Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
To
maintain
a
financially
healthy
law
firm,
you
must
keep
the
work
coming
in
the
door
while
effectively
collecting
the
funds
that
you’re
owed.
In
this
monthly
checklist,
our
friends
at
8am
share
simple
steps
that
will
help
you
to
do
both.
Download
it
today
for
some
quick
steps
to
upgrade
your
cash
flow.
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee
has
had
one
heck
of
a
year
—
less
than
a
year,
actually.
The
boutique
was
founded
in
May
after
its
top
brass
—
Karen
Dunn,
Bill
Isaacson,
Jessica
Phillips, and
Jeannie
Rhee
—
left
Paul
Weiss
in
the
wake
of
the
Biglaw
firm’s
surrender
to
the
Trump
administration. More
and
more
partners
and
associates
fled
Paul
Weiss
to
join
the
new
firm,
bulking
up
its
ranks.
Now,
the
firm
is
handing
out
bountiful
bonuses
to
its
associates.
As
reported
by
Bloomberg
Law,
associates
at
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee
will
receive
bonuses
starting
at
$21,000
and
going
all
the
way
up
to
$140,000,
based
on
seniority.
On
top
of
those
bonuses,
associates
will
also
receive
a
$35,000
special
bonus,
for
a
total
of
up
to
$175,000
for
its
most
senior
associates.
With
Biglaw
bonuses
topping
out
at
$140,000
all
in,
this
brand
new
boutique
is
putting
market
bonuses
to
shame.
Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee!
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 LinkedIn.
President
Donald
Trump’s
signature
tariffs
are
being
scrutinized
by
the
Supreme
Court
after
they
were
struck
down
by
both
the
Court
of
International
Trade
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Federal
Circuit.
Many
commentators
believe
a
decision
could
come
as
soon
as
the
end
of
the
year,
and
the
high
court
will
not
uphold
the
tariffs.
But
Trump
claims
that
even
if
he
loses,
he
has
other
ways
to
keep
the
tariffs
in
place,
potentially
shifting
to
alternative
legal
authorities
like
Sections
232
or
301
of
existing
trade
laws.
So
what
is
Trump
trying
to
accomplish
with
the
tariffs?
Have
they
worked
so
far?
And
what
should
Trump
do
if
they
are
overturned?
Since
the
1980s,
Trump
has
complained
that
the
rest
of
the
world
was
taking
advantage
of
the
U.S.
or
even
“ripping
the
country
off”
through
what
he
thinks
are
lopsided
trade
deals.
He
also
said
that
the
North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement
ratified
in
1994
was
the
worst
deal
ever
made
because
it
led
to
higher
trade
deficits
with
Canada
and
Mexico.
Also,
NAFTA
resulted
in
lost
U.S.
jobs
because
large
businesses
moved
their
manufacturing
to
Mexico
due
to
that
country’s
cheaper
labor
costs.
During
his
first
term,
Trump
issued
tariffs
but
they
focused
only
on
a
few
countries.
But
the
most
publicized
tariffs
were
those
imposed
on
China,
which
led
to
retaliatory
tariffs
(particularly
on
products
made
in
red
states)
and
a
trade
war.
He
also
renegotiated
trade
deals
with
Canada
and
Mexico
by
replacing
NAFTA
with
the
new
U.S.-Mexico-Canada
agreement
or
USMCA.
But
during
his
second
term,
Trump
issued
tariffs
on
almost
every
country,
calling
it
“Liberation
Day.”
The
tariffs
ranged
from
10%
to
over
50%.
Only
a
few
countries
were
exempt
from
Liberation
Day
tariffs,
notably
Mexico
and
Canada
due
to
their
existing
agreements
under
USMCA.
Curiously,
North
Korea,
Cuba,
Russia,
and
Belarus
(known
for
having
very
close
ties
with
Russia)
were
exempt
from
Liberation
Day
citing
existing
sanctions
which
made
the
tariffs
redundant.
As
legal
support,
Trump
mainly
relied
on
the
International
Emergency
Economic
Powers
Act
(IEEPA).
IEEPA
does
not
explicitly
allow
the
president
to
issue
tariffs.
But
it
states
that
the
president
can
only
regulate
imports
to
deal
with
an
unusual
or
extraordinary
threat.
Trump
has
stated
on
numerous
occasions
that
he
believes
the
trade
deficits
are
a
threat
to
national
security,
even
though
none
of
his
predecessors
did.
Because
of
the
unclear
statutory
language,
the
Supreme
Court
will
decide
(among
other
issues)
whether
the
major
questions
doctrine
applies
to
the
tariffs.
Do
the
tariffs
have
such
a
large
political
or
economic
significance
to
require
clear
Congressional
authorization?
