Washington,
D.C.
continues
to
prove
that
when
it
comes
to
elite
litigators,
the
urge
to
flee
Biglaw
motherships
and
strike
out
on
their
own
is
a
full
blown
trend.
The
latest
entrants?
Liu
Shur
Kravis,
a
new
litigation
boutique
founded
by
three
former
federal
prosecutors
who
have
collectively
logged
time
at
some
of
the
most
pedigreed
firms
in
the
country:
Jessie
Liu
(most
recently
at
Skadden,
Arps,
Slate,
Meagher
&
Flom),
Justin
Shur
(from
MoloLamken),
and
Jonathan
Kravis
(from
Munger,
Tolles
&
Olson).
The
trio
have
been
circling
each
other
professionally
for
years,
sometimes
on
the
same
side,
sometimes
not.
“We’ve
worked
together,
sometimes
in
government,
sometimes
in
private
practice
as
counsel
for
different
clients
on
the
same
matter.
And
so
we’ve
really
known
each
other
for
a
long
time,”
Liu
told
Law.com.
“We
all
felt
like
it
was
a
time
in
our
careers
when
we
wanted
to
build
something
new
that
was
our
own
project.”
They’re
making
a
calculated
bet
that
clients
increasingly
want
something
Biglaw
often
struggles
to
provide,
that
is
senior-level
attention
without
the
junior
associate
pyramid
scheme.
“In
terms
of
the
work
we
do,
investigations
and
complex
litigation
work,
I
don’t
think
that
there
is
one
model
that
is
right
for
every
client
and
every
matter,”
Kravis
said.
“There
are
matters
and
roles
where
a
smaller
firm
can
make
a
lot
of
sense.
I
expect
that
we
will
be
able
to
provide
lower
leverage,
to
provide
more
direct
engagement.”
That
means
fewer
layers,
more
partner
time,
and,
at
least
theoretically,
fewer
eye-watering
bills
padded
by
armies
of
associates
billing
in
six-minute
increments.
Kravis
also
emphasized
the
firm’s
sweet
spot,
parachuting
into
high-stakes
matters
where
a
lean,
specialized
team
can
complement
existing
counsel.
“There
are
a
lot
of
investigations
matters
and
litigation
matters,
particularly
in
[a]
co-counsel
type
arrangement,
where
that
kind
of
model
can
make
a
lot
of
sense
for
the
client
in
terms
of
what
they
want
to
achieve
and
what
their
needs
are,”
he
said.
And
yes,
they
plan
to
grow,
but
don’t
expect
them
to
recreate
Biglaw.
“A
big
part
of
why
we’re
doing
this
is
we
want
the
opportunity
to
build
a
small
team
of
excellent
lawyers,
starting
with
the
three
of
us,
and
then
sort
of
moving
on
from
there,”
Kravis
added,
noting
that
the
specifics
are
still
very
much
a
work
in
progress.
D.C.
has
been
absolutely
lousy
with
boutique
launches
lately.
Since
the
start
of
2025,
more
than
half
a
dozen
firms
have
hung
out
shingles,
including
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee,
Civil
Service
Law
Center,
Washington
Litigation
Group,
Klubes
Law
Group,
Lowell
&
Associates,
and
D.C.
Law
Collective.
The
common
thread?
Litigation
and
investigations
i.e.,
the
kind
of
work
that
doesn’t
require
a
sprawling
corporate
apparatus
or
a
conflicts
committee
that
says
“no”
more
often
than
a
toddler.
And
that’s
the
real
appeal
here.
Litigation
boutiques
offer
rate
flexibility,
fewer
client
conflicts,
and
freedom
from
the
awkward
reality
that
your
firm’s
mega-deal
client
might
need
regulatory
approval
from
the
same
government
your
litigation
team
is
squaring
off
against.
In
other
words,
fewer
internal
headaches
and
more
room
to
just…
law.
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].
Chalk
up
a
rudimentary
justification
for
a
law-based
order
and
you’ll
eventually
brush
against
the
argument
that
it
allows
for
people
to
resolve
conflicts
without
resorting
to
violence.
In
a
functioning
society,
you
should
be
able
to
rely
on
a
judge
to
get
protection
from
credible
threats.
But
here,
even
our
judges
aren’t
safe;
death
could
be
waiting
behind
an
anonymous
pizza
delivery.
