Shared
savings
programs
are
useful
for
nudging
providers’
behavior
toward
value,
but
they
aren’t
a
true
payment
model
that
can
sustain
a
health
system,
according
to
one
executive.
“Shared
savings
contracts
are
a
really
great
mechanism
for
getting
people
to
start
to
pay
attention
to
value
—
but
their
structure
is,
by
definition,
not
overall
how
we’re
going
to
get
paid
for
our
care,”
said
Patrick
Runnels,
chief
medical
officer
of
University
Hospitals
in
Cleveland,
during
an
interview
last
month
at
Reuters’
Total
Health
conference
in
Chicago.
He
pointed
out
that
University
Hospitals
earned
about
$50
million
in
shared
savings
last
year,
but
that
was
still
less
than
5%
of
its
total
revenue.
Even
if
the
health
system
doubled
or
tripled
that
amount,
shared
savings
would
not
be
a
major
revenue
driver,
Runnels
stated.
To
meaningfully
shift
incentives,
health
systems
need
either
more
downside
risk
and
more
capitated
contracts,
or
much
larger
shared
savings
incentives
than
exist
today,
he
declared.
In
his
eyes,
the
economics
of
value-based
care
are
simply
misaligned
—
every
value-based
dollar
earned
often
requires
giving
up
more
lucrative
fee-for-service
dollars.
Runnels
said
University
Hospitals
is
working
with
a
healthcare
economist
to
identify
the
inflection
point
at
which
reducing
low-value
care
becomes
financially
rational
under
current
incentives.
“Most
systems
are
going
to
be
reluctant
to
shift
their
economic
engine
to
a
value-based
payment
mechanism
that
is
actually
going
to
make
them
less
money
and
be
less
sustainable.
As
a
caveat
to
that,
certainly
part
of
the
idea
behind
value-based
contracts
is
that
we
reduce
overall
spending
and
overall
costs
—
and
health
systems
have
work
to
do
to
figure
out
how
to
reduce
costs,”
he
explained.
He
noted
that
lower
utilization
only
works
if
costs
are
reduced
as
well.
For
example,
University
Hospitals
increased
colorectal
cancer
screening
from
roughly
40%
to
75%,
which
cut
surgeries
by
half.
But
if
the
health
system
doesn’t
decrease
the
cost
structure
around
colorectal
surgery,
it
still
carries
the
same
fixed
costs
despite
lower
surgical
volume,
Runnels
said.
Many
hospitals
are
not
built
to
lower
their
internal
cost
structures
quickly,
he
added.
He
also
mentioned
that
most
of
University
Hospitals’
shared
savings
come
from
Medicare.
Runnels
believes
CMS
should
change
payment
incentives
—
not
necessarily
by
eliminating
fee-for-service
models,
but
reshaping
them
so
that
they
reward
high-value
care
and
penalize
low-value
care.
Options
include
increasing
shared
savings
percentages,
adjusting
fee-for-service
rates
to
favor
high-value
services,
and
temporarily
paying
more
for
avoiding
unnecessary
procedures,
he
said.
Until
those
incentives
change,
he
warned,
shared
savings
will
remain
a
useful
pilot
—
but
not
a
scalable
business
model.
*
Biglaw
knows
they
won’t
get
people
back
in
the
office.
But
the
more
days
they
ask
for,
the
more
days
they
might
get.
[American
Lawyer]
*
Trump
administration
pursuing
over
a
hundred
Section
111
cases,
the
nation’s
“Stop
Hitting
Yourself!”
statute.
[The
Atlantic]
*
Supreme
Court
takes
on
case
poised
to
put
U.S.
out
of
line
with
international
law
but
also
make
it
easier
for
Trump’s
immigration
policies,
so…
[ABA
Journal]
*
Judge
affirms
law
to
keep
immigration
enforcement
out
of
state
courthouses.
[Reuters]
*
Attorney
says
that
they
feel
better
giving
work
to
AI
than
junior
lawyers.
That
seems…
ill-advised.
[Artificial
Lawyer]
*
DOJ
gets
behind
arbitrary
plan
to
use
random
military
lawyers
as
immigration
judges.
[Law360]
Ashurst
Merges
With
Perkins
Coie:
Together
they
have
$2.58B
in
gross
revenue!
Relating
To
A
Kardashian:
Failing
the
bar
sucks.
