside
of
business
hours
to
complete
judicial
tasks.
All
told,
I
think
courts
should
try
not
to
complete
tasks
outside
of
business
hours,
since
this
can
impact
other
stakeholders
to
cases,
especially
counsel. However,
it
is
probably
unavoidable
that
court
officers
need
to
work
outside
of
business
hours,
due
to
the
demands
of
the
judiciary
and
the
volume
of
cases
courts
have
on
their
dockets. In
some
respects,
it
is
also
admirable
that
court
officers
sacrifice
what
might
be
their
personal
time
to
ensure
that
the
judicial
process
runs
more
efficiently.
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.
It’s
really
all
about
putting
in
the
work.
I
think
it’s
so
important.
With
enough
hard
work
and
perseverance,
you
can
accomplish
pretty
much
anything.
— Jimmy
Chilimigras,
a
recent
summa
cum
laude
graduate
of
Loyola
University
New
Orleans
College
of
Law,
in
comments
given
to
CBS
affiliate WWL-TV,
concerning
the
conclusion
of
his
law
school
journey
at
just
18
years
old.
He
is
the
first
to
ever
graduate
from
Loyola
Law
with
five
certificates
of
concentration
(taxation
law,
social
justice,
immigration
and
citizenship
law,
international
legal
studies,
and
technology
and
entrepreneurship).
Chilimigras
is
one
of
the
youngest
people
in
the
country
to
ever
graduate
from
law
school.
Although
the
Mississippi
native
is
too
young
to
take
the
bar
exam
in
his
home
state,
Chilimigras
will
still
take
the
bar
exam
this
summer,
before
heading
to
Northwestern
Law
to
pursue
an
LLM
in
taxation.
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.
Lawyers
and
law
professors
have
worn
the
soles
out
of
“it
depends”
when
answering
legal
questions,
but
the
shoulder
shrug
is
a
legitimate
response
given
the
last
few
years
of
Constitutional
developments.
The
Court
shrugged
off
stare
decisis
in
a
big
way
with
Bruen
back
in
2022
and
the
jurists’
internal
consistency
of
their
rulings
is
so
suspect
that
Justice
Gorsuch
took
it
upon
himself
to
call
most
of
his
co-workers
hypocrites.
Trump
v.
United
States
made
it
harder
to
distinguish
the
difference
between
a
president
and
a
king
and
Kennedy
v.
Bremerton
the
difference
between
church
and
state.
The
newest
development
in
Establishment
Clause
doctrine
comes
out
of
Utah
—
they
just
passed
a
law
allowing
students
to
opt
out
of
content
if
it
isn’t
in
line
with
their
religious
beliefs.
Heching
Report
has
coverage:
A
new
state
law
offers
these
students
a
unique
protection:
If
something
in
a
class
conflicts
with
their
strongly
held
religious
or
personal
beliefs,
students
can
ask
their
professor
for
an
alternative
assignment
or
exam.
And
as
long
as
their
request
doesn’t
change
the
fundamental
nature
of
the
course,
the
professor
is
now
required
by
law
to
allow
the
student
to
opt
out. … Michael
J.
Petersen,
a
Republican
state
representative
from
Logan,
said
the
idea
for
the
bill
came
after
his
daughter
was
assigned
to
write
a
letter
to
a
legislator
in
support
of
LGBTQ+
rights
as
part
of
a
master’s
degree
program
at
an
out-of-state
college.
The
assignment
was
in
conflict
with
her
beliefs,
so
she
called
her
dad
for
help.
He
helped
her
write
“something
that
was
very,
very
bland.”
She
moved
on
—
and
he
began
drafting
the
legislation.
To
the
degree
that
the
law
prevents
students
from
being
forced
to
materially
advocate
for
something
that
is
against
their
will
(i.e.,
sending
a
letter
of
support
to
a
senator),
I
think
the
law
is
fair
game.
But
there
is
a
risk
of
sloping
toward
refusing
engagement
with
any
unsavory
ideas
and
forcing
professors
to
make
students
comfortable
rather
than
encouraging
them
to
think
critically
or,
dare
I
say
it,
like
lawyers.
One
of
the
main
functions
of
higher
education
—
besides
the
creation
of
docile
bodies
ready
to
meet
market
demands
—
is
to
expose
students
to
new
ideas.
And
exposure
isn’t
interchangeable
with
conversion;
in
college
and
law
school,
I
encountered
points
of
view
I
considered
anathema,
but
doing
so
helped
me
better
understand
my
own
thoughts
or
why
I
disagreed
with
the
ones
presented.
But
what
does
this
new
law
mean
for
law
school?
Well,
it
depends.
Take
the
University
of
Utah’s
law
school,
for
example.
The
school
is
governed
by
the
Utah
Board
of
Higher
Education
and
appears
to
be
bound
to
the
new
law.
The
law
requires
faculty
to
make
accommodations
for
courses
that
are
part
of
the
college’s
general
education
requirement;
it
would
be
a
hard
sell
for
1L
Con
Law
or
Crim
Law
courses
to
not
fall
under
that
category.
What
happens
if
the
professor
writes
a
final
that
requires
the
student
to
navigate
a
hypothetical
banning
interracial
gay
marriage?
Do
they
get
to
say
that
reading
Obergefell
v.
Hodges
or
Loving
v.
Virginia
went
against
their
religiously
held
beliefs
on
marriage
and
that
forcing
them
to
read
the
cases
or
parrot
those
holdings
to
advocate
for
a
position,
even
if
it
never
left
the
classroom,
would
violate
their
faith?
Or
what
if
there’s
some
novel
believer
who
genuinely
holds
that
the
Dormant
Commerce
Clause
is
sinful,
would
a
Con
Law
professor
be
required
to
give
them
an
exam
that
doesn’t
require
acknowledging
it
exists?
Maybe
the
professors
should
consult
with
religious
leaders
before
they
assign
readings
and
exams,
just
to
make
sure
that
things
run
as
smoothly
as
possible.
Wouldn’t
want
to
make
any
students
uncomfortable.
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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.
Two
weeks
ago,
the
Department
of
Justice
filed
a
motion
in
the
White
House
ballroom
litigation
that
read
suspiciously
like
the
a
case
of
lawyers
throwing
up
their
hands
and
just
hitting
“file”
on
the
their
client’s
dementia-addled
markup.
