While
I
don’t
practice
criminal
(only
civil)
law,
I
do
have
an
aversion
to
bullies
and
so
I
am
honored
to
be
ranked
so
highly
on
a
list
of
people
to
call
if
you
are
in
trouble.
—
Renowned
litigator
Roberta
Kaplan,
in
comments
given
to
Bloomberg
Law,
after
she
placed
third
in
a
survey
regarding
the
attorney
readers
would
call
if
they
found
themselves
in
white-collar
legal
trouble.
Quinn
Emanuel’s
Alex
Spiro,
lawyer
to
the
stars,
came
in
first
place.
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.
For
years,
I
dreaded
public
speaking.
Not
just
speaking
in
front
of
large
audiences,
but
also
in
front
of
small
ones.
In
fact,
I
hated
any
social
setting
where
I
had
to
interact
with
anybody.
You
know
that
icebreaker
when
you
go
around
the
room
and
you
introduce
yourself
and
say
something
interesting
or
funny
about
yourself?
That
would
send
me
into
a
full-fledged
panic
attack.
I
realized,
as
a
litigator
and,
more
importantly,
as
a
trial
lawyer,
that
I
had
to
overcome
my
fear
of
interacting
with
others
and
learn
to
communicate
in
all
public
settings.
Before
I
describe
my
approach
on
how
I
went
from
then
to
now,
let’s
briefly
discuss
behavioral
modification.
Let’s
assume
you’re
afraid
of
spiders.
You
see
a
behavioral
psychologist,
and
you
tell
her
that
you
want
to
overcome
your
fear
of
spiders
(arachnophobia).
The
psychologist
will
guide
you
through
a
series
of
steps,
where
in
each
step,
you
will
have
increasing
exposure
to
your
fear
until
you
learn
to
live
with
it
or
overcome
it.
During
your
first
session
with
the
psychologist,
she
may
show
you
a
book
with
a
photo
of
a
spider.
The
following
week,
she
may
pull
up
a
video
on
her
laptop
for
you
to
watch
a
spider.
The
following
week,
the
psychologist
may
ask
you
to
visit
a
local
pet
store
and
observe
a
spider
in
a
glass
cage.
The
following
week,
the
psychologist
may
bring
a
spider
in
a
container
for
you
to
look
at.
The
following
week,
the
psychologist
may
open
the
container
and
ask
you
to
take
a
close
look
inside.
And
the
week
after,
the
psychologist
may
pick
up
the
spider
and
put
it
in
your
hand.
The
following
week,
the
psychologist
may
ask
you
to
buy
a
spider
as
a
pet
and
keep
it
at
home.
The
idea
behind
this
approach
is
that
each
successive
week,
you
are
exposed
to
the
next
level
or
layer,
getting
closer
to
the
thing
you
fear,
and
dealing
with
it
more
directly
until
you
can
confront
it
or
the
fear
dissipates.
The
same
approach
applies
to
public
speaking.
I
used
this
method
when
I
transitioned
from
being
terrified
of
any
social
interaction
to
confidently
speaking
in
front
of
hundreds
of
people
every
week.
This
transformation
is
a
testament
to
the
power
of
incremental
steps
in
overcoming
fear.
I
started
my
journey
in
public
speaking
with
private
setting
opportunities
–
namely,
meeting
someone
for
coffee.
I
had
multiple
coffee
meetings
over
the
course
of
a
year
before
I
started
volunteering
to
speak
publicly.
This
one-on-one
session
helped
me
become
comfortable
sitting
across
from
someone,
engaging
in
conversation,
learning
about
and
appreciating
body
language,
and
improving
my
overall
communication
skills.
From
there,
I
started
doing
webinars.
I
could
do
them
in
the
privacy
of
my
own
office,
and
I
didn’t
have
to
stand
in
front
of
an
audience.
I
could
rely
on
PowerPoint
or
notes
without
the
audience
appreciating
that
I
was
doing
just
that.
I
graduated
from
webinars.
I
started
doing
podcast
interviews,
where
I
was
the
guest
of
honor.
It
was
generally
casual,
didn’t
require
much
preparation,
and
it
got
me
used
to
speaking
in
the
setting,
which
would
be
recorded
and
then
heard
by
others.
