Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Boutique
Firm
Goes
Above
And
Beyond
The
Bonus
Scale:
Wilkinson
Stekloff
is
giving
out
so
much
money!
Biglaw
Firms
Are
Sharing
The
Bonus
News:
Ropes
&
Gray,
Hogan
Lovells.
If
You’re
Gonna
Disagree,
Go
All
Out:
Judge
Jerry
Smith
pens
a
104
page
dissent
that
is
strangely
preoccupied
with
George
Soros.
Former
Managing
Partner
Investigated
For
Sexual
Harassment:
Read
for
a
quick
breakdown
of
what
not
to
do
at
the
workplace.
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
The
late
Justice
John
Paul
Stevens
was
known
to
enjoy
what
kind
of
sandwich?
Hint:
Indeed,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
confirmed,
“Justice
John
Paul
Stevens
would
have
[this
kind
of
sandwich]
virtually
every
day
that
I
sat
with
him
for
a
year.”
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Function
Health
—
the
platform
that
gives
subscribers
access
to
more
than
160
different
lab
tests
—
closed
a
$298
million
Series
B
funding
round
on
Wednesday,
bringing
the
startup’s
valuation
to
$2.5
billion.
The
Austin-based
company,
which
launched
in
2023,
has
now
raised
more
than
$350
million.
After
reaching
unicorn
status,
Function
will
continue
to
focus
on
helping
people
live
longer,
healthier
lives,
according
to
CEO
Jonathan
Swerdlin.
“The
current
system
focuses
on
acute
care,
and
it’s
miraculous
for
that.
If
you
break
your
arm
or
need
surgery,
it’s
exactly
where
you
want
to
be.
However,
it’s
missing
the
key
data
points
and
integrated,
whole-body
solutions
people
need
to
stay
healthy,”
he
stated.
He
noted
that
nearly
half
of
deaths
in
the
U.S.
result
from
preventable
diseases,
yet
most
healthcare
data
lives
in
silos
and
is
generated
only
when
something
goes
wrong.
People
don’t
want
to
be
left
in
the
dark
about
their
own
wellbeing
—
they
desire
ownership
of
their
health,
Swerdlin
pointed
out.
“And
this
isn’t
just
for
biohackers
or
elite
individuals.
This
is
an
eight-billion-person
problem,”
he
declared.
Function
helps
address
this
problem
by
removing
some
of
the
barriers
around
lab
testing.
An
annual
subscription
to
Function’s
platform
costs
$365.
This
includes
access
to
lab
tests
—
which
cover
hormones,
heart
health,
immunity,
metabolism,
liver
and
kidney
function,
thyroid
and
nutrients.
Many
members
also
get
MRI
scans
through
Function,
which
start
at
$499,
as
well
as
heart
and
lungs
CT
scans,
which
start
at
$349.
Since
Function’s
launch,
members
have
now
completed
more
than
50
million
lab
tests.
Each
member
receives
an
overview
of
their
results
from
a
clinician,
a
personalized
plan
with
nutrition
and
lifestyle
recommendations,
and
outreach
from
a
clinician
if
anything
looks
concerning,
Swerdin
explained.
All
results
live
in
the
Function
app,
where
members
can
download
reports
to
share
with
their
own
clinicians.
The
platform
is
the
only
one
on
the
market
to
combine
such
a
wide
range
of
lab
testing
and
imaging
under
one
membership.
All
data
gets
integrated
into
a
single
interface,
which
gives
members
a
personalized
view
of
their
health
and
helps
them
make
more
informed
decisions,
Swerdlin
noted.
He
said
Function’s
new
influx
of
capital
will
fuel
the
advancement
of
its
AI
models,
which
are
designed
to
integrate
research
with
each
individual’s
data
for
more
proactive,
personalized
guidance.
“Over
the
next
decade,
real-world,
longitudinal
data
will
completely
reshape
expectations.
Consumers
won’t
settle
for
reactive
care
—
they’ll
expect
systems
that
continuously
learn
from
their
biology
and
alert
them
before
problems
arise,”
Swerdlin
stated.
Whether
this
model
can
deliver
on
its
promise
of
earlier
detection
and
prevention
remains
a
key
question
as
Function
enters
its
next
phase.
Photo:
Lucy
von
Held,
Getty
Images
Last
week,
several
reports
indicated
that
McDermott
Will
&
Schulte
is
considering
restructuring
its
firm
to
accept
a
potential
private
equity
investment.
A
move
like
this
by
a
top
global
law
firm
would
be
unprecedented
and
test
ethics
rules
governing
ownership
of
law
firms
by
nonlawyers.
A
move
to
separate
legal
advice
from
other
legal
services
that
don’t
require
advice
is
a
big
shift
that
would
ripple
through
established
firms
and
also
test
regulatory
boundaries.