More
bar
prep
doesn’t
make
it
any
better.
There
Goes
Another
Benchslap!:
Judge
Fitzpatrick
orders
the
DOJ
to
turn
over
everything.
Harvey
Heads
To
Oxford!:
The
AI
law
school
software
has
crossed
the
pond!
DoorDash
Girl
Charged
With
Felonies:
Sharing
a
video
of
someone
passed
out
in
their
home
didn’t
go
so
well.
According
to
Wells
Fargo’s
Legal
Specialty
Group
Nine-Month
2025
Survey,
the
average
standard
billing
rate
for
the
top
200
firms
rose
how
much
year-over-year?
Hint:
The
first
nine
months
of
2025
saw
a
sharper
increase
in
billable
rates
that
the
same
period
in
2024,
with
the
top
50
Biglaw
firms’
standard
rate
growth
higher
than
for
other
tiers.
The
speed
of
AI
development
gets
most
of
the
headlines,
but
the
law
is
running
a
race
of
its
own.
Legislators
and
regulators
are
releasing
new
rules
at
a
pace
that
can
surprise
even
the
most
seasoned
compliance
teams.
For
in-house
counsel,
this
creates
a
constant
challenge:
how
to
give
sound,
forward-looking
advice
when
the
ground
under
your
feet
is
shifting.
The
Fastest-Moving
Rulebook
In
Tech
Unlike
more-established
areas
of
technology
law,
AI
regulation
is
in
a
period
of
constant
motion.
The
EU
AI
Act
is
nearing
implementation.
States
like
California
and
Colorado
are
experimenting
with
their
own
frameworks.
Sector-specific
guidance
is
emerging
for
industries
from
healthcare
to
finance.
Meanwhile,
countries
in
Asia,
the
Middle
East,
and
Latin
America
are
rolling
out
policies
tailored
to
their
markets.
A
product
that
meets
every
legal
requirement
at
the
time
of
launch
may
still
face
new
obligations
before
its
first
update.
This
volatility
means
that
compliance
cannot
be
treated
as
a
single
checkpoint.
It
must
be
a
continuous
discipline.
Building
A
Legal
Radar
Staying
ahead
begins
with
visibility.
In-house
counsel
should
develop
a
reliable
system
for
tracking
legislative
proposals,
draft
regulations,
and
enforcement
trends.
This
is
not
something
that
can
be
left
to
occasional
research.
It
requires
a
mix
of
automated
alerts,
regular
briefings
from
trusted
external
advisors,
and
active
participation
in
industry
groups
that
engage
with
policymakers.
The
goal
is
to
see
changes
coming
early
enough
to
adapt
strategy,
rather
than
reacting
in
a
scramble
after
the
rules
are
finalized.
Embedding
Law
Into
Development
When
legal
obligations
can
change
midstream,
product
development
must
be
able
to
absorb
those
changes
without
losing
momentum.
This
is
where
embedding
counsel
in
early-stage
planning
becomes
critical.
Legal
input
at
the
design
stage
ensures
that
requirements
are
considered
as
part
of
the
build
process,
not
as
unexpected
barriers
at
the
end.
If
a
proposal
for
stricter
transparency
rules
appears
halfway
through
development,
for
example,
a
team
with
legal
already
at
the
table
can
pivot
more
smoothly
than
one
that
learns
about
it
just
before
launch.
Designing
For
Flexibility
An
effective
way
to
manage
shifting
regulations
is
to
build
flexibility
into
the
product
itself.
Modular
design,
configurable
features,
and
adaptable
reporting
mechanisms
make
it
easier
to
comply
with
new
requirements
without
overhauling
the
entire
system.
On
the
organizational
side,
this
means
having
governance
processes
that
allow
for
quick
decision-making.
Roles,
responsibilities,
and
escalation
paths
should
be
clear
so
that
regulatory
changes
can
be
addressed
without
delay.
Turning
Change
Into
Opportunity
While
frequent
regulatory
updates
can
create
uncertainty,
they
also
open
doors
for
competitive
advantage.
Companies
that
can
adjust
faster
than
their
peers
can
enter
regulated
markets
sooner,
build
stronger
relationships
with
regulators,
and
signal
to
customers
that
they
take
responsible
AI
seriously.