The
major
questions
doctrine
was
famously
applied
to
disallow
former
president
Joe
Biden’s
$10,000
cancellation
of
federal
student
loans.
Biden’s
loan
cancellation
program
is
estimated
to
have
cost
half
a
trillion
dollars.
The
Liberation
Day
tariffs
so
far
has
brought
in
over
$250
billion
to
date,
and
President
Trump
has
bragged
that
the
tariffs
could
bring
in
$1
trillion.
So
how
have
the
Liberation
Day
tariffs
done
so
far?
A
Yale
Budget
Lab
study
believes
the
average
household
will
lose
$2,700
in
purchasing
power
in
2025
due
to
the
tariff’s
inflationary
effect
on
prices.
This
adds
to
the
existing
inflation
problem
that
started
a
few
years
ago.
Trump’s
response
has
been
to
blame
the
inflation
on
former
president
Biden.
Several
countries
have
imposed
retaliatory
tariffs
on
American
goods.
In
response
to
the
price
increases,
Trump
proposed
issuing
$2,000
refund
checks
to
every
middle-class
American,
which
could
put
a
large
hole
on
the
tariff
income.
The
rich
would
not
be
eligible,
although
no
income
cutoff
amount
has
been
stated.
He
has
also
repealed
some
tariffs
on
food
products
in
an
attempt
to
stabilize
prices.
And
if
prices
are
still
too
high,
maybe
Trump’s
idea
of
50-year
mortgages
can
help
(or
not).
If
the
commentators
are
right
and
the
Supreme
Court
strikes
down
the
tariffs,
what
should
Trump
do?
First,
I
suggest
not
making
any
quick
and
rash
decisions.
Right
now
is
the
time
for
gift
giving
and
holiday
shopping.
New
tariff
announcements
during
this
time
could
result
in
retail
stores
issuing
price
hikes
in
a
panic.
So
wait
a
few
months
while
Americans
shop
and
later
pay
down
their
unusually
large
credit
card
bills
before
issuing
new
tariffs.
Second,
Trump
should
be
smart
about
issuing
new
tariffs.
If
the
goal
is
to
balance
trade
deficits,
then
target
tariffs
only
on
specific
goods
to
address
that.
Tariffs
applied
with
surgical
precision
can
result
in
minimal
price
increases
and
less
likelihood
of
lawsuits.
If
the
goal
is
revenue
generation,
then
tell
the
Republican
majority
Congress
to
send
a
tariff
bill
to
his
office
to
sign.
Trump’s
Liberation
Day
tariffs,
while
it
seems
to
have
good
intentions,
are
on
shaky
legal
ground.
It
also
created
short-term
price
increases
at
a
time
where
Americans
have
suffered
large
inflation
spikes
over
the
past
few
years.
And
it
has
also
jeopardized
relationships
with
allies.
A
Supreme
Court
rebuke
could
catalyze
smarter
reinstatement,
focusing
on
precision
to
balance
trade
and
shield
Americans
from
inflation’s
bite.
Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
WASHINGTON
—
A
key
defense
industry
organization
is
urging
the
Trump
administration
to
make
more
aggressive
changes
to
the
federal
acquisition
process,
according
to
details
shared
with
Breaking
Defense.
In
a
Dec.
2
letter
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
the
Aerospace
Industries
Association
wrote
that
the
administration
has
taken
“significant
steps”
to
reform
the
Federal
Acquisition
Regulations
(FAR)
but
could
“go
farther
to
achieve
President
Trump’s
vision
of
faster
acquisitions,
greater
competition,
and
better
results.”
The
FAR
hasn’t
gone
through
a
comprehensive
overhaul
since
it
was
first
implemented
in
1984,
making
this
a
“once
in
a
generation
opportunity”
to
realize
the
administration’s
goal
of
speeding
up
the
acquisition
process,
said
Margaret
Boatner,
AIA’s
vice
president
of
national
security
policy,
in
an
interview
with
Breaking
Defense.
“We
think
that
they’ve
done
some
really,
really
great
things
in
there.
But
again,
this
is
a
really
rare
opportunity
to
attack
some
of
those
requirements
that
are
most
burdensome,”
she
said.
“That’s
what
we
try
to
identify
in
this
letter
—
where
can
we
go
further
in
streamlining
those
requirements
that
really
are
the
ones
that
add
to
the
timelines,
and
that
are
the
ones
that
disincentivize
certain
elements
of
industry
from
participating.”
Of
the
five
recommendations
listed
in
the
letter,
Boatner
highlighted
two
items
that
stand
above
the
rest
in
terms
of
the
impact
they
could
have
on
simplifying
the
acquisition
process.
The
first
calls
for
the
administration
to
streamline
the
requirements
for
industry
to
submit
cost
and
pricing
data.