A
Trillion-Dollar
Market
Evolving
The
LegalTech
Fund
(TLTF)
sees
a
$1
trillion
opportunity
to
reinvent
legal
services
through
the
convergence
of
technology,
regulatory
changes,
and
innovation. TLTF
calls
this
movement
Law
Firm
2.0,
and
the
fund
believes
a
reinvention
will
pave
the
way
for
entirely
new,
tech-enabled
models
of
legal
service
delivery.
In
addition
to
the
chatter
around
McDermott,
others
are
taking
steps
toward
the
rethinking
of
legal
services.
Momentum
is
no
longer
theoretical.
Arizona’s
Alternative
Business
Structure
(ABS)
regime
now
supports
over
150
entities
that
legally
permit
nonlawyer
ownership. Additionally,
AI
law
firms
like
Crosby
are
making
headlines
as
they
announce
a
meaningful
$20
million
Series
A
investment. Eudia
is
making
headlines
after
acquiring
a
second
Alternative
Legal
Service
Provider
(ALSP)
last
month.
Law
Firm
2.0
is
gaining
momentum.
TLTF
Summit
—
Law
Firm
2.0
Panels
Last
week,
TLTF
offered
a
track
on
Law
Firm
2.0
at
their
annual
summit. I
had
the
opportunity
to
facilitate
one
of
the
panels,
interviewing
several
startups
about
their
vision
for
the
Law
Firm
2.0
movement.
Here
are
four
key
learnings
from
that
panel.
Deconstruct
and
Reconstruct
the
Law
Firm
Model
Covenant
is
a
new
technology-enabled
law
firm
that
integrates
AI
with
legal
expertise
for
private
market
transactions.
Jen
Berrent,
co-founder
of
Covenant,
views
Law
Firm
2.0
as
“The
deconstruction
of
the
services
a
law
firm
provides
and
the
reconstruction
of
those
to
create
a
law
firm
that
uses
new
approaches
and
leans
on
technology.” Covenant
is
pursuing
better
outcomes
for
its
clients,
including
lower
fees,
faster
transaction
processing,
and
deeper
insights
using
the
principles
of
Law
Firm
2.0.
Agentic
AI
Kiran
Bellubbi
at
Glade.AI
shared
about
the
power
of
agents
to
provide
greater
leverage
for
attorneys
to
perform
tasks. He
stated,
“AI
agents
can
think
and
act
for
hours
on
end,
collecting
information
and
performing
tasks
with
transparency
and
efficiency
under
the
supervision
of
attorneys.”
Data
Driven
Large
law
firms
often
struggle
to
find
information
and
to
leverage
their
scale
and
know-how
about
their
client
and
expertise.
Among
other
things,
DeepJudge
helps
firms
better
find
and
relate
documents
and
information
together
to
make
use
of
institutional
knowledge.
DeepJudge’s
founder
and
CTO,
Yannic
Kilcher,
stated,
“Law
firms
in
the
future
will
have
a
command
of
their
data
and
will
be
data-driven.”
New
Business
Models
Innovation
is
not
limited
to
software.
The
panel
also
discussed
how
redefining
service
delivery
can
align
fees
with
client
value.
For
example,
Glade
offers
a
SaaS
practice
management
solution
but
does
not
follow
a
standard
per-seat
subscription
model.
Glade
charges
by
progress
and
milestones
that
are
more
closely
tied
to
client
value.
The
Expanding
Map
Of
Legal
Service
Delivery
With
a
$1
trillion
market
opportunity,
there
will
be
competing
options
to
rethink
how
legal
services
are
delivered.
Large
firms
will
continue
to
evolve
and
leverage
their
strengths,
including
relationships
and
broad
experience,
as
they
improve
their
ability
to
use
data
and
new
technologies.
Incumbent
firms
may
restructure
along
the
lines
being
discussed
by
McDermott.
Upstart
technology-enabled
law
firms
will
leverage
AI
and
a
“blank
sheet
of
paper”
to
create
disruption,
particularly
in
specialized
practice
areas.
Managed
services
and
ALSPs
will
seek
greater
market
share
by
leveraging
the
ever-expanding
universe
of
technology
to
provide
attorney-reviewed
services
that
do
not
require
legal
advice.
Outside
investors
will
also
leverage
ABS
structures
in
Arizona,
Utah,
and
Puerto
Rico
to
accelerate
disruption
and
blur
the
lines.
An
Uber
Moment
When
Uber
launched
its
service,
it
did
not
wait
for
permission
from
taxi
regulators.
Customers
started
to
order
rides,
and
before
anyone
knew
it,
Uber
had
taken
over.
Regulators
followed.