In-house
counsel
is
in
a
unique
position
to
help
the
business
turn
adaptability
into
a
selling
point.
By
anticipating
legal
developments
and
guiding
agile
responses,
legal
teams
can
help
transform
compliance
into
a
tool
for
building
market
trust.
Leading
In
A
Moving
Landscape
AI
regulation
will
not
slow
down
any
time
soon.
Companies
that
thrive
will
not
be
the
ones
waiting
for
the
rules
to
settle
but
those
that
plan
for
constant
evolution.
For
in-house
counsel,
that
means
treating
legal
change
as
a
constant
design
factor,
not
an
occasional
obstacle.
The
ability
to
stay
informed,
adapt
quickly,
and
guide
the
business
through
regulatory
shifts
is
now
a
core
part
of
legal
leadership
in
the
AI
era.
The
companies
that
master
this
will
not
just
keep
pace
with
the
law.
They
will
help
shape
the
standards
that
define
the
future
of
AI.
Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn and
X
@olgavmack.
Lots
of
questions
swirl
around
the
use
of
AI
by
lawyers
in
general
and
young
lawyers
in
particular.
The
questions
all
center
around
how
do
we
train
young
lawyers
to
use
AI
tools
safely
and
proficiently
while
ensuring
they
develop
the
skills
firms
want
them
to
have?
At
least
two
leading
firms
have
recently
taken
affirmative
steps
to
do
just
that
and
prepare
for
a
future
where
proficiency
in
the
use
of
AI
tools
will
be
critical.
Both
firms
have
elected
to
make
an
investment
in
the
future
that
we
often
don’t
see
in
the
legal
community.
Both
firms
have
elected
to
forgo
some
billable
hours
and
perhaps
revenue
for
future
returns.
Both
firms
aren’t
just
talking
professional
development
for
young
lawyers,
they’re
investing
real
resources
and
forgoing
billable
hours.
They
are
walking
the
walk.
The
Ropes
&
Gray
Initiative
The
first
is
Ropes
&
Gray,
headquartered
in
Boston.
Ropes
has
over
1,500
attorneys
with
16
offices
worldwide
and
is
an
Am
Law
50
firm.
Definitely
qualifies
as
Biglaw.
Ropes
has
decided
to
make
a
sizeable
investment
in
AI:
starting
immediately,
first-year
associates
can
spend
up
to
400
hours
of
their
annual
1,900-hour
billable
hour
requirement
for
AI
training
and
experimentation.
This
can
include
time
experimenting
and
working
in
groups.
That’s
up
to
20%
of
the
total
requirement.
The
time,
of
course,
can’t
be
billed
to
clients.
According
to
Amy
Ross,
Chief
of
Attorney
Talent,
and
Jane
Rogers,
Partner
&
Co-head
of
the
Finance
Practice,
the
associates
will
work
in
mentoring
circles
to
discuss
how
they
have
used
AI,
what
success
they
have
found
and
importantly
what
opportunities
they
have
identified.
The
associates
will
also
receive
hands
on
training.
“Associates
are
expected
to
co-create
solutions,
act
as
thought
partners,
and
help
establish
repeatable,
defensible
approaches
for
applying
AI
in
practice.”
The
associates
will
use
Ropes’
15+
approved
AI
tools.
The
firm
also
plans
to
“collect
analyze
and
disseminate
use
cases
to
enhance
learning,”
say
Ross
and
Rogers.
It’s
a
good
investment
with
little
downside.
On
the
face
of
it,
it
looks
like
Ropes
is
giving
up
a
chunk
of
revenue
from
the
400
hours
that
the
first-year
associates
could
perhaps
bill.
I
say
perhaps
because
that’s
not
necessarily
true.
Let’s
face
it,
first-years
are
not
terribly
profitable.
They
lack
the
experience
to
do
a
whole
lot
substantially.
In
Biglaw,
they
are
highly
paid
but
often
don’t
produce
a
lot
of
revenue.
Nor
are
they
expected
to.
It’s
a
training
period.
Add
to
this
the
fact
that
lots
of
clients
are
simply
unwilling
to
pay
for
work
by
beginning
associates.
So
Ropes’
loss
or
revenue
may
not
be
that
significant
But
the
revenue
analysis
is
not
the
whole
story.
Retaining
associates
these
days
is
an
arms
race.