Industry
has
long
argued
that
these
requirements
—
which
force
companies
to
disclose
information
about
the
cost
of
goods
and
services
so
that
the
government
can
ensure
pricing
is
fair
—
is
overly
burdensome
and
leads
to
some
companies
choosing
not
to
work
with
the
government.
The
revised
FAR
put
forward
by
the
government
tries
to
handle
this
by
directing
contracting
officers
to
“obtain
the
type
and
quantity
of
data
required
to
establish
a
fair
and
reasonable
price,
but
not
more
data
than
is
needed.” However,
AIA
argues
that
this
guidance
is
not
specific
enough
and
recommends
that
the
government
conduct
a
comprehensive
review
of
the
language
surrounding
cost
and
pricing,
which
would
allow
it
to
streamline
regulations
down
to
only
what
is
required
by
law.
“It
is
one
of
those
single
levers
that,
if
streamlined,
would
really
make
a
very
significant
impact
on
shortening
procurement
timelines
and
enabling
the
process
to
move
faster,”
Boatner
said.
The
other
critical
recommendation
involves
“allowable
costs,”
the
term
used
to
describe
what
costs
are
reimbursable
by
the
government
to
a
contractor.
AIA
contends
that
the
revised
FAR
does
not
“substantively
change”
the
current
framework,
which
forces
contractors
to
absorb
certain
costs,
thus
leaving
it
up
to
companies
whether
to
spend
their
own
funds
on
investments
that
could
improve
readiness
and
innovation.
For
example,
“there’s
lots
of
calls
from
Secretary
[Pete]
Hegseth
and
other
Pentagon
leadership
to
industry
to
be
able
to
surge
production,”
Boatner
said.
“But
industry
cannot
put
excess
capacity
costs
on
a
federal
contract.
We’re
literally
prohibited
from
doing
it.
So
it’s
very
frustrating
for
industry.”
In
the
letter,
AIA
also
makes
recommendations
aimed
at
enabling
the
procurement
of
commercial
products
and
maintaining
competition,
as
well
as
changes
that
could
make
it
easier
for
contracting
officers
to
understand
and
follow
the
new
FAR.
The
Trump
administration’s
FAR
overhaul,
triggered
by
an
April
executive
order,
comes
as
the
Pentagon
and
congressional
defense
committees
move
forward
with
their
own
acquisition
reform
efforts.
As
the
administration
enters
the
formal
rule
making
stage
of
the
FAR
overhaul,
AIA
is
currently
formulating
specific
language
that
can
be
implemented
for
some
of
its
recommendations,
including
for
allowable
costs
and
cost
and
pricing
data,
Boatner
said.
“We
would
love
for
them
to
bring
industry
in
and
work
on
these
two
problems
in
particular,
to
come
up
with
a
proposed
solution
set
prior
to
that
formal
rule
making,
so
that
we’re
still
leveraging
all
of
this
momentum
that
everybody
has
with
the
FAR
overhaul
to
make
really
good
progress
here,”
she
said.
*
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
argues
that
Trump’s
state
criminal
charges
—
over
behavior
he
undertook
when
he
wasn’t
president
—
belongs
in
federal
court
because
jurors
heard
testimony
about
his
attempts
to
cover
up
the
crimes
as
president.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
Big
sanction
for
Goldberg
Segalla
over
AI
use
in
Chicago
Housing
case.
[Chicago
Sun-Times]
*
ICE’s
secret
weapon?
Databases
of
often
anonymous
and
unsupported
“gang”
traits
cited
to
keep
people
indefinitely
detained.
[Balls
and
Strikes]
*
Trump’s
proposed
executive
order
to
regulate
AI
will
“face
legal
hurdles,”
which
is
the
nice
way
of
noting
that
this
is
not
how
executive
orders
work.
*
Lawsuit
alleges
Chipotle
bowl
delivered
by
DoorDash
had
a
rodent
in
it.
DoorDash
immediately
regrets
not
inventing
rodent
surcharge
for
the
extra.
[Law360]
*
Department
of
Justice
says
evidentiary
order
is
blocking
their
effort
to
reindict
James
Comey
as
opposed
to
the
fact
that
it’s
all
clearly
time-barred.
[ABA
Journal]
*
Tax
prosecutions
fall
precipitously.
[Reuters]
*
Supreme
Court
wants
to
know
JD
Vance’s
political
plans
so
they
can
bolt
some
kind
of
standing
on
his
effort
to
erase
campaign
finance
reforms.
[Supreme
Court
Brief]
Kellogg
Hansen
Comes
In
Over
The
Market!:
Big
money
from
a
small
firm!
Boutique
Money
Is
Bigger
In
Texas:
Check
out
Yetter
Coleman’s
bonus
compensation!