Consumers
(and
some
attorneys)
are
using
OpenAI’s
ChatGPT
as
a
legal
expert. This
phenomenon
is
playing
out
similarly
to
Uber’s
approach
to
taxi
medallions.
Additionally,
most
Generative
AI
features
in
legal
tech
rely
on
OpenAI
or
another
large
language
model
provider.
The
practical
boundary
between
legal
information
and
legal
advice
is
growing
harder
to
define,
and
the
demand
for
clarity
is
intensifying. There
will
be
pressure
to
rethink
the
unauthorized
practice
of
law
(UPL)
depending
on
whether
lawyers,
nonlawyers,
or
technology
applications
are
involved.
The
ABA
Model
Rules
governing
UPL
(ABA
5.5)
and
nonlawyer
ownership
in
law
firms
(ABA
5.4)
did
not
contemplate
the
AI
revolution.
The
pressure
to
revisit
those
rules
at
the
national
level,
while
most
of
the
regulatory
authority
is
administered
at
the
state
level,
adds
complexity.
With
consumers
embracing
AI,
capital
flowing,
and
large
firms
like
McDermott
exploring
structural
change,
the
test
cases
for
Law
Firm
2.0
are
arriving
faster
than
many
expected.
The
legal
ecosystem
is
about
to
be
reshaped.
Regulators
will
need
to
move
quickly
or
risk
reacting
after
the
fact,
as
a
convergence
of
forces
will
redefine
legal
services
and
how
those
services
are
delivered.
Ken
Crutchfield
has
over
forty
years
of
experience
in
legal,
tax,
and
other
industries.
Throughout
his
career,
he
has
focused
on
growth,
innovation,
and
business
transformation. His
consulting
practice
advises
investors,
legal
tech
startups
and
others.
As
a
strategic
thinker
who
understands
markets
and
creating
products
to
meet
customer
needs,
he
has
worked
in
start-ups
and
large
enterprises.
He
has
served
in
General
Management
capacities
in
six
businesses.
Ken
has
a
pulse
on
the
trends
affecting
the
market.
Whether
it
was
the
Internet
in
the
1980s
or
Generative
AI,
he
understands
technology
and
how
it
can
impact
business.
Crutchfield
started
his
career
as
an
intern
with
LexisNexis
and
has
worked
at
Thomson
Reuters,
Bloomberg,
Dun
&
Bradstreet,
and
Wolters
Kluwer.
Ken
has
an
MBA
and
holds
a
B.S.
in
Electrical
Engineering
from
The
Ohio
State
University.
Judge
Jerry
Smith
has
a
flare
for
off-the-hook
opinions.
He
once
dissented
by
writing
a
fake
majority
opinion
—
styled
to
look
like
a
majority
opinion
—
that
he
claimed
the
majority
should
have
written.
Good
luck
to
the
AI
bots
scraping
that
one
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
law
actually
is!
He
also
spit
hot
fire
for
50-some-odd
pages
against
conservative
colleagues
second-guessing
an
airline’s
vaccine
policy,
dragging
the
majority’s
attempt
to
graft
a
culture
war
exception
on
the
concept
of
at-will
employment.
Right
or
wrong,
Judge
Smith
carries
terminal
“main
character
syndrome”
into
everything
he
does.
And
he
has
not
disappointed
with
his
104-page
dissent
in
the
Texas
redistricting
case.
Arriving
a
little
later
than
the
majority
opinion
putting
a
block
on
the
new
Texas
maps,
Judge
Smith
warns
us
to
buckle
in
Smith
opens
with
a
“Preliminary
Statement,”
fixing
his
ire
on
Trump-appointed
Judge
Jeffrey
Brown,
a
deeply
conservative
former
Texas
Supreme
Court
justice:
I
append
this
Preliminary
Statement
to
dispel
any
suspicion
that
I’m
responsible
for
any
delay
in
issuing
the
preliminary
injunction
or
that
I
am
or
saw
slow-walking
the
ruling.
I
also
need
to
highlight
the
pernicious
judicial
misbehavior
of
U.S.
District
Judge
Jeffrey
Vincent
Brown.
The
next
several
pages
only
succeed
in
painting
Judge
Brown
as
entirely
reasonable.
If
anything,
Judge
Brown
is
bending
over
backward
for
a
dissenting
judge
who
wants
to
dawdle
in
the
face
of
Purcell‘s
ticking
time
bomb.
The
majority
provided
Judge
Smith
with
an
outline
13
days
before
publishing
the
majority
opinion,
and
a
draft
five
days
before.
A
tight
timeline,
but
not
an
absurd
one
for
a
case
of
national
import.