And,
but
for
the
fact
that
Donald
Trump
is
not
the
Department
of
Justice’s
client,
that
pretty
much
nails
it.
The
brief
defined
“Trump
Derangement
Syndrome,”
ranted
about
“Barack
Hussein
Obama,”
and
included
a
series
of
nonsense
tangents.
One
might
have
hoped
that
brief
would
prove
an
aberration
and
the
people
with
law
degrees
might
take
over
again
on
reply.
Well,
the
good
news
for
all
of
us
is
that
the
DOJ
seems
to
have
gone
right
back
to
Trump
for
an
encore.
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche,
Principal
Associate
Deputy
Attorney
General
R.
Trent
McCotter,
and
Associate
Attorney
General
Stanley
Woodward
signed
a
seven-page
reply
brief
in
the
ballroom
case
that
doubles
down
on
the
Truth
Social
school
of
drafting.
“Trump
Derangement
Syndrome”
is
back,
baby!
The
“National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation”—which,
again,
is
not
a
government
agency
of
any
type—never
once
denies
that
its
lawsuit
is
motivated
by
an
irrational
desire
to
stop
anything
associated
with
President
Donald
J.
Trump,
which
even
Democrat
elected
officials
have
labeled
as
“Trump
Derangement
Syndrome,”
or
TDS.
This
sets
up
a
footnote
citing
to
Senator
John
Fetterman,
continuing
his
tour
bragging
that
he’s
not
as
liberal
ever
since
he
suffered
a
traumatic
stroke
—
which
is
not
the
flex
conservatives
think
it
is.
If
the
Militarily
Top
Secret
Ballroom
had
been
the
idea
of
any
other
President,
no
lawsuit
would
have
been
filed,
let
alone
given
rise
to
an
injunction.
National
Security
requires
unimpeded
construction
of
the
Presidential
Ballroom,
without
disruption
or
delay.
“Militarily
Top
Secret
Ballroom.”
Note
that
the
lawyers
aren’t
even
able
to
make
line
edits
to
clean
up
Trump’s
made-up
phrases.
The
mainstream
media
spends
more
time
rewriting
Trump’s
quotes
to
sound
coherent
than
his
own
DOJ
does.
The
brief
continues
its
quixotic
effort
to
conflate
an
underground
security
complex
with
an
eyesore
of
a
ballroom
where
the
East
Wing
used
to
be.
“[I]t
is
now
crystal
clear
that
the
entire
cohesive,
integrated,
knitted
and
complex
Project
is
necessary
to
ensure
National
Security
and
Presidential
safety,”
the
brief
asserts,
without
ever
providing
a
reason
why
this
is
crystal
clear.
The
court
issued
an
injunction
because
there
was
never
an
explanation
why
an
underground
bunker
needed
to
have
a
ballroom
over
it
and
—
now
a
full
briefing
cycle
later
—
there
still
isn’t
one.
This
Project
as
a
whole,
with
one
venting
system,
one
electrical
system,
one
plumbing
system,
one
security
system,
one
air
conditioning
and
heating
system
and,
very
importantly,
one
structural
system,
will
ensure
that
events
like
the
assassination
attempt
of
Butler,
PA,
West
Palm
Beach,
FL
and
at
the
Washington
Hilton
on
April
25th
do
not
happen
again.
Except
the
ballroom
wouldn’t
be
much
help
to
a
president
campaigning
in
Pennsylvania.
Or
golfing
in
Florida.
Or
even
choosing
to
attend
the
White
House
Correspondents’
Dinner,
which
—
again
—
could
not
be
held
in
the
new
proposed
ballroom,
because
Trump’s
proposal
is
not
big
enough
to
host
the
WHCD.
The
new
ballroom
has
a
capacity
under
1,000
—
the
WHCD
brings
together
over
2,500
guests.
The
reply
engages
in
some
Freudian
projection,
ripping
the
opposition
as
“Bereft
of
legal
arguments,”
a
vocabulary
decision
that
must
have
worked
its
way
in
while
Trump
nodded
off
like
he
keeps
doing
on
camera.
But
the
opposition’s
argument,
presented
over
a
straightforward
four
pages,
took
the
government
to
task
for
failing
to
even
attempt
a
legal
argument,
relying
instead
on
vague
citations
about
how
injunctions
work.
And
Plaintiff
was
asked
not
to
bring
and
prosecute
this
suit—just
look
at
the
numerous
briefs
where
Defendants
have
strongly
and
convincingly
argued
about
the
National
Security
interests
and
demanded
that
Plaintiff
drop
this
suit,
including
as
recently
as
the
day
after
an
assassin
attempted
to
murder
dozens
of
officials
and
members
of
the
public.
See
Definition
of
“Bring,”
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary
(“to
convey,
lead,
carry,
or
cause
to
come
along
with
one
toward
the
place
from
which
the
action
is
being
regarded”).
They
cited
the
dictionary
definition
of
“bring.”
The
Acting
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States
signed
a
court
filing
with
the
definition
of
“bring.”
Plaintiff
falsely
claims
that
Defendants’
motion
includes
“ad
hominem
attacks,”
ECF
No.
80
at
1,
but
not
one
such
“attack”
is
specifically
identified.
Plaintiff
never
disputes
its
lawsuit
is
motivated
by
Trump
Derangement
Syndrome.
To
the
extent
Plaintiff
means
the
reference
to
Attorney
Craig,
nobody
can
dispute
that
he
served
as
White
House
Counsel
for
“Barack
Hussein
Obama,”
Strunk
v.
U.S.
Dep’t
of
State,
693
F.
Supp.
2d
112,
113
(D.D.C.
2010)
(Leon,
J.).
It
is
interesting
that
Plaintiff
might
consider
that
relationship
to
be
an
“ad
hominem”
attack.
“Plaintiff
never
disputes
its
lawsuit
is
motivated
by
Trump
Derangement
Syndrome,”
is
first-ballot
Litigation
Hall
of
Fame
material.
Nothing
about
this
motion
makes
any
sense.
Judge
Leon’s
preliminary
injunction
is
currently
on
appeal
at
the
D.C.
Circuit.
The
district
court
has
been
divested
of
jurisdiction.
The
DOJ
is
asking
Leon,
under
Rule
62.1,
to
issue
an
“indicative
ruling”
that
he
would
dissolve
his
own
injunction
if
the
Circuit
kicked
the
case
back.
Except
there’s
no
new
evidence
here.