The
Sotomayor
“Gotcha”
Moment
Doesn’t
Hold
Up
Under
Scrutiny:
A
handful
of
examples
over
230
years
isn’t
the
stare
decisis
ender
the
gov’t
thinks
it
is.
Wait
A
Little
Longer
Before
You
Use
Your
Locker:
White
Supremacist’s
return
to
school
gets
put
on
pause.
Mind
Who
You
Clerk
For:
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
can
help
you
navigate
the
1
in17
abusive
judges
offering
clerkships.
Mind
Your
Taxes!:
A
couple
of
small
changes
could
save
you
thousands
in
the
long
run.
Holiday
Reminder:
Make
sure
to
place
your
entry
in
our
17th
Annual
Holiday
Card
contest!
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
the
ABA’s
latest
Profile
of
the
Legal
Profession,
how
many
lawyers
are
there
in
the
United
States?
Hint:
For
the
first
time
since
the
COVID
pandemic,
the
number
of
lawyers
has
increased,
hitting
a
10-year
high.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
We’re
in
early
December,
which
means
you
have
a
few
weeks
left
to
make
meaningful
adjustments
to
your
2025
tax
situation.
This
is
the
perfect
time
to
estimate
your
taxable
income
for
the
year
and
see
where
you
land
in
the
tax
brackets.
A
little
planning
now
can
save
you
thousands
in
April.
If
you’re
not
weaving
tax
planning
into
your
overall
retirement
and
investment
strategy,
you’re
most
likely
leaving
money
on
the
table.
And
I’m
not
talking
about
the
returns
that
show
up
on
your
401(k)
statement.
Having
a
401(k)
or
IRA
doesn’t
mean
you
have
a
retirement
plan.
A
proper
financial
plan
is
multifaceted—it
incorporates
investment
strategy,
tax
optimization,
estate
planning,
and
risk
management.
If
you
think
financial
planning
is
just
about
choosing
between
a
handful
of
stocks
or
an
index
fund,
you’re
missing
the
bigger
picture.
With
that
in
mind,
here
are
five
year-end
tax
planning
areas
to
focus
on.
These
are
the
low-hanging
fruit—the
opportunities
that
show
up
in
my
client
base
year
after
year.
This
isn’t
an
exhaustive
list,
and
not
everything
will
apply
to
your
situation,
but
chances
are
at
least
a
few
of
these
will
be
worth
exploring.
As
always,
consult
your
tax
planning
professionals
before
implementing
any
of
these
strategies.
This
outline
is
for
educational
purposes
only.
1.
Tax-Loss
Harvesting
Tax-loss
harvesting
involves
selling
investments
at
a
loss
within
your
brokerage
account
to
offset
realized
gains
elsewhere
in
your
portfolio.
This
can
minimize
your
overall
capital
gains
tax
bill.
Nobody
invests
hoping
for
losses,
but
they’re
inevitable.
Historical
analysis
shows
us
that
markets
rise
about
70%
of
the
time,
but
the
average
intra-year
drop
is
around
14%
according
to
JP
Morgan’s
Guide
to
the
Markets
research.
Taking
advantage
of
these
dips
can
create
tax
benefits.
But
just
because
you
sell,
it
doesn’t
mean
you’re
trying
to
sit
out
of
the
market.
You
sell
the
losing
position
and
immediately
buy
something
similar
but
substantially
different
to
maintain
your
market
exposure.
Just
watch
out
for
the
wash
sale
rule:
in
summary,
if
you
buy
the
same
or
a
substantially
identical
security
within
30
days
before
or
after
the
sale,
the
IRS
won’t
allow
you
to
claim
the
loss.
Any
losses
you
don’t
use
this
year
can
be
carried
forward
indefinitely,
and
you
can
deduct
up
to
$3,000
annually
against
ordinary
income.
2.
Tax-Gain
Harvesting
Tax-loss
harvesting
gets
all
the
attention,
but
tax-gain
harvesting
deserves
more.
Sometimes
it
makes
sense
to
intentionally
realize
gains
or
pull
income
into
the
current
year.
Why
would
anyone
want
to
increase
their
taxable
income?
Let
me
show
you
with
an
example:
For
long-term
capital
gains,
a
couple
filing
jointly
in
2025
can
have
up
to
$96,700
in
taxable
income
and
pay
0%
in
capital
gains
tax.
Remember,
taxable
income
is
what’s
left
after
deductions.
For
a
couple
both
age
65
in
2025,
the
deduction
math
looks
like
this:
This
means
a
couple
could
have
adjusted
gross
income
of
$143,400
and
still
be
in
the
0%
capital
gains
bracket.
That’s
over
$10,000
per
month
in
spending—pretty
reasonable
for
many
couples
in
retirement.
Let’s
say
you
add
up
all
your
income
and
you’re
only
at
$110,000.