And
then
I
started
doing
presentations
in
small
settings
in
front
of
groups
that
I
considered
safe.
In
front
of
my
church,
Sunday
school
classes,
and
other
groups,
where
it
didn’t
really
matter
how
I
looked
or
how
I
came
across
–
these
were
safe
spaces.
And
then
I
started
giving
presentations,
where
I
moderated
the
panel,
which
relieved
some
of
the
pressure.
I
eventually
became
a
panelist
on
a
panel
and
then
a
solo
speaker
to
the
audience.
And
then
I
started
giving
numerous
presentations,
where
I
would
speak
to
dozens,
then
hundreds,
of
people
as
a
keynote
speaker,
often
for
over
an
hour,
two
hours,
or
even
three
hours.
Today,
I
have
delivered
over
500
presentations,
both
virtually
and
in
person,
hosted
over
100
webinars,
and
been
a
guest
on
more
than
100
additional
webinars.
And
it
all
started
with
just
having
coffee
with
someone.
So,
whatever
fear
you
have,
whether
it’s
public
speaking
or
something
else,
start
on
the
periphery
of
that
fear
and
work
your
way
towards
the
heart
of
it,
tackling
it
one
step
at
a
time.
As
you
progress,
you’ll
move
further
into
the
fear
and
closer
to
its
center,
taking
on
the
fear
head-on.
That’s
how
you
overcome
every
fear.
Remember,
overcoming
a
phobia
is
like
eating
an
elephant,
one
bite
at
a
time.
Start
with
the
easiest
aspects
of
the
phobia
and
progressively
work
towards
the
more
challenging
elements.
Eventually,
you’ll
learn
to
live
with
fear
or
overcome
it,
and
either
way,
you’ll
be
in
control
and
closer
to
where
you
want
to
be.
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.
Earlier
this
year,
SCOTUSblog
co-founder
and
veteran
Supreme
Court
litigator
Tom
Goldstein
was arrested
on
a
22-count
indictment alleging
tax
crimes
and
making
false
statements
to
lenders.
According
to
the
government,
Goldstein
participated
in
high-stakes
poker
games
and
failed
to
disclose
his
winnings
(in
tax
filings)
and
losings
(in
loan
applications).
Over
the
course
of
several
years,
the
indictment
says
that
Goldstein
racked
up
big
winnings
and
bigger
losses
in
high-stakes
underground
poker
matches,
both
domestically
and
abroad.
By
the
time
of
the
alleged
loan
fraud,
the
indictment
says
Goldstein
was
millions
in
debt.
And
while
he
didn’t
report
all
his
gambling
income,
a
good
deal
of
the
tax
problems
revolve
around
using
the
firm,
Goldstein
&
Russell,
to
move
money
from
firm
accounts
to
pay
personal
gambling
debts.
Plus
some
extra
personal
and
financial
shenanigans,
wherein
Goldstein
allegedly
paid
mistresses
as
employees
to
do
nonexistent
work.
Now,
according
to
an
order
entered
earlier
this
week,
District
Court
of
Maryland
Judge
Lydia
Kay
Griggsby
rejected
Goldstein’s
arguments
that
the
tax
evasion,
willful
failure
to
pay
taxes,
and
two
counts
of
aiding
and
assisting
in
the
preparation
of
a
fraudulent
tax
return
charges
he
faces
are
time
barred.
But
the
government
obtained
several
tolling
orders
because
Goldstein
spent
“hundreds
of
days
travelling”
outside
the
country,
Griggsby
said.
The
question
of
whether
the
statute
of
limitations
was
actually
tolled
due
to
Goldstein’s
time
abroad
is
for
a
jury
to
decide,
the
judge
added.
Goldstein
also
suffered
another
legal
loss
when
the
judge
ruled
statements
he
made
to
US
Customs
and
Border
Protection
officers were
admissible.
In
2018,
Goldstein
told
Customs
the $968,000
in
cash he
carried
was
gambling
winnings.
He
later
told
the
IRS
that
cash
constituted
loans.
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].
Ed.
note:
This
article
is
part
of
Parental
Leave
&
The
Legal
Profession,
a
special
series
for
Above
the
Law
that
explores
the
realities
of
parental
leave
and
return-to-work
in
law
firms.