Someone
trying
to
attack
a
different
hotel
ballroom
does
not
give
a
president
the
authority
to
unilaterally
rebuild
a
national
monument.
The
fact
that
the
attack
was
unsuccessful
only
underscores
how
unnecessary
a
new
ballroom
would
be.
But
look,
the
problem
isn’t
the
legal
theory
—
as
frivolous
as
it
may
be.
It’s
that
none
of
this
is
how
Stanley
Woodward
or
Trent
McCotter
or
Todd
Blanche
writes.
This
is
how
one
specific
person
writes,
and
that
person
is
not
admitted
to
any
bar.
When
lawyers
sign
a
brief,
they
certify
under
Rule
11
that
it’s
grounded
in
fact
and
warranted
by
existing
law
or
a
non-frivolous
argument
for
extending
it.
Letting
the
client
vomit
their
social
media
posts
into
a
court
filing
runs
right
up
against
that.
Davis
Polk
&
Wardwell
isn’t
wasting
any
time
making
itself
at
home
in
Los
Angeles.
Just
weeks
after
announcing
its
long-awaited
L.A.
launch,
the
firm
is
already
reportedly
looking
to
build
out
a
full-service
office
in
Southern
California,
not
merely
plant
a
flag
with
a
few
high-profile
lateral
hires
and
call
it
a
day.
According
to
a
new
report
from
the
American
Lawyer,
Davis
Polk
has
much
bigger
ambitions
for
the
market.
That
means
more
hiring,
more
practice
groups,
and
even
more
competition
for
elite
West
Coast
talent
in
an
already
overheated
lateral
market.
The
move
follows
the
firm’s
recruitment
of
longtime
Skadden
Los
Angeles
office
leader
Jason
Russell
to
head
up
the
new
operation,
a
hire
that
immediately
signaled
Davis
Polk
wasn’t
interested
in
a
modest
California
debut.
And
based
on
Russell’s
comments
to
Am
Law,
the
firm’s
expansion
plans
extend
well
beyond
litigation.
The
office
“will
bolster
litigation,”
Russell
said,
while
adding
that
it
will
also
be
“strong
in
the
entertainment
space,
life
sciences
and
tech.”
In
other
words:
Davis
Polk
wants
in
on
virtually
every
lucrative
sector
Los
Angeles
has
to
offer.
Firm
chair
Neil
Barr
echoed
those
ambitions,
noting
that
the
office’s
transactional
capabilities
will
continue
to
grow
as
well.
“You’ll
see
our
corporate
transactional
footprint
expand
there
as
well
as
the
sectors
that
Jason
alluded
to,”
Barr
said.
“We
are
going
to
be
opportunistic
with
private
equity
and
(venture
capital)
work.”
Of
course,
having
nearly
$10
million
in
profits
per
partner
probably
doesn’t
hurt
when
it
comes
to
recruiting,
and
gives
the
firm
plenty
of
firepower
as
it
competes
for
top
lateral
talent.
Barr
was
candid
about
one
reason
behind
the
expansion:
“We
concluded
that
our
current
office
footprint
was
artificially
limiting
our
ability
to
attract
certain
talent.”
Translation:
elite
firms
increasingly
need
a
California
presence
if
they
want
access
to
the
full
pool
of
rainmakers
and
rising
stars.
And
per
Barr,
Davis
Polk
certainly
doesn’t
sound
worried
about
its
ability
to
scale
up
quickly
in
a
crowded
market:
“We
will
do
what
we
do
everywhere:
Hire
the
best
lawyers
in
the
geography
we
are
in.”
Simple
enough.
Best
of
luck
to
Davis
Polk
on
building
out
its
brand
new
Los
Angeles
outpost.
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.
The
time
for
spring
cleaning
is
upon
us.
Closets.
Garages.
Attics.
All
are
more
than
likely
do
for
their
annual
check
up
and
clean
out.
Law
firms,
on
the
other
hand,
may
have
landed
at
an
even
more
daunting
space
on
the
chore
wheel:
they
need
to
get
their
data
AI-ready.
It’s
not
billable,
not
glamorous,
and
you
can’t
boast
about
it
at
partnership
meetings.
But
if
your
firm
doesn’t
make
progress
on
data
readiness
in
2026,
you’ll
enter
2027
increasingly
unable
to
compete
on
AI
capabilities.
And
unlike
past
technology
waves
where
you
could
wait
and
see,
this
AI
arms
race
is
moving
too
fast
for
that
strategy.
Spring
Cleaning
for
Your
DMS
Law
firms
sit
on
millions
of
documents
such
as
motions,
briefs,
agreements,
memos,
and
templates.
In
theory,
this
powers
impressive
AI
applications.
In
practice,
most
of
this
content
is
unstructured:
created
in
Word,
scanned
from
paper,
uploaded
without
systematic
organization
like
unique
filenames
or
tags.
This
misses
the
contextual
metadata
that
AI
needs.
Here’s
what
this
looks
like.
Say
we
analyze
statutory
data
from
New
York,
California,
and
Illinois.
AI
can
read
every
word
perfectly.
What
it
can’t
do
is
tell
you
which
statute
comes
from
which
state,
because
the
statute
text
doesn’t
say
“this
is
a
California
statute.”
It
just
states
the
law.
When
someone
asks,
“What
does
California
law
say
about
non-competes?”
Your
AI
genuinely
doesn’t
know
which
documents
are
California
law.
You
need
metadata
tags:
“this
document
=
California
statute,”
“this
document
=
labor
law
topic,”
“this
document
=
tech
industry.”
Multiply
this
gap
across
practice
areas
and
document
types,
and
you
see
why
firms
that
skipped
organizational
work
struggle
while
others
deploy
sophisticated
tools.
Nobody
Wants
This
Job
The
resistance
is
rational.
Data
cleanup
requires
human
effort
for
tasks
like
reviewing
documents,
applying
tags,
and
verifying
accuracy.
It
can’t
be
fully
automated.
And
frankly,
if
you’re
allocating
human
resources,
you’d
rather
apply
them
to
billable
work.
I
talk
to
research
staff
at
firms
who
completely
understand
why
this
matters.
They
see
the
connection
between
data
quality
and
AI
capability.
But
they’re
working
with
minimal
investment
because
getting
partnership
approval
for
“we
need
people
organizing
files
for
six
months”
is
genuinely
difficult.