Keeping
associates
happy
is
important:
a
firm
may
spend
a
year
training
a
first-year
associate
and
not
getting
much
return
only
to
see
them
leave
and
lose
the
investment.
My
guess
is
Ropes’
first-year
associates
will
embrace
this
program,
encouraging
their
long-term
and
short-term
loyalty.
So,
all
in
all,
it’s
a
smart
move
that
will
result
in
AI-first
lawyers
that
are
more
productive
and
happier
in
the
long
run.
And
that
will
inure
to
the
firms’
benefit
long
term.
The
Grace
to
Dabble
As
I
recently
discussed,
mastering
GenAI
simply
requires
taking
the
time
work
with
it,
to
try
and
fail.
It
requires
on
the
job
training
more
than
classroom
instruction.
I
recently
did
a
podcast
interview
of Thomas
Suh,
a
former
practicing
lawyer
and
founder
of
LegalMation,
an
AI
litigation
tools
provider.
In
his
former
life
as
a
lawyer,
he
helped
build
what
he
called
a
tech-first
law
firm.
He
and
his
partners
did
that
by
giving
themselves
the
grace
to
“dabble”
as
he
put
it.
To
master
tech
by
doing
what
I
just
said:
experimenting,
trying
different
things.
Yes,
it
takes
time.
Yes,
much
of
that
time
can’t
be
billed.
But
the
returns
can
be
significant.
Ropes
has
just
given
its
first
years
the
power
to
dabble
and
learn
how
to
leverage
AI
tools.
I’m
guessing
the
return
will
be
significant.
The
Latham
Program
While
Ropes
focused
on
individual
experimentation,
another
Am
Law
behemoth
took
a
slightly
different
approach.
A
second
AI
training
initiative
that
will
pay
off
long
term
is
that
of
Latham
&
Watkins.
Latham
is
a
Los
Angeles-based
firm
and
even
bigger
than
Ropes.
It
has
over
3,500
attorneys
and
over
25
offices
worldwide.
It
consistently
ranks
near
the
top
of
the
American
Lawyer
Am
Law
revenue
rankings.
Definitely
big,
Biglaw.
According
to
a
recent
article
in
Business
Insider,
Latham
took
the
unusual
step
in
2024
of
bringing
all
400
of
its
first-year
associates
to
Washington,
D.C.,
for
a
mandatory
two-day
AI
Academy.
The
program
focused
on
the
use
of
Harvey
and
Microsoft
Copilot
and
included
outside
speakers.
Latham
repeated
the
program
this
year.
In
addition
to
the
two-day
inaugural
program,
Latham
says
there
are
also
multiple
events
and
training
programs
throughout
the
year
aimed
at
different
groups.
The
program
is
“designed
to
equip
lawyers
to
navigate
the
significant
changes
that
artificial
intelligence
(AI)
will
bring
to
businesses
across
industries
and
around
the
globe,”
according
to
a
Latham
announcement.
Like
Ropes,
Latham
views
AI
as
a
“generational
opportunity”
according
to
one
of
the
Latham
partners
interviewed
for
the
article.
And
like
Ropes,
rather
than
wringing
its
hands
about
what
the
future
will
be
like,
it’s
leaning
in
and
making
an
investment
in
the
future.
No
doubt
those
400
associates
left
the
Academy
emboldened
to
use
the
AI
tools
and
begin
their
experimentation
as
well.
Where
Does
That
Leave
Others?
Two
Biglaw
firms.
Two
similar
approaches.
I
like
the
Ropes
approach
since
it
encourages
experimentation
and
innovation
on
an
ongoing
basis.
I
like
the
Latham
approach
because
it
sets
up
the
guardrails
and
expectations.
But
either
way,
approaches
like
these
will
position
these
firms
for
greater
success
and
help
them
define
what
Suh
would
no
doubt
call
an
AI-first
approach.
Both
firms
seem
to
get
it:
AI
is
going
to
fundamentally
change
the
practice
of
law
Too
many
firms
are
doing
the
opposite:
wringing
their
hands
about
the
future
while
doing
little.
Trying
to
drive
forward
by
looking
in
the
rear-view
mirror.
What
these
two
firms
are
doing
is
a
bit
unusual.
Investing
substantial
time
and
energy
in
non-billable
programs
that
will
aid
the
firms
long
term,
not
just
this
year.