Judge
Brown
even
informed
Judge
Smith
that
the
majority
would
note
that
a
dissenting
opinion
would
be
forthcoming
—
allowing
the
parties
to
begin
the
inevitable
appeals
process
as
quickly
as
possible.
This
outrage
speaks
for
itself.
Any
pretense
of
judicial
restraint,
good
faith,
or
trust
by
these
two
judges
is
gone.
If
these
judges
were
so
sure
of
their
result,
they
would
not
have
been
so
unfairly
eager
to
issue
the
opinion
sans
my
dissent,
or
they
could
have
waited
for
the
dissent
in
order
to
join
issue
with
it.
What
indeed
are
they
afraid
of?
Purcell.
They
were
afraid
of
violating
Purcell.
Under
the
Purcell
principle,
courts
are
admonished
not
to
settle
election
law
issues
sufficiently
prior
to
an
election
to
avoid
confusing
voters
or
otherwise
influencing
the
outcome.
The
deadline
to
file
to
run
for
the
offices
implicated
by
the
Texas
redistricting
plan
is
December
8.
Judge
Smith
includes
a
joke
in
the
opinion
about
district
judges
thinking
they’re
gods,
in
a
true
“every
accusation
is
an
admission”
moment.
His
dissent
is
strictly
gratuitous.
Beyond
personal
ego,
it
serves
no
purpose
in
the
resolution
of
the
case.
If
Judge
Smith
thinks
this
decision
is
so
bad,
he
should
want
to
see
the
appeals
process
begin
swiftly.
But…
if
someone
slow-walked
the
process
enough,
maybe
the
2026
election
could
be
ordered
to
follow
these
maps,
even
if
they’re
ultimately
determined
to
be
illegal.
Not
that
Smith
would
have
any
political
motivations…
The
main
winners
from
Judge
Brown’s
opinion
are
George
Soros
and
Gavin
Newsom.
The
obvious
losers
are
the
People
of
Texas
and
the
Rule
of
Law.
That’s
the
first
line
of
the
dissent
proper,
and
George
Soros
will
be
mentioned
a
total
of
17
times
in
this
case
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
George
Soros.
The
oral
history
of
this
footnote
would
make
for
some
entertainment.
This
is
pure
speculation,
but
this
feels
like
a
note
born
of
some
clerk
saying
“hey
Judge,
you
keep
mentioning
George
Soros
for
no
reason.
Kind
of
makes
you
seem
like
a
crank
peddling
antisemitic
conspiracy
theories.
Maybe
you
want
to
just
drop
all
these
references”
and
Smith
going
“no,
I’ll
go
one
better!”
and
composing
this
footnote.
He
continues
by
charting
connections
that
lawyers
and
experts
in
the
case
have
had
with
other
Soros
initiatives
in
a
real
six-degrees-of-the-Elders-of-Zion
way.
For
example,
Judge
Smith
writes
of
one
expert
witness,
“Matt
Barreto,
whose
testimony
is
so
problematic
that
it
is
unusable.”
Smith
has
no
response
to
Barreto,
but
instead
launches
a
footnote
that
begins
“Plaintiffs’
top
expert
Matt
Barreto
is
a
Soros
operative.”
Pepe
Silvia
all
the
way
down.
Judge
Brown
could
have
saved
himself
and
the
readers
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
by
merely
stating
the
following:I
just
don’t
like
what
the
Legislature
did
here.
It
was
unnecessary,
and
it
seems
unfair
to
disadvantaged
voters.
I
need
to
step
in
to
make
sure
wiser
heads
prevail
over
the
nakedly
partisan
and
racially
questionable
actions
of
these
zealous
lawmakers.
Just
as
I
did
to
the
lawmakers
in
Galveston
County
in
Petteway,
I’m
using
my
considerable
clout
as
a
federal
district
judge
to
put
a
stop
to
bad
policy
judgments.
After
all,
I
get
paid
to
do
what
I
think
is
right.
Ideally,
you
don’t
want
your
fake
straw
argument
to
be
objectively
accurate.
The
“unfair
to
disadvantaged
voters”
part
is
kinda
the
whole
point
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act.
For
most
of
the
opinion,
Smith
tries
to
characterize
the
case
as
purely
partisan
redistricting
—
which
is
constitutional
—
as
opposed
to
discriminating
against
historically
disadvantaged
groups,
which
is,
at
least
technically,
not.
But
here
he
gives
up
the
game,
unable
to
resist
blasting
Judge
Brown
for
the
audacity
of
applying
the
law
as
written.
And,
in
Smith’s
defense,
the
Fifth
Circuit
and
Supreme
Court
have
certainly
expressed
hostility
to
the
law
as
written.
Judge
Brown
just
seems
to
be
more
of
a
committed
textualist.
Substantively,
the
dissent
constantly
repeats
generic
maxims
as
talismans
against
the
specific
facts.