The
firms
that
invested
early,
before
AI
became
trendy,
are
now
showing
clients
actual
AI
tools
they’ve
developed
in-house
during
pitches,
not
future
plans.
They’re
connecting
vendor
APIs
seamlessly.
They’re
winning
business
on
technical
capabilities
competitors
can’t
match.
Do
the
math.
One
million
documents?
Maybe
300,000
are
truly
critical.
Of
those,
perhaps
20,000
need
metadata
enrichment,
and
the
rest
work
fine
for
AI
based
on
text
alone.
Deliver
that
first
20,000
in
Q1.
Build
your
AI
application
on
top
of
it.
Measure
results.
Then
decide
on
phase
two.
This
creates
a
business
case
that
executives
can
understand:
targeted
investment,
quarterly
deliverable,
measurable
outcomes.
Not
an
indefinite
commitment
based
on
faith.
Lead
With
Your
Superpower
Don’t
ask
“which
data
should
we
organize?”
Ask
“which
data
supports
what
makes
us
different?”
Your
firm’s
primary
differentiator,
where
you’re
genuinely
recognized
as
experts,
that’s
your
starting
point.
Known
for
workers’
compensation
expertise?
Make
that
content
AI-ready
first.
Securities
transactions?
Start
there.
This
focused
approach
lets
you
deploy
meaningful
AI
capabilities
in
your
specialty
area
while
competitors
are
still
trying
to
organize
everything
simultaneously.
The
business
development
advantage
is
immediate
and
concrete.
Instead
of
telling
prospects,
“we’re
exploring
AI
applications,”
you
can
say
“we
built
an
AI
tool
on
our
proprietary
workers’
comp
precedent
library
and
decades
of
matter
experience.
No
other
firm
can
offer
this
capability.”
That’s
differentiation
you
can
demonstrate
in
live
demos,
not
just
promise
in
pitch
decks.
This
matters
because
clients
are
in
their
own
AI
learning
curve.
They’re
asking
firms
not
just
whether
they
use
AI,
but
how
that
AI
leverages
the
firm’s
specific
expertise.
Generic
AI
tools
are
available
to
everyone.
AI
built
on
your
firm’s
proprietary,
organized
content?
That’s
an
actual
competitive
advantage.
After
phase
one
delivers
results,
measure
carefully.
Did
you
win
pitches
based
on
the
AI
capability?
Close
matters
faster?
Increase
wallet
share
with
existing
clients
who
value
the
technology
advantage?
Those
metrics
become
your
business
case
for
expanding
to
the
next
practice
area.
And
once
infrastructure
is
built,
adding
more
data
is
dramatically
simpler
than
initial
setup.
Waiting
Isn’t
a
Strategy
Many
firms
hope
AI
will
eventually
handle
unstructured
data
well
enough
without
human
help.
That’s
not
happening,
at
least
not
in
timeframes
that
matter
for
competitive
positioning.
AI
cannot
infer
context
that
isn’t
there.
It
can’t
determine
statute
jurisdiction
if
nobody
tagged
it.
This
requires
human
knowledge.
Right
now,
clients
ask
during
pitches
how
you’re
using
AI
to
deliver
value.
Firms
with
AI-ready
data
demonstrate
tools.
Firms
without
it
discuss
pilots.
Clients
notice,
and
that
gap
widens
quarterly.
Firms
that
are
winning
treat
this
as
competitive
imperative
with
quarterly
goals,
not
someday
project.
They’re
investing
in
unglamorous
foundation
work
while
others
wait
for
easier
answers
that
aren’t
coming.
Your
90-Day
Plan
Start
with
three
questions:
What
practice
area
defines
our
advantage?
What
documents
support
that?
What
metadata
makes
those
documents
AI-useful?
Then
commit
to
90
days.
Your
research
staff
and
senior
associates
know
which
content
matters
most.
Aim
for
meaningful
progress
you
can
build
on
next
quarter,
not
perfection.
Quarterly
progress
on
data
readiness
is
a
spring
project
worth
initiating
in
2026.
Prioritize
focused
work
on
content
that
supports
what
makes
you
special.
Like
the
gym,
starting
is
the
hardest.
Unlike
the
gym,
your
competitors
are
already
there,
and
skipping
it
costs
you
pitches
and
clients.
Nicole
Stone
is
Director
of
AI
&
Agentic
Solutions
Product
Management
at
Wolters
Kluwer
Legal
&
Regulatory
U.S.,
where
she
leads
product
strategy
and
development
for
digital
legal
content
and
technology
solutions.
With
over
22
years
of
experience
in
legal
technology
and
a
background
as
a
practicing
attorney,
she
focuses
on
integrating
emerging
technologies,
including
generative
AI,
into
products
that
serve
legal
professionals.
When
generative
AI
first
crashed
into
legal,
my
biggest
question
wasn’t
whether
it
was
useful,
but
if
lawyers
would
embrace
the
idea
of
a
chatbot.
It
worked
for
the
masses,
but
would
lawyers
really
want
to
do
their
work
by
typing
vague
questions
to
an
obsequious
robot?
It
turned
out,
for
most
lawyers,
“typing
vague
questions
to
an
obsequious
robot”
was
how
they’d
seen
junior
associates
all
along
and
the
chatbot
interface
took
off.
This
week,
NetDocuments
unveiled
a
new
feature
that
also
borrows
from
the
consumer
AI
world,
announcing
what
it’s
calling
the
first
legal
context
graph
—
a
continuously
indexed
structure
that
maps
the
relationships
between
every
matter,
document,
and
communication
in
a
firm that
connects
across
hundreds
of
millions
of
records.
It
should
go
without
saying
that
it
does
this
with
full
respect
for
the
firm’s
existing
permissions
and
ethical
walls.
In
the
consumer
AI
world,
Obsidian
took
off
as
a
note-taking
repository
because
it
allowed
users
to
create
graphs
to
visualize
the
relationships
between
notes.
NetDocuments
offers
that
concept
on
steroids,
building
out
the
graphical
approach
for
AI’s
benefit.
To
quote
from
the
press
release,
the
result
is
not
a
new
interface,
but
a
“fundamental
shift
in
what
the
platform
is.”
Not
that
the
interface
isn’t
getting
a
redesign
too,
a
product
of,
according
to
the
company,
39
design
studies
and
more
than
1,500
participants.
But,
and
for
law
firms
this
is
the
most
important
news,
users
can
toggle
between
the
existing
and
new
platform
with
no
technical
migration.