From
planning
leave
to
reintegration,
from
the
role
of
managers
to
the
mental
load
of
Biglaw
parents,
these
articles
bring
research,
clinical
insight,
and
practical
strategies
to
help
lawyers
and
the
firms
that
employ
them
navigate
one
of
the
most
critical
transitions
of
their
careers.
For
Alison,
while
her
pregnancy
filled
her
with
excitement,
the
idea
of
sharing
it
at
her
firm
filled
her
with
dread.
She
worried
about
how
she
would
be
perceived
and
the
assumptions
that
others
would
make
about
her
dedication
to
the
firm.
She
wanted
to
wait
as
long
as
possible
to
share
her
news.
Would
waiting
until
she
delivered
be
too
late?
For
many
lawyers,
the
months
before
parental
leave
are
marked
not
just
by
excitement
about
a
growing
family,
but
by
a
gnawing
anxiety:
How
will
I
navigate
this
alongside
my
career?
Even
at
firms
with
generous
leave
policies,
many
lawyers
fear
being
seen
as
less
invested
as
soon
as
they
share
the
news
that
they
are
expecting.
They
worry
about
client
continuity,
missing
out
on
key
matters,
or
being
sidelined
when
they
return.The
pressure
to
demonstrate
commitment
can
make
planning
for
leave
feel
like
a
high-stakes
negotiation.
In
other
articles
for
this
series,
we
focus
on
firm-wide
changes
to
policy
and
culture,
but
this
month
we’ll
discuss
what
individuals
can
do
when
THEY
are
the
one’s
going
on
leave.
Individuals
cannot
eliminate
the
motherhood
penalty
on
their
own,
but
with
foresight,
strategy,
and
boundaries,
it
is
possible
to
take
meaningful
time
away
without
hurting
your
professional
reputation
or
relationships.
1.
Start
Early
and
Be
Proactive
One
mistake
we
see
expecting
parents
make
is
waiting
until
the
last
minute
to
plan.
This
is
an
understandable
impulse,
but
earlier
notice
gives
you
more
control.
It
lets
you
create
a
robust
coverage
plan,
adjust
workloads,
and
anticipate
your
reentry.
You
don’t
need
a
full
plan
in
place
right
away.
But
more
time
gives
your
practice
group
or
team
time
to
adapt,
and
it
positions
you
as
thoughtful,
strategic,
and
reliable.
Planning
creates
a
smoother
handoff
(and
a
smoother
re-entry
when
you
return).
Clients
will
appreciate
continuity,
and
colleagues
appreciate
not
being
blindsided.
Being
proactive
also
sets
the
tone:
you’re
not
asking
for
permission,
you’re
inviting
collaboration.
2.
Clarify
Your
Priorities
Not
all
matters
are
created
equal.
Identify
which
cases,
clients,
or
projects
you
most
want
to
stay
connected
to
and
which
you
can
fully
hand
off.
Ask
yourself:
Where
am
I
indispensable?
Where
are
opportunities
for
colleagues
to
step
in
and
grow?
Which
projects
can
I
wrap
up
before
I
go?
This
reflection
allows
you
to
shape
a
realistic
plan
instead
of
defaulting
to,
“I’ll
just
keep
doing
it
all
until
I
can’t.”
Again,
you
maintain
more
control:
you
can
pick
and
choose
how
to
hand
things
off
and
which
matters
are
most
important
to
you.
3.
Build
a
Coverage
Plan
That
Protects
Relationships
A
strong
coverage
plan
isn’t
just
about
dividing
work,
it’s
also
about
protecting
client
trust
and
safeguarding
your
professional
reputation.
Key
elements
include:
Clear
ownership:
Assign
a
primary
point
of
contact
for
each
client
or
matter.
Ambiguity
breeds
frustration.
Even
as
a
junior
associate,
you
can
clearly
communicate
with
staffing
attorneys
or
partners
on
your
team
who
will
be
taking
over
each
element
of
your
cases.
Warm
handoffs
for
client-facing
work,
particularly
relevant
for
partners:
Introduce
the
covering
lawyer(s)
directly
to
clients
before
you
leave,
framing
it
as
a
strength
of
the
firm’s
team
model
rather
than
a
gap.