In
an
industry
where
partners
obsess
over
utilization
rates
and
billable
hour
quotas,
these
firms
are
making
a
counterintuitive
bet
that
the
short-term
sacrifice
will
yield
long-term
competitive
advantage.
Deal
With
It
And
you
don’t
have
to
be
an
Am
Law
50
firm
to
take
the
reins.
It
requires
a
commitment
by
firm
leadership
no
matter
what
the
firm
size
to
see
and
plan
for
a
potentially
different
future.
It
requires
a
senior
management
that
itself
is
willing
to
learn.
A
50-lawyer
firm
can’t
bring
400
associates
to
Washington,
but
it
can
dedicate
Friday
afternoons
to
AI
experimentation
or
partner
junior
associates
with
tech-savvy
partners.
Assuming
of
course
that
there
are
partners
willing
to
become
tech
savvy.
Moreover,
in
a
world
where
competition
and
retention
of
quality
associates
becomes
more
difficult
every
day,
firms
that
treat
AI
training
as
optional
professional
development
are
setting
themselves
up
to
lose
talent
to
competitors
who
embrace
it
as
core
competency.
Want
to
compete
with
Ropes
and
Latham
in
years
to
come?
Stop
wondering
if
AI
will
disrupt
the
practice
of
law
and
start
developing
the
talent
to
deal
with
it.
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.
I
would
imagine
that
if
you
polled
most
people
on
whether
it
was
okay
to
record
an
unconscious
naked
person
in
their
home
and
spread
the
video
on
a
social
media
platform
you’d
be
met
with
resounding
“Hell
No!”
answers.
However,
that
gutcheck
assumption
got
questioned
in
October
when
a
DoorDasher
accused
a
man
of
sexual
assault
for
deliberately
passing
out
in
what
would
be
the
deliverer’s
direct
line
of
sight.
The
internet
has
been
ablaze
with
the
fact
pattern.
Since
the
order
just
asked
for
the
food
to
be
delivered
at
the
door,
did
the
food
deliverer
actually
need
to
be
in
the
line
of
sight?
Was
the
man
a
pervert
or
did
he
just
get
too
drunk
in
the
comfort
of
his
own
home,
order
some
food
to
sober
up,
and
pass
out
during
the
wait?
Was
there
a
cognizable
indecent
exposure
charge
somewhere
in
all
of
this,
even
if
he
was
in
his
own
home?
DoorDash
responded
by
cancelling
both
the
DoorDasher’s
and
customer’s
access
to
the
platform
—
was
that
the
right
thing
to
do?
While
there
are
still
many
questions,
there’s
been
a
decisive
development:
the
DoorDasher
was
charged
with
two
felonies
over
the
weekend:
DoorDash
delivery
girl
has
been
arrested
on
2
felony
charges
after
recording
a
man
passed
out
with
his
pants
down
in
his
home
and
posting
it
on
TikTok
during
a
food
delivery.
And
while
the
comments
surrounding
what
happened
and
how
the
DoorDasher
responded
used
a
lot
of
legal
sounding
language
(many
of
the
people
talking
about
the
video
gravitated
toward
using
the
word
assault),
a
much
smaller
amount
of
people
saying
what
did
or
didn’t
happen
showed
a
familiarity
with
the
law.
A
few,
namely
the
public
defense
attorney
with
the
handle
@giancrstesq,
covered
the
case
as
it
developed
and
were
unsurprised
with
how
it
has
played
out
so
far:
The
comments
are
full
of
people
who
shared
stories
of
being
insulted
or
retaliated
against
for
saying
that
the
DoorDasher
shouldn’t
have
shared
a
video
of
some
naked
dude
online
—
at
one
point
@giancrstesq
commented
that
someone
threatened
to
report
her
to
the
bar
for
her
prior
coverage.
Just
goes
to
show
that
the
average
person
should
be
careful
to
get
(and
share)
their
legal
opinions
on
social
media
without
doing
the
homework.
To
summarize
one
of
the
commenters,
there
is
a
difference
between
offense
and
assault
—
a
distinction
that
would
have
been
helpful
to
know
before
the
unlawful
surveillance
charges.
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.
I
continue
to
believe
that
firms
requesting
four
days
in-office
aren’t
really
expecting
it
or
are
likely
to
achieve
it.