Does
it
make
sense
to
realize
some
capital
gains?
It’s
at
least
something
to
explore.
You’ll
increase
taxable
income,
but
if
done
correctly,
you
won’t
pay
a
dime
in
additional
capital
gains
tax.
This
strategy
works
particularly
well
in
the
early
years
of
retirement
if
you’re
delaying
Social
Security
or
IRA
distributions
and
spending
from
after-tax
brokerage
accounts.
And
just
like
tax-loss
harvesting,
the
goal
is
not
to
sell
your
positions
and
sit
out
of
the
market.
Remember
the
wash
sale
rule
mentioned
above
only
applies
to
losses.
If
you
like
an
investment
that’s
appreciated,
you
can
sell
it,
realize
the
gain
tax-free,
and
immediately
buy
it
back
without
missing
out
on
future
growth.
3.
Income
and
Expense
Timing
You
can’t
always
control
when
income
arrives
or
expenses
hit,
but
when
you
can,
timing
matters.
For
example,
the
One
Big
Beautiful
Bill
passed
earlier
in
2025
increased
the
state
and
local
tax
(SALT)
deduction
limit
to
$40,000
(up
from
$10,000)
for
2025,
subject
to
income
limits.
If
you’re
in
a
high-tax
state
and
you
haven’t
maximized
this
benefit
for
the
current
year,
you
might
consider
prepaying
your
2026
first-quarter
taxes
if
your
jurisdiction
allows
it.
This
lowers
your
2025
taxable
income
and
lets
you
maximize
the
deduction
again
in
2026.
This
benefit
only
runs
through
2028,
so
use
it
while
you
can.
You’ll
need
to
itemize
to
claim
this,
but
with
the
OBBB
changes,
it’s
worth
running
the
numbers
even
if
you
typically
take
the
standard
deduction.
On
the
income
side,
that
new
senior
bonus
deduction
might
make
it
worthwhile
to
pull
some
income
into
2025
to
take
full
advantage
of
your
available
deductions.
Or
consider
a
Roth
conversion
to
fill
up
lower
tax
brackets
in
low-income
years.
A
Roth
conversion
involves
moving
money
from
a
traditional
IRA
to
a
Roth
IRA,
paying
taxes
now
at
today’s
rates,
and
enjoying
tax-free
growth
and
withdrawals
later.
4.
Charitable
Giving
Strategies
If
you’re
charitably
inclined,
Qualified
Charitable
Distributions
(QCDs)
are
powerful.
Once
you’re
70½,
you
can
donate
directly
from
your
IRA
to
charity.
The
distribution
doesn’t
count
as
taxable
income,
and
it
satisfies
your
required
minimum
distribution
if
you’re
over
73.
Another
charitable
giving
strategy
involves
donating
appreciated
investments
from
your
brokerage
account
directly
to
a
Donor
Advised
Fund.
The
charity
gets
the
full
value,
you
avoid
capital
gains
tax
on
the
appreciation,
and
you
increase
the
cost
basis
in
your
brokerage
account.
Two
birds,
one
stone.
One
more
item
to
know—starting
in
2026,
there’s
a
new
0.5%
AGI
floor
and
a
35%
cap
for
top-bracket
donors.
For
example,
if
you
have
$400,000
in
income,
you’d
only
be
able
to
deduct
amounts
given
over
$2,000.
And
if
you’re
in
the
highest
tax
bracket,
your
deduction
is
capped
at
35
cents
per
dollar
donated.
Cash-gift
deductions
continue
to
be
capped
at
60%
of
AGI;
that
limit
has
not
changed.
This
creates
an
opportunity
to
accelerate
giving
in
2025
before
these
restrictions
kick
in.
5.
Retirement
Plan
Contributions
The
basics
still
matter.
Maximize
your
401(k)
employee
deferrals
before
December
31st.
Health
Savings
Accounts
and
529
education
funds
are
also
great
year-end
moves.
While
529
contributions
don’t
provide
a
federal
tax
deduction,
most
states
offer
a
state
income
tax
benefit—check
your
specific
state
rules.
One
exception
to
the
December
31st
deadline:
if
you
have
an
Individual
401(k)
and
it’s
the
plan’s
first
year,
you
have
until
the
tax
filing
deadline
to
establish
and
fund
it
for
the
prior
year.
This
can
be
useful
if
you
find
yourself
with
extra
cash
after
the
new
year.
Planning
ahead
makes
all
the
difference.
These
strategies
won’t
all
apply
to
everyone,
but
most
lawyers
approaching
or
in
retirement
will
benefit
from
at
least
a
few
of
them.
If
you
found
this
helpful
and
want
more
retirement
and
tax
planning
insights,
follow
along
with
Money
Meets
Law,
my
weekly
newsletter
where
I
dig
into
these
topics
in
more
detail.