Documentation:
Provide
status
updates
and
timelines
so
colleagues
can
step
in
seamlessly.
Think
of
this
as
a
professional
insurance
policy:
you
want
colleagues
and
clients
to
feel
supported
and
empowered
by
how
you
exit.
4.
Manage
Expectations
With
Partners
(and
Yourself)
Many
lawyers
assume
partners
will
penalize
them
for
taking
leave.
While
cultures
vary,
the
bigger
problem
is
often
mismanaged
expectations.
Be
explicit
about
your
leave
length,
your
communication
preferences
(completely
offline?
receive
periodic
updates?),
and
your
reintegration
timeline.
Clarity
with
boundaries
is
a
solid
management
strategy.
Vague
statements
like,
“I’m
on
leave
unless
you
really
need
me,”
blur
lines
and
lead
to
resentment.
Being
clear
with
partners
and
yourself
makes
boundaries
easier
to
hold.
5.
Protect
Your
Mental
Health
Welcoming
a
child
is
joyful
but
also
exhausting,
with
identity
shifts
and
possible
postpartum
struggles
that
deserve
care
and
support.
Even
viewed
through
the
lens
of
your
career,
it’s
important
to
acknowledge
that
you
do
need
extra
care
during
this
time.
Getting
your
(and
the
baby’s)
needs
met
will
help
you
heal,
bond,
and
grow.
One
useful
approach
is
to
think
of
this
period
as
a
developmental
phase
rather
than
a
disruption.
Parenting
leads
to
brain
changes
and
new
skills
that
can
improve
your
performance
at
work
(more
on
this
in
a
future
article).
So
give
yourself
permission
to
take
time
and
treat
leave
as
a
pause
and
a
reset
rather
than
a
liability.
6.
Anticipate
Your
Return
Before
You
Leave
The
more
you
plan
how
you
want
to
return
before
you
leave,
the
smoother
your
return
will
be.
While
the
plan
may
change
along
the
way,
having
an
idea
of
what
your
schedule
and
re-onboarding
will
look
like
helps
everyone
know
what
to
expect.
It
can
also
be
a
guide
for
steps
to
take
as
you
end
your
leave.
Key
things
to
think
about
include:
Return
schedule/Ramp-up
phase:
Would
you
like
reduced
hours?
Are
there
WFH
options?
Do
you
hope
to
start
mid-week?
Clients
and
cases:
Which
matters
might
need
more
attention
upon
your
return?
Which
projects
will
carry
the
most
meaning
for
you?
Reentry
meetings:
Schedule
time
with
key
clients
and
partners
for
your
first
weeks
back.
Support
systems:
Line
up
childcare,
backup
care,
and
household
logistics
well
before
your
return
date.
If
possible,
start
childcare
a
few
days
prior
to
work
out
any
kinks.
This
way,
your
reentry
will
feel
intentional
rather
than
chaotic.
The
Bigger
Picture
This
article
walks
you
through
parental
leave
as
an
employee,
but
planning
parental
leave
well
isn’t
just
about
individual
lawyers
—
it’s
about
firm
culture.
In
the
next
article,
we’ll
turn
the
lens
to
the
other
side
of
this
equation:
the
role
of
managers
and
partners
in
supporting
leave.
Because
no
matter
how
well
an
individual
plans,
managers
are
instrumental
in
successful
leave
experiences.
Marny
Requa,
JD is
an
academic,
coach,
and
consultant
with
global
experience
and
gender
equity
expertise. Dr.
Anne
Welsh is
a
clinical
psychologist,
executive
coach,
and
consultant
with
a
specialization
in
supporting
working
parents
in
law.
Both
are
certified
RETAIN
Parental
Leave
Coaches,
engaging
a
research-backed
methodology
to
support
and
retain
employees
as
they
grow
their
families.
Every
year,
Above
the
Law
surveys
solo
practitioners
and
small
firm
lawyers
about
their
compensation
for
an
annual
compensation
report.
This
year,
we
are
asking
attorneys
who
work
in
midsize
law
firms
to
participate
as
well.