But
it’s
the
hope
that,
‘The
more
days
we
ask
for,
the
more
days
they’re
likely
to
show
up.’
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.
Magistrate
Judge
William
Fitzpatrick
just
dropped
a
legal
mic
on
prosecutors
in
the
James
Comey
case.
In
a
blistering
24-page
opinion,
he
ordered
the
Department
of
Justice
to
turn
over
all
grand
jury
materials
related
to
the
Comey
indictment
to
the
defense.
(Though
the
government
has
asked
for
a
stay
in
complying
with
the
order
while
the
file
their
objections.)
Because,
despite
the
Trump
administration’s
best
efforts,
due
process
is
still
a
thing.
And
if
this
seems
highly
unusual,
well,
you’re
not
wrong!
But
prosecuting
your
political
enemies
over
the
objections
of
career
prosecutors
is
also
highly
unusual
(or
at
least
it
used
to
be,
pre-2025)
so
that’s
where
we’ve
landed.
Fitzpatrick’s
opinion
reads
like
a
cold
call
of
a
law
student
who
spent
the
semester
playing
Fortnite
instead
of
doing
the
reading.
He
all
but
accuses
the
investigative
team
of
fumbling
their
way
into
a
constitutional
ditch:
“The
record
points
to
a
disturbing
pattern
of
profound
investigative
missteps,
missteps
that
led
an
FBI
agent
and
a
prosecutor
to
potentially
undermine
the
integrity
of
the
grand
jury
proceeding.”
That
is
spectacularly
harsh
judicial
language.
When
a
judge
says
your
work
“undermined
the
integrity”
of
the
grand
jury,
that’s
not
a
critique
—
that’s
a
diagnosis.
And
the
cure?
Full
disclosure
of
all
the
grand
jury
materials.
Lest
anyone
miss
the
severity,
Fitzpatrick
says
the
quiet
part
loud:
“The
court
recognizes
this
is
an
extraordinary
remedy,
but
given
the
factually
based
challenges
the
defense
has
raised
to
the
government’s
conduct
and
the
prospect
that
government
misconduct
may
have
tainted
the
grand
jury
proceedings,
disclosure
of
grand
jury
materials
under
these
unique
circumstances
is
necessary
to
fully
protect
the
rights
of
the
accused.”
Judges
don’t
casually
throw
around
phrases
like
“tainted
the
grand
jury.”
That
Fitzpatrick
is
using
the
term
at
all
should
make
DOJ
attorneys
want
to
crawl
under
the
table
and
rethink
their
career
choices.
Because
“extraordinary
remedy”?
That’s
judge-speak
for
“you
left
me
no
choice.”
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].
Fifteen
years
ago this
week, David
Lat,
who
then
ran
Above
the
Law,
asked
me,
a
veteran
big-firm
partner
who
had
recently
gone
in-house,
if
I’d
write
a
column
for
this
online
publication.
I
agreed. This
link to
my
first
column
shows
how
I
started
back
in
2010.
Originally,
I
wrote
two
columns
every
week. And
I
wrote
almost
exclusively
about
life
as
an
in-house
lawyer
or
things
I
had
learned
in
my
previous
life
at
a
large
firm.
I
used myself
as
a
case
study in
developing
a
legal
practice
at
a
large
firm. Since
I
was
no
longer
in
the
game,
I
could
afford
to
be
mercilessly
honest.
I
had
started
a
blog
when
I
was
at
a
law
firm. I
wrote
about blogging
as
a
business
development
tool. Again,
since
I
had
nothing
at
stake,
I
could
afford
to
be
honest. (After
I
moved
in-house,
my
co-blogger
kept
the
experiment
alive. He’s still
at
it
now,
with
help
from
others,
20
years
after
we
started
that
puppy.)
Very
occasionally,
I
veered
off
topic
onto
other
subjects. In
15
years
at
Above
the
Law,
I
stand
by this
as
the
cutest
column I’ve
ever
written,
even
though
it
touches
on
the
law
only
tangentially. Perhaps this
one is
a
close
second,
and
it’s
more
legally
relevant.
In
2012,
the
company
that
I
worked
for
moved
its
headquarters
(and
me)
overseas
to
London. I
reduced
my
writing
schedule
from
two
columns
per
week
to
one. When
you
live
in
London,
weekends
are
made
for
Paris,
not
cranking
out
columns
for
Above
the
Law.