For
those
lawyers
who
hate
change.
Taking
this
graphical
approach,
NetDocuments
endeavors
to
build
a
system
that
truly
understands
the
work
it’s
storing.
By
constantly
connecting
files
in
the
whole
repository,
a
lawyer
opening
up
an
unfamiliar
matter
can
see
the
full
context,
a
summary,
key
parties,
an
activity
timeline,
and
the
people
who
have
done
this
work
before.
The
AI
working
inside
NetDocuments
(or
external
tools
connected
to
NetDocs
via
MCP,
like
Claude,
ChatGPT,
or
other
legal
AI
applications)
can
now
navigate
all
these
document
relationships
to
deliver
the
overview
and
set
the
stage
for
the
user
to
begin
working
within
the
matter.
The
premise
is
that
bottleneck
in
legal
AI
is
in
what
it
can
see.
Everyone’s
had
an
LLM
get
lazy
and
go
rogue
when
it
can’t
immediately
find
what
it’s
looking
for.
Building
out
these
connections
greases
the
wheels
for
the
AI.
NetDocuments
designed
the
system
with
AWS
and
Elastic
to
continuously
process
and
connect
hundreds
of
millions
of
documents
under
strict
governance.
It
indexes
at
three
levels.
There’s
the
document
level
—
classification,
extracted
entities,
version
history
with
auto-generated
summaries
of
what
changed
and
why.
There’s
the
matter
level
—
auto-assembled
overviews,
key
parties,
dates,
team
visibility,
an
activity
timeline
that
surfaces
both
human
and
AI
agent
activity.
And
there’s
the
global
level
—
natural
language
search
across
the
whole
repository,
governed
by
the
same
access
controls
and
ethical
walls
that
already
exist
in
the
DMS.
A
good
example
of
what
this
looks
like
in
action
is
its
co-authoring
feature
in
Microsoft
Word.
Attorneys
can
issue
natural-language
instructions
to
update
sections
of
a
brief
based
on,
say,
a
newly
added
expert
report.
The
graphical
connections
allow
the
AI
to
understand
the
request
and
go
draw
upon
the
expert
report
it
knows
lives
within
the
system.
It’s
all
about
connections.
The
AI
influencers
out
there
talk
about
maximizing
AI
by
building
a
“second
brain”
with
connected
files.
NetDocuments
has
its
indexers
doing
that
automatically
every
time
something
gets
added.
Lawyers
have
spent
years
organizing
files
with
folders
and
idiosyncratic
file
names.
Lawyers
are
trained
to
think
in
terms
of
v.FINAL_FINAL_clean_jp_v3.
But,
like
the
chatbot
interface
before,
NetDocuments
is
betting
that
lawyers
will
embrace
this
new
mode
of
thinking
about
document
management.
Because
the
AI
will
definitely
prefer
it.
In
many
corporate
circles,
plaintiff’s
personal
injury
work
still
carries
a
dated
image:
heavy
advertising,
informal
systems,
and
a
focus
on
volume
over
precision.
Inside
a
modern,
high-performing
injury
practice,
the
reality
looks
very
different.
Empirical
studies
of
civil
litigation
consistently
show
that
well
under
2%
of
civil
cases
reach
trial,
and
roughly
nine
out
of
ten
tort
cases
resolve
through
settlement.
In
that
environment,
personal
injury
practices
that
thrive
do
so
by
mastering
fast
intake,
lean
staffing,
technology,
and
risk-based
decision-making
—
areas
where
many
large
law
operations
still
struggle.
Houston-based
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates,
led
by
former
insurance
agent
and
widely
recognized
top
Houston
personal
injury
lawyer
Joe
Zaid,
offers
a
clear
example
of
this
evolution.
From
its
new
downtown
office
at
1001
Texas
Avenue,
Joe
I.
Zaid &
Associates
operates
more
like
a
disciplined,
data-driven
litigation
business
than
a
traditional
volume
shop.
The
way
this
expert
trial
team
handles
intake,
communication,
and
case
value
offers
valuable
lessons
for
Biglaw
and
in-house
counsel
alike.
1.
Fast,
Structured
Client
Intake
Legal
marketing
data
shows
that
the
office
that
responds
to
a
new
inquiry
first
often
signs
the
case.
High-performing
personal
injury
practices
treat
this
as
a
core
business
rule,
not
a
suggestion.
At
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates,
intake
is
built
for
speed
and
judgment:
Calls
and
digital
inquiries
receive
rapid,
live
responses
whenever
possible.
Early
questioning
pinpoints
liability,
available
coverage,
injury
severity,
and
venue.
Attorneys
apply
case-value
discipline
from
day
one,
focusing
on
matters
where
expert-level
work
can
truly
influence
the
outcome.
This
is
more
than
customer
service.
It
is
a
way
of
protecting
resources
for
the
right
cases
and
protecting
clients
from
unrealistic
expectations.
For
Biglaw,
the
takeaway
is
simple:
treat
intake
as
a
high-skill,
time-sensitive
function,
not
an
afterthought.
2.
Clear,
Predictable
Communication
Because
most
civil
cases
resolve
before
trial,
clients
spend
far
more
time
waiting
for
updates
than
watching
courtroom
drama.
When
communication
falters,
satisfaction
drops
—
even
with
good
results.
Personal
injury
clients
are
often
first-time
participants
in
the
legal
system,
so
leading
practices
have
been
forced
to
build
sophisticated
communication
systems.
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates,
one
of
Houston’s
best-regarded
injury-focused
offices,
treats
communication
as
a
core
deliverable:
New
clients
receive
a
plain-language
roadmap
of
the
case
lifecycle.
Regular
check-ins
are
scheduled
and
documented.
Insurance,
medical,
and
legal
concepts
are
explained
in
direct,
concrete
terms.
Corporate
clients
appreciate
the
same
things:
clarity,
cadence,
and
consistency.
If
a
lean
contingency
practice
can
deliver
that
experience
to
hundreds
of
active
clients,
larger
organizations
can
apply
similar
discipline
to
institutional
matters.
3.
Data-Driven
Marketing
and
Intake
Management
Personal
injury
practices
survive
on
their
ability
to
turn
marketing
spend
into
signed,
high-quality
cases.
That
pressure
has
pushed
many
of
the
most
successful
offices
into
an
advanced,
analytics-heavy
model.