If
you
are
a
lawyer
at
a
firm
with
fewer
than
250
attorneys,
please
click
here
to
take
this
brief,
completely
confidential
survey.
Feel
free
to
share
the
survey
with
colleagues
and
peers;
the
more
responses
we
receive,
the
more
comprehensive
the
information
we’ll
have
to
share.
There
are
many
ways
to
rank
law
schools,
but
the
way
that
the
National
Jurist’s
preLaw
Magazine
does
it
is
quite
interesting.
Rather
than
concentrating
on
the
prestige
factors
that
usually
dominate
law
school
ranking
systems,
this
ranking
focuses
solely
on
factors
that
provide
the
“best
value”
for
students.
That
said,
this
is
a
list
that
is
typically
dominated
by
public
schools,
with
a
smattering
of
private
schools
mixed
in.
Curiously,
for
the
past
few
years,
a
private
school
had
come
out
on
top
of
the
National
Jurist
ranking
—
but
that
has
stopped,
and
a
new
value
victor
reigns
supreme
in
2025.
Before
we
get
to
the
Top
20
ranking,
let’s
discuss
the
methodology
used
to
suss
out
which
law
schools
are
providing
the
best
value
for
students.
The
National
Jurist’s
ranking
takes
into
account
a
law
school’s
tuition,
students’
cost
of
living
expenses,
students’
average
indebtedness
upon
graduation
(collectively
weighted
55%),
the
percentage
of
graduates
who
got
a
job
after
graduation
(30%),
and
bar
passage
rates
(two-year
difference
between
first-time
pass
rate
and
average
state
pass
rate;
two-year
ultimate
pass
rate;
and
two-year
first-time
raw
pass
rate)
(15%).
As
noted
previously,
based
on
these
inputs,
the
ranking
tends
to
skew
heavily
towards
public
schools,
but
private
schools
made
a
showing
in
this
year’s
ranking.
One
private
school
cracked
the
Top
20,
while
10
others
followed
behind
later.
For
what
it’s
worth,
the
2025
Best
Value
ranking
reminds
us
a
bit
of
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings,
in
that
we’ve
got
an
18-way
tie
for
21st
place
and
a
20-way
tie
for
22nd
place.
Erin
O’Hara
O’Connor,
dean
of
FSU
Law,
attributes
the
school’s
success
in
the
2025
Best
Value
ranking
to
the
school’s
overall
philosophy,
that
affordability
plus
opportunity
equals
freedom
—
the
freedom
to
build
their
desired
careers.
“Per
dollar
invested
in
their
legal
education,
our
students
cannot
and
will
not
receive
a
better
education
and
better
opportunities,”
O’Connor
said.
The
lesson
to
be
learned
here
is
simple:
if
you
want
to
keep
your
debt
low,
consider
enrolling
at
a
public
law
school.
If
you
don’t
mind
up
to
a
six-figure
debt
load,
enroll
in
the
best
law
school
you
can
get
into
(let’s
say
the top
50),
because
those
are
the
schools
where
you’ll
be
able
to
get
jobs
that
will
allow
you
to
service
your
loans.
Congrats
to
the
law
schools
that
offer
their
students
the
“best
value.”
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
The
competition
for
law
firm
customers
for
legal
specific
AI
tools
is,
to
say
the
least,
intense.
Virtually
every
legal
tech
player
almost
daily
touts
enhancement
and
upgrades
designed
to
give
them
an
edge.
From
Clio,
whose
user
conference
takes
place
this
week,
to
NetDocuments,
whose
users
conference
takes
place
next
week,
to
legal
research
vendors
like
LexisNexis
and
Thomson
Reuters,
all
are
trying
to
gain
market
share.
Add
to
this
the
fact
that
almost
all
of
these
vendors’
models
run
or
are
built
on
OpenAI
or
similar
models
and
you
have
the
makings
of
a
potentially
interesting
competitive
upheaval.
It
was
this
very
upheaval
that
the
founders
of
Harvey,
the
new
100-pound
gorilla
in
the
field,
noted
in
a
recent
interview
published
in
Business
Insider
(subscription
required).
Winston
Weinberg
and
Gabe
Pereyra
built
Harvey
seemingly
by
magic
and
almost
overnight
into
a
big
player,
lapping
the
competition
as
I
discussed
recently.