“The
most
obvious
reason
for
mid-cycle
redistricting,
of
course,
is
partisan
gain,”
the
dissent
repeats,
citing
the
obvious
—
no
one
tries
to
redistrict
to
their
partisan
detriment
—
without
addressing
the
relevant
legal
question
of
whether
or
not
that
the
legislature
got
those
partisan
gains
through
racial
discrimination.
Not
to
get
all
“basic
LSAT
prep”
on
the
judge,
but
having
a
partisan
goal
doesn’t
establish
that
the
gerrymander
is
purely
partisan.
“[T]he
presumption
of
legislative
good
faith,”
carries
oceans
of
water
for
Smith
as
he
brushes
off
explicit
statements
about
the
racial
distribution
of
the
new
maps
from
their
legislative
architects.
But
it’s
not
an
irrefutable
presumption.
Just
because
a
legislature
is
presumed
to
act
in
good
faith,
the
facts
of
this
case
are
that
Texas
didn’t
want
to
redistrict
and
only
agreed
to
do
so
after
a
Justice
Department
official
explicitly
told
them
to
break
up
minority-majority
districts.
“[C]ourts
must
be
careful
not
to
‘overemphasiz[e]
statements
from
individual
legislators,’”
he
warns
in
an
effort
to
ward
off
the
majority
considering
any
statements
from
individual
legislators.
At
one
point,
Judge
Smith
writes,
“Judge
Brown
is
an
unskilled
magician.
The
audience
knows
what
is
coming
next.”
But
it’s
Smith
who
keeps
demanding
the
audience
ignore
what’s
going
on
behind
the
curtain.
The
magician
crack
is
one
of
several
random
acts
of
snarkery
strewn
throughout
the
opinion.
“If
this
were
a
law
school
exam,
the
opinion
would
deserve
an
‘F’”
and
“Confused
yet?
You
can
thank
Judge
Brown
for
that.”
Judge
Smith,
a
Reagan-appointee,
also
repeatedly
—
and
without
noting
it
—
invokes
Reagan’s
1984
debate
with
Walter
Mondale,
playing
both
roles
at
various
points.
We
certainly
appreciate
biting
commentary
and
referential
humor,
but
it’s
not
a
substitute
for
substance.
Smith’s
only
semblance
of
that
stems
from
his
lengthy
recitation
of
the
GOP
mapmaker’s
account
of
the
process.
Evidence
to
the
contrary
gets
waved
off,
often
with
“something
something
George
Soros.”
Then,
returning
to
Purcell,
Judge
Smith
offers
the
most
galaxy-brained
take
of
all:
if
the
legislature
isn’t
allowed
to
racially
gerrymander,
then
there
can’t
be
elections
at
all!
A
federal
court
cannot
reinstate
a
statute
that
the
legislature
has
explicitly
repealed
and
voided.
That
move
presents
grave
federalism
concerns,
commandeers
the
state
legislature,
departs
from
the
standard
remedial
process
in
voting
rights
cases,
and
intrudes
into
the
‘sensitive
area
of
state
legislative
redistricting.’
Quite
the
hack!
His
argument
is
that,
given
the
2025
redistricting
bill
explicitly
repealed
the
prior
2021
maps,
any
opinion
invalidating
the
2025
maps
cannot
return
the
parties
to
the
old
maps,
leaving
Texas
with
no
maps
at
all
for
the
rapidly
upcoming
election.
So
all
a
legislature
would
need
to
do
to
impose
an
illegal
map
is
explicitly
repeal
the
last
one
and
engage
the
courts
in
a
murder-suicide
pact?
That’s
a
special
kind
of
stupid.
And
then
it
gets
worse:
Also,
Judge
Brown’s
chosen
remedy
engenders
an
interesting
contradiction:
The
plaintiffs
have
insisted,
for
years,
that
the
2021
maps
are
themselves
racist
and
unconstitutional.
While
Judge
Brown’s
opinion
[is
—
sic]
exactly
what
they
asked
for,
it
is
manifestly
absurd
for
them
to
mandate
an
unconstitutional
set
of
2021
maps!
Democrats
thought
the
old
maps
were
racist…
so
how
can
they
complain
just
because
these
maps
are
more
racist?
OK,
I’m
starting
to
understand
why
Smith
thought
he
needed
a
lot
more
time
to
think
through
this
opinion
before
committing
it
to
paper.
The
opinion
raises
the
specter
of
the
legislature’s
being
incentivized
to
redistrict
“as
close
to
elections
as
possible.”
This
is,
apparently,
not
meant
ironically.
His
argument
is
that
if
courts
can
halt
last-minute
election
interference
it
just
means
legislators
engage
in
last-last-minute
interference.