I’ll
be
highlighting
several
of
them
over
the
next
few
weeks.
DISCLOSURE:
The
information
in
this
article
is
not
intended
as
tax,
accounting,
retirement
or
legal
advice,
as
an
offer
or
solicitation
of
an
offer
to
buy
or
sell,
or
as
an
endorsement
of
any
company,
security,
fund,
or
other
securities
or
non-securities
offering.
This
information
should
not
be
relied
upon
as
the
sole
factor
in
an
investment
making
decision
or
your
decision
to
retire.
In
any
examples
or
case
studies
used,
all
client
names
have
been
changed.
David
Hunter,
CFP®
is
a
CERTIFIED
FINANCIAL
PLANNER™
and
owner
of First
Light
Wealth,
LLC,
a
financial
planning
&
wealth
management
firm
with
a
unique
focus
on
serving
attorneys
nationwide.
David
has
over
a
decade
of
experience
helping
clients
build
financial
plans
and
has
been
featured
in
publications
such
as
Attorney
at
Work,
ThinkAdvisor,
MarketWatch,
Financial
Planning,
and
InvestmentNews.
David
also
writes
weekly
to
attorneys
in
his
popular Money
Meets
Law newsletter.
For
more
about
David,
visit firstlightwealth.com/lawyers or
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
More
proof
that
boutique
law
firms
can
play
with
the
Big(law)
boys
when
it
comes
to
associate
bonuses!
Today,
Texas-based
litigation
boutique
Yetter
Coleman
announced
its
year-end
bonus
scale
for
associates.
Yetter,
one
of
the
top
litigation
firms
by
law
school
pedigree,
told
associates
the
bonus
scale
was
the
result
of
an
“exceptionally
busy
and
exciting
year”
at
the
firm.
The
year-end
bonus
scale
at
Yetter
is,
at
first
blush,
higher
than
the
standard
making
its
way
through
Biglaw.
But,
once
you
add
it
the
special
bonuses
most
of
the
Biglaw
firms
are
dishing
out,
the
take-home
amounts
are
the
same.
The
Yetter
scale
is
as
follows:
Bonuses
will
be
paid
December
11th
at
the
firm.
Read
the
full
memo
below.
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!
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].
Soon
after
I
launched
The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP),
I
met
with
a
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law
(WashU
Law)
professor
to
talk
about
LAP’s
work.
There’s
no
love
lost
between
me
and
my
alma
mater:
after
I
was
harassed
and
fired
from
my
clerkship,
I
learned
WashU
Law
administrators
and
professors
knew
the
judge
who
harassed
me
had
harassed
another
alum
a
few
years
earlier
—
but
chose
not
to
share
that
with
me
before
I
accepted
the
clerkship.
I
could
have
gotten
over
that,
but
for
the
fact
that
three
separate
deans
subsequently
told
me
they
“don’t
believe”
I
was
mistreated
by
the
judge
I
worked
for.
And
the
law
school
cancelled
four
LAP
events
in
just
three
years,
including
one
with
another
alumnus
who’s
a
federal
judge.
So,
it
was
unsurprising
that
this
professor
said:
“You
seem
to
think
clerkships
are
a
hazard,
whereas
I
think
there’s
a
clerkship
for
everybody.”
That
framing
stuck
with
me
as
LAP
struggled
to
convinced
law
schools
to
subscribe
to
our
Clerkships
Database
(“Glassdoor
for
Judges”).
Some
even
tried
to
bar
students
from
subscribing.
Before
LAP
launched
the
Clerkships
Database
—
serving
thousands
of
students
annually
while
collecting
data
on
the
incidence
of
negative
versus
positive
clerkship
experiences
—
school
administrators
framed
LAP
as
“dissuading”
students
from
clerking.
Not
exactly.
I
encourage
students
to
be
mindful
of
who
they
clerk
for
and
to
be
empowered
consumers
of
clerkship
information,
in
ways
they
historically
were
not.
I
discourage
applicants
from
clerking
for
abusive
judges.
It’s
disturbing
that
schools
refuse
to
warn
students
about
abusive
judges,
and
all
but
two
refuse
to
subscribe
to
LAP’s
database
—
showing
how
little
they
care
about
students’
well-being,
and
forcing
students
to
pay
individually.
Fortunately,
students
no
longer
rely
solely
on
their
schools
for
information,
as
long
as
they
pay
$50
to
subscribe
to
LAP’s
database.
Once
LAP
launched
the
Clerkships
Database
in
April
2024,
applicants
finally
saw
for
themselves
just
how
hazardous
some
clerkships
are,
firsthand
from
clerks.