They
launched
a
stealth
player
by
evaluating
the
field
and
needs
of
law
firms,
and
by
understanding
law
firm
needs
and
motivations.
In
essence,
they
figured
out
how
to
beat
their
competition
before
the
competition
even
realized
what
was
happening.
Beyond
their
success,
they
have
a
proven
ability
to
understand
and
anticipate
market
dynamics.
When
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
Talk…
So,
when
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
talk
about
competition
in
the
market,
it’s
worth
listening.
As
most
now
know,
Harvey
was
founded
in
2022.
Within
three
years,
it
grew
in
value
to
$5
billion
and
now
has
over
50
law
firm
clients
in
the
Am
Law
100
according
to
the
article.
Harvey
offers
domain-specific
AI
tools
for
law
firms
and
works
off
the
firm’s
internal
data.
It
has
also
entered
into
a
recent
partnership
with
LexisNexis
to
seamlessly
provide
legal
research
capabilities.
What,
Me
Worry?
So
why
are
Harvey’s
founders
who
built
such
a
powerhouse
in
such
a
short
time
worried?
Harvey
is
built
on
OpenAI’s
infrastructure.
Indeed,
OpenAI
is
one
of
Harvey’s
financial
backers.
But
Harvey’s
founders
now
see
OpenAI
as
both
a
partner
and
an
indirect
competitor.
According
to
the
Business
Insider
interview,
they’re
less
concerned
about
legal
tech
vendors
and
more
about
competition
from
OpenAI
itself.
Somewhat
candidly,
they
admit
that
OpenAI
could
enter
the
legal
tech
space
directly
and
cut
out
the
middleman
legal
tech
vendors.
Moreover,
even
if
OpenAI
never
targets
the
legal
field
directly,
it
very
well
could
release
general
tools
offering
the
strong
privacy
protections,
enhanced
accuracy,
and
stronger
security
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
crave.
In
fact,
OpenAI
recently
mentioned
a
contract
review
tool
it
developed
and
is
using
internally.
And
all
that
would
threaten
Harvey’s
value
proposition
and
differentiation.
Add
to
this
the
fact
that
many
lawyers
already
use
tools
like
ChatGPT
to
do
all
sorts
of
legal-related
tasks.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
already
used
to
using
these
tools,
which
could
make
for
easy
future
adoption.
All
these
things
keep
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
up
at
night.
They
realize
that
OpenAI
is
already
its
biggest
indirect
competitor.
They
realize
that
Harvey
must
continue
to
up
its
game
to
try
to
stay
ahead
of
what
entities
like
ChatGPT
offer.
While
they
believe
that
Harvey
offers
value
by
deeply
integrating
legal
domain
knowledge,
law
firm
workflows,
and
firm
specific
customizations,
as
OpenAI
develops
stronger
and
perhaps
less
expensive
advances,
it
also
may
make
it
easier
for
big
players
to
encroach.
The
threat
is
real.
Why
Now?
Historically,
legal
tech
vendors
have
been
somewhat
immune
from
this
kind
of
upstream
competition.
Microsoft,
for
example,
has
dipped
its
toe
in
legal
tech
for
some
time
but
hasn’t
gone
after
the
downstream
customers
like
law
firms.
It
has
been
content
to
offer
services
and
products
to
legal
tech
vendors
that
can
be
wrapped
and
sold
to
their
customer
law
firms.
The
reasons
Microsoft
and
so
far
the
LLM
players
haven’t
gone
head-to-head
with
legal
tech
vendors
likely
stem
from
the
uniqueness
of
legal
market
needs.
And
also
from
the
fact
that
the
upside
profits
haven’t
appeared
to
be
enough
to
invest
the
time
and
energy
needed
to
compete
directly
with
the
vendors.
But
that
may
be
changing.
Various
reports
confirm
the
amount
of
investment
capital
going
into
legal
has
exploded
exponentially
recently,
signaling
there
may
be
profits
for
the
taking.
And
AI
and
GenAI
make
mastering
the
legal
needs
and
unique
issues
much
easier
than
ever
before.
So,
it
stands
to
reason
that
the
big
players
may
start
jumping
in.