Probably
true,
but
is
like
saying,
“if
we
prosecute
murderers,
they’ll
be
incentivized
to
try
to
hide
their
crimes.”
Smith
kicked
off
his
dissent
promising
a
bumpy
night,
so
you
can’t
accuse
him
of
failing
to
pay
off
on
his
headline.
But
like
Margo
Channing
in
All
About
Eve,
it’s
hard
to
separate
this
opinion
from
an
aging
star
desperately
clinging
to
the
spotlight.
(Check
out
the
whole
opinion
on
the
next
page…)
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
There’s
good
news
for
the
associates
working
at
Hogan
Lovells
—
you’re
in
for
a
lot
of
money!
Hogan
Lovells,
a
firm
that
brought
in
$2,964,460,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
is
sharing
the
wealth
this
holiday
season
by
matching
the
Cravath
scale.
For
those
with
photographic
memories,
the
payouts
look
very
similiar
to
last
year’s
bonus
scale.
To
everyone
else
who
happens
to
be
normal,
the
scale
is
below:
Looks
like
HoLove
learned
the
lesson
this
year
and
matched
their
competitors’
special
bonuses.
Last
year,
they
weren’t
as
generous
with
the
holiday
cheer
and
the
associates
were
pissed!
The
associates
can
rest
easy
now.
Unless,
of
course,
Milbank
decides
to
drop
a
more
generous
bonus
package
and
upend
the
scale.
Don’t
give
it
too
much
thought,
though.
Firms
raking
in
billions
of
dollars
can
match
whatever
the
new
market
rate
tops
out
at
if
they
want
to.
Speaking
of
that
money,
you’ll
be
getting
the
bonus
money
in
your
final
2025
paycheck!
We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please email
it
to
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
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.
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
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Do
you
think
that
the
legal
profession
is
too
feminine?
No,
this
is
not
a
trick
question.
I
am
interested
in
your
opinion
because
a
conservative
commentator,
Helen
Andrews,
asserts
that
our
profession
is
being
feminized,
to
the
profession’s
detriment.
Andrews
thinks
all
professions
are
being
feminized,
due
to
“wokeness,”
but
she
leans
most
heavily
on
the
legal
profession.
Cancel
culture
is
female,
she
says,
and
it
is
what
women
do
when
there
are
enough
of
us
in
a
given
field.
Everything
you
think
of
as
wokeness
involves
prioritizing
the
feminine
over
the
masculine:
empathy
over
rationality,
safety
over
risk,
cohesion
over
competition.
Wokeness,
says
Andrews,
is
“simply
feminine
patterns
of
behavior
applied
to
institutions
where
women
were
few
in
number
until
recently.” Qualities
that
women
see
as
positive,
Andrews
says
are
negative:
women
use
collaboration
and
consensus
to
reach
decisions,
while
men
are
not
afraid
to
engage
in
open
warfare.
According
to
Andrews,
another
failing
of
women
is
the
inability
to
compartmentalize,
something
that
men
are
very
good
at. Wokeness,
she
says,
is
an
inability
to
compartmentalize,
pointing
out,
as
an
example, the
differences
between
men
and
women
in
dispute
resolution.
When
men
are
finished
fighting
and
one
side
or
the
other
has
won,
they
are
quicker
to
reconcile
and
to
move
forward
in
peace.
Really?
Not
my
experience.
I
won’t
tell
you
about
the
sore
loser
male
attorney
who
yelled
at
me
because
he
hadn’t
received
the
settlement
check
yet
and
it
wasn’t
due
until
a
certain
date.
How
many
sore
losers
are
men?
Whereas,
according
to
Andrews,
women
are
slower
to
accept
resolution.
Who
pouts
more?
How
many
stereotypes
fit
on
the
head
of
her
theses?
Andrews
devotes
much
of
her
criticism
to
the
legal
profession
and,
as
the
older
lawyers
(of
course
men)
retire
and
die,
it
will
be
the
female
majority
in
charge
of
the
profession.
Ha!
Don’t
we
wish.
With
the
eviscerating
of
the
DEI
initiatives,
the
number
of
women
in
law
leadership
roles
will
probably
be
rolled
back
with
the
implicit
or
explicit
blessing
of
the
current
administration.
Andrews
fears
that
the
rule
of
law
will
not
survive
feminization.
Why?
She
says
that
the
rule
of
law
can
only
survive
in
a
world
where
precedent
must
be
followed
and
appeals
to
sympathies
must
be
ignored.
What
world
is
she
living
in?
Precedent
being
followed?
Please.
She
is
right
that
appeals
to
doing
the
right
thing
are
being
ignored.
How
many
Supreme
Court
cases
do
I
need
to
cite?