After
my
move
to
the
U.K.,
I poked
fun
at
the
Brits. I
took
a
lot
of
grief
for
that
one.
At
about
the
same
time,
I
decided
to
collect
some
of
my
columns
in
a
book. (Here’s the
link to
the
book
at
Amazon, but
the
book
is
now
out
of
print,
so
you
couldn’t
buy
a
copy
if
you
wanted
to. Happily,
my
other
book,
“The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law,”
is
a
bigger
seller,
so
you
can
still grab
a
copy (affiliate
link)
if
you’re
interested.)
Long-time
readers
will
remember
that
Above
the
Law
originally
permitted
folks
to
click
on
an
icon
and
post
comments
about
every
column.
The
comments
ranged
from
vicious
to
insightful
to
vicious
to
intelligent
to
vicious
to
hysterically
funny
to
vicious.
My
book
reproduced
both
some
my
columns
and
some
of
my
readers’
comments,
because
I
accept
wisdom,
humor,
and
insights
from
all
sources,
and
even
viciousness
can
be
revealing.
When
I
started
writing
this
column,
I
had
to
give
it
a
name,
which
was
included
every
week
along
with
a
subtitle
hinting
at
the
subject
of
that
particular
column. Above
the
Law
believed
that
naming
a
column
was
important
for
branding
purposes. (The
branding
exercise
stopped
many
years
ago.)
My
column
was
originally
titled
“Inside
Straight.” When
the
time
came
to
name
my
book,
I
wrote
a
column
explaining
that
the
title
of
my
book
would
start
with
the
name
of
the
column,
“Inside
Straight,”
but
would
then
have
a
colon
and
a
short,
snappy,
subtitle. I asked
readers
to
suggest
subtitles in
the
comments. As
you
might
imagine,
I
received
a
variety
of
suggestions. One
of
my
favorites
was
from
the
commenter
who
proposed: “Inside
Straight: The
Annoying
Ramblings
of
an
Uber
Douche.” I
confess
that
I
used
a
different
title
when
the
book
was
actually
published.
Many
subjects
are
static;
they
just
don’t
advance
quickly,
and
you
eventually
exhaust
what
you
have
to
say. Life
as
an
in-house
lawyer
is
that
way. But
two
subjects
change
all
the
time: Sports
(with
a
game
every
night)
and
politics
(basically
the
same). I
bet
that’s
why
you
see
so
many
columns
about
sports
and
politics. After
Donald
Trump
was
elected
president
and
I
returned
to
the
United
States,
I
shifted
the
subject
of
my
column
from
“life
as
an
in-house
lawyer”
to
“how
could
we
have
elected
that
clown?”
(although
I
occasionally gave
Trump
his
due —
eliminating
the
penny,
for
example,
was
a
good
idea). By
then,
I
had
no
more
to
say
about
in-house
life
and,
with
Trump
as
president,
the
lure
was
irresistible.
My
columns
became
more
widely
read
when
I
started
writing
political
opinion. My
single
most
widely
read
column
ruminated
on
how Trump
might
react to
being
indicted. But
I
thought
this
column
was
OK,
too,
posing
a few
questions
to
my Trump-supporting
friends. Judging
from
the
reaction
to
that
column,
my
Trump-supporting
friends
don’t
like
being
questioned.
Years
ago,
I
published
annual
columns
celebrating
each
anniversary
of
my
time
at
Above
the
Law. I
titled
most
of
those
columns,
“Happy
Birthday
to
Me!” But
the
statistics
showed
that
nobody
read
those
columns. One
year,
I
tried
to sucker
people
into
reading my
anniversary
celebration. That
didn’t
work
either.
I
gave
up
the
tradition.
But
today,
on
my
15th
anniversary
at
Above
the
Law,
I’m
reverting
to
form
and
noting
the
occasion
out
loud. I
guarantee
you
that
I’ll
no
longer
be
writing
these
columns
in
2040,
so
you
won’t
be
seeing
any
30th
anniversary
post
from
me. Once
in
a
lifetime
is
enough.
For
a
once-in-a-lifetime
occasion,
let’s
celebrate.
Break
out
the
cake. Light
the
candles. Cut
yourself
a
slice.
Kathryn