Why
let
the
legal
tech
vendors
skim
the
profit
when
you
can
cut
them
out
and
charge
the
downstream
customers
for
services
directly?
The
Irony
of
It
All
Somewhat
ironically,
I
recently
wrote
a
piece
on
the
possibility
that
legal
tech
vendors
might
make
a
play
to
sell
their
services
directly
to
clients
and
take
a
chunk
of
the
law
firm
profits.
I
say
ironically
because
the
legal
tech
vendors
themselves
may
end
up
being
subject
to
the
same
phenomenon
if
the
ChatGPTs
of
the
world
decide
to
compete
directly.
It’s
ironic
too
that
the
very
AI
tool
responsible
in
large
part
for
the
increased
investment
and
explosion
of
products
in
legal
tech
may
itself
enable
and
encourage
the
bigger
players
to
try
to
cut
out
current
legal
tech
providers.
So
when
Weinberg
and
Pereyra
who
built
an
empire
on
evaluating
and
outmaneuvering
their
competition
are
worried
about
an
existential
competitive
threat
like
OpenAI,
the
rest
of
legal
tech
better
listen.
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.
For
decades,
the
defense
trade
media
has
been
a
trusted
source
of
news
and
insight
about
Defense
Department
programs,
budgets,
and
strategy.
Ethical,
accurate,
and
timely
reporting
makes
that
possible.
The
public,
industry,
and
indeed
the
department
itself
benefit
from
granting
credentialed
defense
reporters
access
to unclassified
areas in
the
Pentagon
and
from
the
trust
engendered
by
that
access.
The
Pentagon
has
been
seeking
to
impose
unprecedented
restrictions
on
journalists’
ability
to
cover
the
military
for
several
months.
Having
restricted
where
unescorted
media
may
go
in
the
Pentagon—such
that
even
visiting
the
public
affairs
offices
of
the
military
services
now
requires
an
escort—department
leaders
are
asking
reporters
to
sign
a
document
acknowledging
a
vague
new
policy
that,
on
its
face,
appears
to
contravene
the
First
Amendment.
This
policy
threatens
to
punish
reporters
who
ask
legitimate
questions
in
the
course
of
their
daily
work
and
to
impose
material
harm
on
our
news
organizations
for
factual
reporting.
Journalists
from
the
undersigned
defense
trade
publications
will
not
sign
this
new
policy.
Our
newsrooms
will
continue
to
cover
topics
of
military,
defense,
and
national
security
fairly
and
independently.
*
Law
school
applications
up
33
percent.
Or
“nearly
half”
as
some
lawyers
would
say.
[Reuters]
*
Supreme
Court’s
voting
rights
argument
reveals
justices
more
than
willing
to
roll
back
the
law
to
1950s.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Michigan
State
Title
IX
investigators
may
have
collaborated
with
university
lawyers.
[State
News]
*
The
lawyer-to-blacksmith
pipeline
is
alive
and
well.
[CBS
News]
*
Trump
DOJ
wastes
tons
of
taxpayer
money
on
frivolous
cases,
but
the
costs
to
the
accused
matter
almost
as
much
winning.
[NPR]
*
Billboard
lawyer
drops
a
partner
“adds
new
one
with
familiar
sounding
name.”
[Houston
Chronicle]
*
Administration
plans
to
close
CFPB
in
2-3
months.
This
comes
on
the
heels
of
the
administration
announcing
a
settlement
to
drop
case
over
company
fleecing
our
troops.
[Law360]
O’Melveny
&
Myers
Winds
Down
Their
Tokyo
Office:
The
news
comes
after
almost
40
years
of
operation.
Downplaying
Or
Propagandizing?:
The
Media
needs
to
be
careful
about
how
it
covers
Trump
soft
launching
the
Insurrection
Act.
Lawyer
Fired
After
Being
Outed
As
A
Racist
Group
Chat
Member:
Surprise
surprise,
a
bunch
of
alt-right
Republicans
say
mean
things
in
private.
Donna
Adelson
Sentenced
For
Involvement
In
Dan
Markel
Murder:
She
plans
to
appeal.
Where
Does
AI
All
The
Way
Down
Leave
Us?:
Is
it
making
lawyers
worse
at
their
jobs?