Our
data
suggest
around
30%
of
clerkship
experiences
are
negative,
based
on
over
2,000
surveys
about
more
than
1,200
judges
and
information
from
every
state,
federal
circuit,
and
U.S.
district
court.
Our
data
also
indicate
that
around
1
in
17
federal
judges
are
abusive,
which
aligns
with
the
federal
judiciary’s
own
data:
as
many
as
106
judges
(out
of
around
1,700)
committed
actionable
misconduct
by
mistreating
clerks
in
2023,
according
to
a
climate
survey
released
earlier
this
year.
I
shared
that
statistic
with
around
30
students
at
a
LAP
event:
statistically,
at
least
one
or
two
in
this
room
will
endure
abusive
clerkships.
Let
that
sink
in.
It’s
no
surprise
so
many
judges
abuse
their
power:
judicial
chambers
are
particularly
conducive
to
mistreatment.
There’s
an
enormous
power
disparity
between
young
law
clerks
and
life-tenured
judges.
Importantly,
federal
clerks
are
exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964
and
all
federal
anti-discrimination
laws:
if
they
are
harassed,
discriminated
against,
unjustly
fired,
or
retaliated
against
(or
all
of
the
above,
in
my
case),
they
cannot
sue
to
seek
redress.
Law
clerks
basically
have
no
rights,
and
judges
have
legal
immunity
for
harassing
them.
Title
VII
can
seem
abstract.
Here’s
the
reality:
laws
deter
bad
behavior.
Workers
don’t
harass
their
co-workers
(or,
less
often
than
they
otherwise
might),
if
for
no
other
reason
than
they
don’t
want
to
get
sued.
Title
VII
puts
the
onus
on
the
employer,
if
an
employee
complains
about
harassment,
to
investigate,
address
the
problem,
and
discipline
the
offender:
otherwise,
the
wronged
employee
can
sue
for
damages.
Exempting
an
entire
branch
of
government
means
federal
judges
do
not
face
this
deterrent
—
there’s
literally
nothing
legally
preventing
or
dissuading
them
from
mistreating
staff.
This
is
compounded
by
the
fact
that
there
are
no
effective
reporting
processes,
complaint
mechanisms,
or
other
avenues
to
seek
help.
Clerks
rarely
use
the
formal
or
internal
complaint
processes
—
the
Judicial
Conduct
&
Disability
(JC&D)
Act
and
the
Employee
Dispute
Resolution
(EDR)
Plan.
Juxtapose
the
judiciary’s
2023
climate
survey
with
complaint
statistics
from
that
period:
just
three
JC&D
complaints
in
2023,
and
just
seven
EDR
complaints
between
2021
and
2023,
were
filed
by
law
clerks,
due
primarily
to
clerks’
fears
of
retaliation
for
reporting
—
retaliation
they’re
not
legally
protected
against,
since
they’re
exempt
from
Title
VII.
This
means
judges
are
rarely
held
accountable
for
misconduct.
Students
should
do
everything
possible
to
avoid
abusive
clerkships,
because
the
outcomes
for
mistreated
clerks
are
bleak.
Consider
three
recent
examples
that
made
news
—
representing
a
miniscule
fraction
of
judicial
misconduct:
Second
Circuit
Judge
Sarah
Merriam
was
disciplined
and
publicly
reprimanded
in
December
2023
for
creating
an
“overly
harsh
work
environment.”
In
July
2024,
former
Alaska
judge
Joshua
Kindred
resigned
in
scandal,
after
a
Ninth
Circuit
Judicial
Council
found
that
he
sexually
harassed
and
retaliated
against
clerks.
Kindred
was
recently
disbarred.
And
former
Minnesota
federal
bankruptcy
judge
Kesha
Tanabe
resigned
in
scandal
in
early
2025
after
bullying
and
retaliating
against
clerks.
That
case
never
would
have
made
news
—
and
Tanabe
would
have
evaded
accountability,
after
the
Eighth
Circuit
tried
to
protect
her
by
pressuring
a
law
clerk
to
withdraw
their
JC&D
complaint
—
but
for
my
Above
the
Law
article.
These
examples
—
just
a
fraction
of
what
comes
over
my
transom
at
LAP
—
should
tell
you
how
seriously
the
federal
courts
take
accountability
and
safe
workplaces
(not
at
all);
how
effective
judicial
complaint
processes
and
discipline
are
at
preventing
and
addressing
misconduct
(not
at
all);
and
the
importance
of
selecting
a
clerkship
based
on
the
judge’s
management
style
and
workplace
conduct
(all-important).
Not
all
clerkships
are
hazardous.
But
as
someone
who
does
this
for
a
living,
far
more
are
treacherous
than
anyone
else
would
admit.
Even
most
mistreated
clerks
never
tell
anyone
they
were
mistreated:
they’ve
only
shared
in
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database.