A
modern
specialist
like
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
tracks:
Which
channels
generate
serious,
signable
cases
—
not
just
clicks
or
impressions.
How
response
times
affect
conversion
and
long-term
matter
value.
Where
staff
time
at
intake
produces
the
highest
return.
Technology
underpins
this
work.
Case
management
systems,
call
tracking,
automated
reminders,
and
structured
workflows
allow
a
relatively
lean
but
rapidly
growing
Houston
team
to
manage
a
demanding
docket.
Biglaw
marketing
and
intake
operations,
often
cushioned
by
legacy
relationships,
can
learn
from
this
relentless
focus
on
measurable
performance.
4.
Lean
Staffing
and
Case-Value
Discipline
Hourly
billing
can
hide
inefficiencies.
Contingency
fees
expose
them.
Every
extra
hour
or
additional
professional
must
be
justified
by
the
likely
impact
on
recovery.
At
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates,
that
reality
drives
a
lean,
expert-focused
approach:
Paralegals
and
case
managers
work
at
the
top
of
their
licenses,
handling
structured
workflows.
Attorneys
concentrate
on
high-leverage
tasks:
strategy,
negotiation,
deposition
practice,
and
trial.
Decisions
about
experts,
focus
groups,
and
advanced
visuals
are
weighed
against
detailed,
realistic
value
projections.
This
case-value
discipline
is
baked
into
the
business
model.
Corporate
practices
that
routinely
field
large
teams
can
borrow
this
lens
by
asking,
at
every
phase,
whether
staffing
and
costs
reflect
the
true
stakes
and
client
objectives.
5.
Local
Market
Knowledge
and
Community
Roots
Personal
injury
litigation
remains
intensely
local.
Jury
attitudes,
judicial
preferences,
defense
counsel
habits,
and
recurring
defendants
all
shape
the
true
value
of
a
case.
In
Houston,
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
has
built
deep
experience
with
serious
premises
and
injury
matters
involving
major
retailers,
including
HEB
and
Walmart.
That
specialization
provides:
Insight
into
recurring
safety
issues
and
fact
patterns
in
local
stores.
Familiarity
with
how
particular
carriers
and
defense
teams
approach
these
claims.
A
grounded
sense
of
how
Harris
County
jurors
tend
to
view
responsibility
in
these
settings.
Those
professional
strengths
sit
alongside
visible
community
commitment.
The
new
downtown
Houston
location
and
exterior
sign
at
the
Pasadena
office
signal
long-term
investment
in
the
city’s
core
business
district.
Sponsorships,
neighborhood
outreach,
and
seasonal
turkey
giveaways
align
the
practice
with
the
everyday
lives
of
the
people
it
represents.
Biglaw
often
emphasizes
national
or
global
reach.
The
Houston
experience
shows
how
serious,
expert-level
local
knowledge
and
community
presence
can
directly
improve
fact
development,
negotiation,
and
trial
strategy.
6.
Trial
Readiness
in
a
Settlement-Heavy
System
Even
though
only
a
small
fraction
of
civil
cases
reach
trial,
trial
readiness
still
moves
markets.
Insurers
and
repeat
defendants
pay
close
attention
to
which
lawyers
actually
try
cases
and
which
ones
reliably
settle.
From
its
downtown
Houston
base,
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
treats
trial
readiness
as
a
daily
mindset:
Evidence
is
preserved
and
organized
with
potential
jurors
in
mind,
not
just
adjusters.
Discovery
is
aimed
at
the
issues
that
will
matter
most
in
front
of
a
jury.
Experts
are
chosen
for
clarity
and
credibility
under
cross,
not
just
for
résumé
lines.
This
approach
is
one
reason
Joe
Zaid
is
viewed
as
a
top
trial-ready
personal
injury
specialist
in
the
region.
For
corporate
litigators
and
in-house
counsel,
the
lesson
is
that
genuine
trial
capability
—
even
if
rarely
deployed
—
can
significantly
improve
settlement
posture
and
partner
credibility.
7.
Risk-Based
Decision-Making
Informed
by
Insurance
Insight
Because
personal
injury
practices
share
financial
risk
with
clients,
they
must
constantly
analyze
when
to
invest
further
and
when
to
resolve.
That
analysis
sharpens
even
more
when
leadership
understands
insurance
from
the
inside.
Before
building
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
into
one
of
Houston’s
leading
personal
injury
practices,
Joe
Zaid
worked
as
an
insurance
agent.
That
experience
gives
the
office
a
nuanced
view
of
how
carriers:
Set
and
adjust
reserves&
Evaluate
exposure
as
facts
develop
React
to
new
evidence,
experts,
and
approaching
trial
dates
Combined
with
detailed
case
metrics,
this
insight
supports
structured,
risk-based
decision-making.
At
each
stage,
clients
receive
clear
explanations
of
best-case,
worst-case,
and
most
likely
outcomes,
along
with
timing
and
cost
considerations.
This
is
the
same
kind
of
rigorous
risk
counseling
sophisticated
corporate
clients
expect
—
delivered
in
a
context
where
the
practice
itself
is
fully
aligned
with
the
client’s
financial
outcome.;
A
Houston
Model
for
Modern
Legal
Practice
Houston’s
volume
of
serious
injury
events,
including
thousands
of
crashes
and
premises
incidents
each
year,
creates
a
demanding
environment
for
plaintiff’s
practices.
In
that
setting,
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
has
emerged
as
a
leading,
expert
personal
injury
practice
by
combining:
Fast,
structured
intake
Clear,
predictable
communication
Data-driven
marketing
and
technology
use
Lean
staffing
and
consistent
case-value
discipline
Deep
local
knowledge,
including
extensive
experience
with
community
specific
retail
stores
Genuine
trial
readiness
in
a
settlement-heavy
system
Sophisticated,
insurance-informed
risk
analysis
For
Biglaw
leaders
and
in-house
departments,
the
message
is
not
that
every
operation
should
mirror
a
contingency
practice.
It
is
that
some
of
the
most
advanced
thinking
about
client
service,
efficiency,
and
risk
now
lives
inside
top
personal
injury
offices.
In
Houston,
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
provides
a
vivid
example
of
what
a
modern,
expert-level
personal
injury
practice
looks
like
—
and
a
reminder
that
innovation
often
starts
closest
to
the
clients
who
feel
legal
outcomes
most
directly.
Joe
I.