And
as
long
as
the
Supreme
Court
is
majority
male
and
majority
conservative,
she
has
nothing
to
worry
about.
Way
back
when
in
dinosaur
times
(e.g.,
1970)
as
more
women
started
entering
law
school
and
then
the
profession,
the
thought
was
that
women’s
impact
would
be
“minor,”
as
Andrews
puts
it.
But
it’s
not,
and
many
of
us
think
that
is
cause
for
celebration,
not
denigration.
A
workplace
where
women
have
equal
opportunity?
What
a
concept!
Contrary
to
Andrews’
theory,
many
women
have
moved
ahead
based
on
merit,
not
on
gender,
just
as
many
men
have
moved
ahead
punching
their
tickets
issued
by
the
“good
old
boys”
in
the
country
club,
the
locker
room
or
all
those
private
clubs
that
excluded
women
until
laws
forced
changes,
to
the
dismay
of
many
members.
Feminization,
to
Andrews,
is
not
something
that
has
happened
organically.
It
is,
she
says,
social
engineering.
Is
Andrews
that
naive
to
believe
that
discrimination
against
women
in
the
workplace
hasn’t
happened
and
won’t
continue
to
happen?
That
sexual
discrimination
has
been
erased
from
our
society?
I
don’t
think
that
there
is
any
woman
lawyer
in
our
profession
or
any
other,
who
wouldn’t
be
delighted
if
that
was
the
case,
but
it’s
not,
and
it’s
a
pipe
dream.
It’s
not
wokeness,
it’s
wake-up-ness.
Men
can
be
aggressive,
and
that’s
just
peachy.
Women
who
are
aggressive
are
called
by
any
number
of
unflattering
names
as
they
rise
in
the
profession.
A
little
discrimination
there?
Andrews
calls
for
the
restoration
of
what
she
calls
“fair
rules.”
and
contends
that
“Right
now
we
have
a
nominally
meritocratic
system
in
which
it
is
illegal
for
women
to
lose.
Let’s
make
hiring
meritocratic
in
substance
and
not
just
name,
and
we
will
see
how
it
shakes
out.
Make
it
legal
to
have
a
masculine
office
culture
again.”
Yes,
definitely,
let’s
return
to
that.
A
masculine
office
culture
full
of
bullying,
yelling,
and
hollering,
leering,
touching, and
other
boorish
behavior.
Women
lawyers
have
worked
hard
to
achieve.
Contrary
to
what
Andrews
believes,
it’s
not
the
feminization
of
the
profession,
it’s
the
humanization
of
it. She
admits
she
is
not
a
lawyer,
so
her
opinions
are
observational,
not
participatory.
Go
ahead,
please
walk
a
mile
in
my
lawyer
shoes
of
almost
50
years
(and
I
am
not
even
including
the
preceding
three
years
of
law
school).
I
am
a
size
7B.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].
Whether
we
appreciate
it
or
not,
each
of
us
has
a
personal
brand,
and
everything
we
do
affects
it.
It’s
more
than
your
reputation,
win/loss
record,
or
what
you’re
most
known
for.
It’s
everything
we
do,
say,
post,
share,
write,
and
present.
It’s
the
cases
we
handle
(and
the
ones
we
don’t),
it’s
how
we
help
others
(or
don’t),
how
we
develop
our
expertise,
and
how
we
share
it
with
others.
It’s
about
how
we
pay
it
forward,
how
we
lead,
how
we
act,
how
we
network,
how
we
listen,
how
we
speak,
and
how
we
share
our
authentic
selves
(and
what
comprises
our
authentic
selves).
It’s
essential
to
understand
and
appreciate
that
building
a
reliable,
effective
brand
takes
time,
energy,
and
effort.
And
it’s
relatively
easy
to
undermine,
especially
in
our
culture,
where
social
media
and
clickbait
drive
attention
to
missteps,
mistakes,
and
personal
failures
and
shortcomings.
So
how
do
you
build
your
brand?
First,
you
must
define
it.
Perhaps
you
want
to
be
known
as
the
go-to
cybersecurity
lawyer
in
South
Florida
or
the
premier
trial
lawyer
for
asbestos
matters
in
Atlanta.
To
do
so,
obviously,
you
must
do
great
work
in
those
areas
in
your
jurisdiction.
Beyond
that,
you
want
to
write,
speak,
and
lead
in
that
field.
You
want
to
be
a
leader
in
AI?
If
so,
do
you
belong
to
organizations
with
an
AI
focus?
Do
you
speak,
write,
and
post
about
AI?
Do
journalists
quote
you
in
articles
about
AI?
If
you
want
to
own
a
space
and
have
your
brand
reflect
that,
then
you
flood
the
zone
in
that
space,
so
anyone
interested,
involved,
and
curious
about
it
inevitably
learns
about
you
and
is
exposed
to
you.