Law
schools
and
legal
industry
leaders
paint
an
overly
rosy
and
one-sided
picture
of
clerking
—
often
while
knowing
realities
they
won’t
admit
—
misleading
students
to
believe
clerkships
confer
only
professional
benefits,
and
they’ll
develop
a
lifelong
mentor/mentee
or
“familial”
relationship
with
the
judges
they
clerk
for.
Clerks
refer
to
judges
fondly,
years
later,
as
“my
judge”
(sometimes
even
after
they
were
mistreated)
—
a
term
of
affection
that
lionizes
judges
unnecessarily
and
contributes
to
the
dangerous
perception
that
judges’
workplace
conduct
should
not
be
questioned,
no
matter
how
unethical.
But
this
may
be
the
exception,
not
the
rule.
In
reality,
most
clerkships
are
jobs
like
any
other:
you’ll
work
for
a
year
or
two
to
check
a
box
before
advancing
in
your
career.
Creating
unrealistic
expectations
sets
clerks
up
to
fail.
Clerks
take
desperate
measures
to
force
a
bond,
including
“nonjudicial
tasks”
like
fetching
judges’
dry
cleaning,
tutoring
their
children,
and
walking
their
dogs.
They
self-internalize
failure,
thinking
they
did
something
wrong,
if
those
relationships
don’t
materialize.
I
don’t
believe
there’s
a
clerkship
for
everybody.
Not
everyone
should
clerk.
If
the
choice
is
between
an
abusive
clerkship
and
no
clerkship
at
all
—
don’t
clerk.
Ask
why
you
want
to
clerk
and
what
your
goals
are.
At
the
same
time,
no
one
who
wants
to
clerk
should
count
themselves
out.
In
fact,
LAP’s
database
fosters
greater
equity
by
ensuring
any
applicant,
regardless
of
law
school,
can
pay
$50
to
access
the
same
baseline
information
about
clerkships
—
rather
than
the
pre-LAP
status
quo,
which
restricted
access
to
just
a
handful
of
students
from
top
law
schools.
What
are
the
right
questions
to
ask
yourself
before
clerking?
There’s
nothing
wrong
with
clerking
for
the
credential,
rather
than
(or
in
addition
to)
seeking
writing
and
research
experience,
litigation
or
appellate
training,
and
insight
into
judges’
decision-making
—
as
long
as
you
don’t
accept
an
abusive
clerkship
for
the
prestige.
There
is
a
wrong
question
to
ask:
What
am
I
willing
to
put
up
with
to
clerk?
Given
the
scarcity
of
federal
jobs
right
now,
some
will
still
ask.
If
everyone
applying
for
clerkships
subscribed
to
LAP’s
Clerkships
Database,
far
fewer
would
endure
mistreatment,
because
they’d
truly
understanding
just
how
awful
some
clerkships
are.
Frankly,
knowing
the
trash
law
schools
provide,
I
worry
about
students
who
haven’t
subscribed.
Where
are
they
getting
information,
if
not
from
LAP,
and
how
do
they
verify
it?
Sadly,
some
will
say,
“I
can
handle
it,”
or
“It’s
worth
it
for
the
prestige.”
Still
others
think
it
won’t
happen
to
them.
But
I’ve
counseled
hundreds
of
mistreated
clerks:
they
all
said
if
they
knew
how
bad
it
would
be,
they
wouldn’t
have
accepted
the
clerkship.
Frankly,
my
experience
is
not
rare:
it’s
just
one
that’s
rarely
shared
publicly,
due
to
the
culture
of
silence
and
fear
surrounding
the
judiciary
—
one
of
deifying
judges
and
disbelieving
law
clerks.
To
put
it
bluntly:
if
you’re
applying
for
clerkships
and
you
choose
not
to
take
agency
over
your
career
by
fully
informing
yourself,
you’re
taking
an
enormous
career
risk,
given
the
outsized
influence
of
clerkships
—
a
career
you
sacrificed
three
years
and
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
build.
Some
people
misleading
students
to
believe
there’s
a
clerkship
for
everybody
have
misaligned
incentives
and
questionable
motives:
they
want
as
many
students
as
possible
to
clerk,
for
example.
Others
just
lack
frame
of
reference:
clerks
don’t
regularly
share
negative
experiences
with
them,
or
their
clerkships
were
wonderful
so
they
don’t
understand
how
others’
couldn’t
be.
But
the
judiciary’s
and
LAP’s
data
both
suggest
that
for
every
17
students
applying
for
federal
clerkships,
one
will
be
mistreated.
That’s
a
lot
of
destroyed
lives
and
careers.
Maybe
it’s
time
lawyers
were
honest
about
the
realities
inherent
in
workplaces
exempt
from
workplace
laws.
Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.