Zaid
&
Associates
1001
Texas
Ave
Suite
1400
Houston,
TX
77002
(346)
340-0800
Legal
ops
professionals
are
gaining
significant
seats
at
in-house
and
even
C-Suite
tables.
They
come
with
management
efficiencies,
business
principles,
and
a
goal
to
change
the
practice
for
the
better.
But
it
sounds
like
outside
counsel
may
be
turning
a
deaf
ear.
One
of
the
more
interesting
and
timely
sessions
at
the
CLOC
conference
this
week
was
entitled,
What
Do
Law
Firms
Still
Not
Understand
about
Legal
Ops.
It
was
facilitated
by
Emily
Stedman,
who
herself
is
a
commercial
litigation
partner
in
a
well-known
firm,
Husch
Blackwell.
But
it
was
really
an
audience
discussion
session
under
CLOC’s
heading
“community
conversations,”
where
the
audience
was
invited
to
provide
comments
and
insights.
And
the
audience
was
primarily
made
up
of
in-house
legal
ops
professionals.
It
was
timely
because
more
and
more,
in-house
legal
departments
and
the
C-suite
will
be
looking
to
apply
business
principles
to
how
their
outside
lawyers
handle
and
manage
matters.
Which
of
course
is
what
legal
ops
is
all
about.
Does
Outside
Counsel
Have
an
Attitude?
I
wasn’t
sure
what
I
was
going
to
hear.
My
instinct
was
that
too
many
firms,
and
lawyers
for
that
matter,
seem
to
think
it’s
business
as
usual
and
that
they
can
continue
to
do
things
without
a
working
knowledge
of
what
legal
ops
is
and
what
legal
ops
professionals
do.
One
piece
of
evidence:
like
usual,
very
few
practicing
lawyers
are
at
the
CLOC
conference.
Which
is
funny
since
not
only
is
the
conference
an
opportunity
to
learn
more
about
legal
ops
and
what
their
clients
are
thinking,
it
would
give
outside
counsel
access
to
legal
ops
professionals
in
big
companies
who
often
play
a
role
in
counsel
selection
and
management.
Without
that
knowledge,
you
have
to
wonder
how
outside
counsel
can
hope
to
be
ready
for
what’s
coming.
Particularly
as
AI
enables
greater
speed
and
efficiencies,
the
impact
of
legal
ops
will
only
increase.
And
of
course,
there
were
no
outside
lawyers
in
the
session
on
what
they
should
know
about
a
discipline
that
is
more
and
more
prominent
in
the
legal
landscape.
Why
was
this
my
instinct?
Traditionally
outside
lawyers
have
viewed
in-house
legal
departments
as
frankly
a
pain.
There
was
an
air
of
arrogance
and
superiority
about
in-house
legal
teams:
they
can’t
possibly
know
more
than
me
about
how
to
handle
a
matter.
The
thinking
is,
because
of
my
skill
and
expertise,
I’m
running
the
show.
And
that
attitude
would
go
double
for
the
“non-lawyer”
legal
ops
professionals.
I
know.
I’ve
seen
it.
On
the
other
hand,
I
held
out
some
hope
that
this
attitude
and
lack
of
collaboration
was
a
relic
of
a
bygone
era.
Unfortunately,
based
on
the
comments
I
heard,
it
still
prevails.
And
the
Audience
Says
The
discussion
was
started
with
a
story
by
an
audience
member
about
telling
a
partner
in
her
outside
law
firm
she
was
coming
to
a
legal
ops
conference.
His
response:
“What
does
legal
ops
entail?”
That
lack
of
knowledge
both
about
legal
ops
and
what
in-house
legal
wants
of
outside
counsel
permeated
the
discussion.
An
opening
question
to
the
audience
revealed
this
in
spades:
What
do
outside
counsel
know
or
not
know
about
legal
ops?
The
first
hand
went
up
and
shouted
out:
that
it
exists!
But
it
went
beyond
that:
audience
members
offered
that
outside
counsel
need
to
understand
that
legal
ops
can
and
do
help
with
the
delivery
of
legal
service.
They
need
to
understand
the
scope
of
what
they
are
being
asked
to
do,
the
budget
constraints
in-house
legal
face,
and
the
timelines
in-house
is
dealing
with.
All
of
these
are
pressures
in-house
counsel
the
legal
ops
team
deal
with
daily.
And:
outside
counsel
never
even
ask
about
the
in-house
legal
ops
team
and
how
they
can
help
them
navigate
the
matter
to
conclusion.
Audience
members
pointed
out
that
outside
counsel
still
do
not
try
to
efficiently
use
their
resources
to
provide
service
at
a
lower
cost.
They
don’t
make
use
of
alternative
resources
among
those
who
may
not
be
lawyers.
They
don’t
follow
outside
counsel
guidelines.
They
don’t
involve
their
internal
pricing
teams.
There
is
a
lack
of
transparency.
They
don’t
get
bills
and
budgets
in
on
time
and
be
sure
they
are
right.
One
audience
member
said
she
was
just
emailing
her
outside
counsel
during
the
session
about
something
and
he
immediately
tried
to
upsell
her
on
something
else.
Her
response:
I
just
ran
the
“something
else”
through
AI
and
already
have
the
answer.
Which
of
course
the
outside
lawyer
could
have
done.
Heads
nodded
and
eyes
rolled.
When
it
comes
to
RFPs,
simple
things
like
providing
representative
experience
when
responding
are
ignored.
Instead,
firms
provide
300
pages
glorifying
what
the
firm
and
its
members
had
done
that
has
little
relevance
and
is
self-serving.
Respond
in
the
way
the
RFP
asks
for:
if
it
wants
stuff
in
Excel,
do
it.
Follow
instructions.
One
other
thing
that
was
telling:
the
audience
was
asked,
what
do
outside
counsel
do
right?
Silence.
Then
the
answers
jumped
right
back
to
what
the
audience
wished
their
outside
lawyers
would
do
better.
All
this
from
a
30-minute
program.
But
it
pretty
well
paints
the
picture
of
still
existing
great
divide
between
in-house
legal
and
outside
counsel.
It
was
like
stepping
back
in
time
20
years.
Granted,
the
discussion
implicitly
encouraged
a
gripe
session.
And
it’s
easy
to
focus
on
the
negative
in
a
discussion
like
this.
But
even
so,
what
I
heard
was
true
frustration
by
those
who
have
a
big
say
in
how
things
are
handled
and
who
gets
hired.