What
happens
to
some
of
us
(including
me)
is
losing
focus
on
our
brand
and
doing
too
much
in
too
many
areas,
diluting
our
voice
and
message.
Some
of
the
best
lawyers
I
know
maintain
a
consistent,
focused
theme
across
all
social
media
platforms,
in
their
writing,
speaking
engagements,
and
their
work.
They
focus
on
their
primary
practice
area
and
own
that
space
through
everything
they
do,
which
positions
them
as
experts,
and
that
perceived
expertise
leads
to
referrals,
clients,
and
cases.
And
when
I
say
perceived
expertise,
I’m
not
suggesting
these
lawyers
are
not
in
fact
experts.
Still,
their
ability
to
get
others
to
see
them
as
experts
—
create
a
perception
of
expertise
—
is
what
enables
them
to
develop
a
brand
that
supports
their
professional
and
career
development.
So,
not
only
do
you
want
to
define
your
brand
and
do
what
you
can
to
contribute
to
it,
but
you
also
want
to
focus
your
efforts
like
a
laser
on
hitting
the
bullseye
of
that
brand,
rather
than
coloring
outside
the
lines.
Building
your
brand
is
something
you
do
every
day
in
small
and
big
ways,
in
loud
and
quiet
ways,
and
the
saying
that
everything
you
do
defines
you
applies
to
your
brand
as
well.
So
that’s
how
you
build
your
brand.
How
do
you
avoid
damaging
it?
Avoid
being
a
troll,
picking
fights,
or
being
unnecessarily
controversial
in
person
or
online.
I
see
so
many
people
online
confuse
popularity
with
a
positive
brand.
They
look
at
their
analytics
and
reference
high
click
numbers
as
positive,
but
they’re
little
more
than
a
human
car
accident
with
everyone
rubbernecking
to
see
what
happened.
I
know
several
lawyers
on
LinkedIn
with
a
large
number
of
followers,
but
who
are
human
flame
throwers,
and
though
it
may
work
for
them,
I
recommend
against
that
approach.
Unless
you
have
your
own
firm,
most
firms
and
employers
would
not
be
thrilled
with
that
approach
(and
I’ve
seen
lawyers
fired
over
online
antics).
My
final
thought
is
that
your
brand
is
your
brand
and
travels
with
you
from
one
position
to
the
next
and
from
one
job
to
the
next.
A
strong,
powerful
brand
will
provide
you
with
autonomy,
clients,
cases,
and
control
over
your
destiny.
Every
company
has
a
brand.
Every
firm
has
a
brand.
And
every
lawyer
has
a
brand
that
will
be
your
support,
crutch,
and
resource
for
professional
growth.
And
chances
are
your
perfect
workplace
is
a
firm
or
company
whose
brand
fits
hand
in
glove
with
yours.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.
Bonuses,
bonuses,
and
more
bonuses!
Yet
another
Biglaw
firm
has
stepped
into
the
2025
bonus
arena,
rolling
out
its
year-end
awards.
While
the
market
continues
to
wait
for
a
leader
—
cough,
Milbank,
cough
—
to
break
from
the
pack
with
something
splashier,
this
latest
announcement
shows
that
firms
are
still
jockeying
for
position
by
offering
bigger
and
better
bonuses
to
their
highest
billers.
Ropes
&
Gray
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$3,416,636,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
7
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
has
announced
a
Cravath
match
for
year-end
bonuses
for
those
who
have
met
1900
creditable
hours,
and
a
Milbank
match
for
special
bonuses.
This
is
what
the
firm’s
bonus
scales
look
like
(note
that
for
the
Class
of
2017
and
beyond,
Ropes
is
offering
associates
$15,000
in
additional
bonus
money):
In
addition
to
matching
both
the
year-end
and
the
special
bonus
scales,
the
firm
is
offering
bonuses
that
“may
be
increased
up
to
150%
of
the
year-end
bonus
amounts”
for
those
who
have
billed
“materially
more”
than
their
1900-hour
billable
expectation.
Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Ropes
&
Gray!
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 Lin
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
If
any
firm
is
going
to
raise
Cravath,
it’s
going
to
be
a
firm
like
Milbank
or
a
firm
with
a
top-of-market
M&A
practice.
—
David
Nicol,
head
of
the
US
practice
for
recruiting
firm
Marsden,
in
comments
given
to
Bloomberg
Law,
concerning
Milbank’s
silence
thus
far
during
Biglaw’s
2025
bonus
season.
The
elite
firm
is
known
for
being
a
compensation
leader,
often
leading
the
pack
when
it
comes
to
salary
increases
and
bonus
announcements.
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.