Want
To
Succeed
in
the
Future?
Embrace
Legal
Ops
Sadly,
lots
of
lawyers
will
read
all
this
and
conclude
big
deal,
no
one’s
making
me
change.
I’m
pretty
indispensable.
I
got
news
for
you:
you’re
not.
Not
when
over
2,000
legal
ops
professionals
gather
every
year
with
the
sole
goal
to
expand
their
influence
and
the
services
they
provide.
All
to
better
enable
in-house
legal
and
the
C-suite
to
manage
legal
expenses
and
get
better
results.
It’s
gotten
trite
to
say
that
future
successful
firms
will
harness
the
AI
tools
and
use
them
to
serve
clients.
But
that’s
only
a
portion
of
the
overall
key
to
success.
AI
is
only
one
part
of
what
legal
ops
will
use
to
better
serve
their
clients,
the
businesses
they
serve.
What
we
really
should
be
saying
is
that
the
future
successful
firms
will
embrace
legal
ops,
will
hire
legal
ops
professionals,
and
show
up
at
conferences
like
CLOC
to
hear
what’s
really
going
on
with
your
clients
and
where
they
are
going.
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.
Flimsy
and
corrupt
authoritarian
populism
is
dedicated
to
pretending
that
the
oligarchs
and
autocrats really
care
about
the
people.
One
way
Trumpism
has
done
this
is
by
pretending
they
actually
care
about
reining
in
corporate
power.
That’s
included
an
elaborate,
multi-year
performance
about
how
MAGA
Republicans
were
going
to
curb
abuses
by
“big
tech”
and bring
back
meaningful
antitrust
reform.
“Netflix’s
years-long
bait-and-switch
has
led
the
company
right
to
where
it
promised
never
to
be:
addicting
children
and
families
to
its
platform,
mining
those
users
for
data,
and
then
converting
that
data
into
lucrative
intelligence
for
global
advertising
juggernauts.”
Granted
Netflix
is
not
unique
here.
In
a
country
too
corrupt
to
pass
meaningful
privacy
laws
(because
MAGA
Republicans
just
like
Ken routinely
work
to
kill
them),
nearly
every
company
you
interact
with
on
a
daily
basis
now
monetizes
your
every
movement
and
online
choices,
“anonymizes”
it
(a
meaningless
term),
sells
access
to
dodgy
international
data
brokers,
then repeatedly
lies
about
it.
They
do
this
because
Republicans,
corporate
lobbyists,
and
many
“centrist”
Democrats
have,
quite
unsubtly,
worked
tirelessly
to
dismantle
corporate
oversight
and
regulatory
autonomy.
Most
companies
have
been
eager
to
take
advantage,
including
Netflix
CEO
Reed
Hastings,
who,
like
countless
other
CEOs,
used
to
at
least
pay
empty
lip
service
to
never
tracking
or
monetizing
consumer
data.
Paxton’s
lawsuit
insists
Netflix
has
built
a
vast
surveillance
economy
that
includes
peoples’
kids
viewing
habits,
violating
Texas
consumer
protection
law:
“Netflix
built
this
surveillance
machinery
to
scrutinize
how
users
and
their
children
behave—what
they
click,
how
long
they
linger,
what
they
avoid,
when
they
pause,
what
draws
them
in,
what
they
replay
or
skip,
where
they
are,
what
devices
they
use,
what
other
devices
are
in
their
home,
what
other
apps
they
interact
with,
and
much
more.
Each
action
is
a
data
point
revealing
something
about
the
user.
This
is
not
simply
about
deciding
what
show
to
queue
up
next.It
is
about
learning
who
the
users
and
their
children
are.”
Again:
almost
every
single
company
you
interact
with
does
this
now.
Many
in
ways
that
are far
worse than
Netflix
(see:
the entire
unregulated
data
broker
economy).
Paxton
knows
this.
So
why
single
out
Netflix?
And
why
now?
These
sorts
of
lawsuits
take
a
while
to
build
momentum,
so
I
suspect
Paxton’s
inquiry
began
during
the
mad
conspiratorial
heat
of
MAGA’s
Netflix
breakdown
earlier
this
year,
and
is
only
culminating
now.
And
I
suspect
Paxton
will
be
eager
to
share
any
juicy
and
harmful
tidbits
found
during
trial
prep
to
help
frame
the
company
(which
in
reality
has
been pretty
amicable
toward
Republicans and trans
bashing
comedians)
as
a
useful
“woke”
culture
war
prop.
That’s
not
to
say
Netflix
doesn’t
do
anything
wrong
and
isn’t
(like
every
tech
company)
abysmal
on
surveillance
and
privacy,
but
it is to
say
that
authoritarians don’t
actually
care
about
the
public
interest.
And
they
certainly
don’t
actually
care
about
mass
commercialized
surveillance,
given
they’ve
played
a
starring
role
in
cementing
it
and eliminating
all
accountability
for
it.
The
American
public’s
broad
and
growing
hatred
of
corporations
and
the
extraction
class
has
long
been
a
fertile
recruitment
playground
for
autocratic
zealots
like
Trump
and
Paxton,
who
love
to
put
on
adorable
little
stage
plays
where
they
pretend
to
be
“reining
in
corporate
power”
and
“embracing
meaningful
antitrust
reform.”
But
it’s
uniformly
a
performance
always
driven
by
ulterior
motives.
If
guys
like
Trump
and
Paxton
actually
cared
about
consumer
privacy,
they’d
openly
and
loudly
support
a
national
privacy
law
that
holds all companies
(and
executives,
personally)
accountable
for
privacy
and
security
failures
when
it
comes
to
consumer
data.
If
they
cared
about
consumer
privacy,
they’d
relentlessly
target
data
brokers
that
sell
oceans
of
consumer
data
to
any
nitwit
with
a
nickel
(including
foreign
intelligence).
They’d
fund
and
staff
U.S.
regulators
tasked
with
policing
privacy
abuses.
They
don’t
do
that
because
that
might
impact
them
and
their
friends
financially,
and
disrupt
the
U.S.
government’s
ability
to spy
on
Americans
without
a
warrant.
So
instead
you
get
these
highly
selective
and
flimsy
populist
performances
that
single
out
administration
“enemies”
for
failing
to
adequately
bend
the
knee,
while
tricking
rubes
into
thinking
they’re
being
tough
on
corporate
power.