As
a
cringe
billionaire
and
the
President
stoke
discontent
whenever
court
rulings
don’t
go
their
way,
the
judiciary
has
been
left
on
their
own
devices
to
protect
themselves.
Those
devices
are,
of
course,
guns.
[S]ome
state
judges
say
they
don’t
feel
adequately
protected,
and
some
are
carrying
guns
to
defend
themselves
if
necessary,
according
to
a
story
by
the
New
York
Times. … [T]here’s
no
centralized
security
force
tracking
threats
against
state
judges
or
protecting
them,
even
though
the
estimated
30,000
state
judges
handle
some
of
the
most
contentious
cases
in
the
country.
State
judges
rely
on
the
same
local
law
enforcement
that
everyone
else
does,
the
same
ones
that
have
no
legal
obligation
to
protect
you.
On
the
one
hand,
it
is
sad
to
read
that
there
are
state
judges
that
“felt
that
local
authorities
were
not
equipped
to
investigate
threats.”
On
the
other:
The
reality
is
that
despite
the
success
of
years
of
Copaganda
telling
us
otherwise,
police
haven’t
really
been
hitting
it
out
of
the
park
on
the
investigative
front.
The
declining
murder
clearance
rate
made
headlines
in
2023.
If
I
were
a
judge
facing
threats
to
my
life,
I’d
probably
be
pissed
off
to
find
out
that
the
local
police
are
making
the
most
of
their
spare
time
by
trying
to
entrap
protestors:
It
isn’t
a
good
look
for
The
People
when
their
government
can’t
even
afford
to
protect
their
own
judges.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at
[email protected]
and
by
Tweet/Bluesky
at @WritesForRent.
Lawyers
love
certainty.
Startups
run
on
everything
but.
That
gap
is
where
many
legal
careers
either
stagnate
or
accelerate.
The
difference
is
rarely
about
raw
talent.
It
is
about
how
honestly
you
see
the
bet
you
are
placing
on
your
own
time,
judgment,
and
resilience.
In
a
recent
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self”
episode,
I
spoke
with
Rina
Wang,
most
recently
assistant
general
counsel
at
AI
startup
Prepared,
which
was
acquired
by
Axon.
Rina
has
lived
the
full
cycle
many
in-house
counsel
fantasize
about:
federal
clerkships,
litigation,
multiple
venture-backed
startups,
an
AI
boom
role,
and
a
fast
acquisition.
Underneath
the
glossy
version
of
that
path
is
a
more
honest
reality
that
most
lawyers
never
hear
before
they
jump.
This
is
an
attempt
to
correct
that.
Thinking
In
Bets
When
You
Only
Get
One
Chip
Rina
said
something
that
should
be
printed
on
every
startup
job
description
for
lawyers:
“I
really
am
an
investor
going
into
this
startup.
I
am
investing
my
time
and
my
career.
It
is
human
capital,
but
it
is
just
as
important,
if
not
more
so,
than
being
a
VC
investor
and
throwing
in
money.”
VCs
spread
bets
across
10
to
20
companies.
Lawyers
place
one
bet
at
a
time.
If
a
fund’s
single
unicorn
offsets
nine
failures,
that
is
a
win.
If
your
one
job
implodes,
that
is
your
income,
your
resume,
and
your
emotional
bandwidth
for
the
year.
During
the
pandemic,
Rina
read
“Thinking
in
Bets”
by
Annie
Duke
and
began
to
see
career
choices
the
way
poker
players
see
decisions
made
under
pressure.
You
never
have
perfect
information.
Outcomes
rarely
track
effort.
Luck
and
timing
shape
more
than
we
want
to
admit.
“How
do
we
make
the
best
decisions
in
terms
of
uncertainty
or
a
limited
amount
of
data?”
she
asked.
That
is
the
core
question
of
startup
life.
The
problem
is
that
lawyers
are
trained
to
avoid
uncertainty.
We
are
rewarded
for
spotting
risks,
issuing
careful
warnings,
and
forecasting
every
scenario.
In
startups,
that
mindset
is
felt
as
a
delay.
The
work
still
demands
rigor,
but
the
posture
has
to
change
from
“prove
this
is
safe”
to
“place
a
smart
bet
knowing
it
never
will
be.”
If
you
are
considering
a
startup
move,
the
first
step
is
internal.
You
are
not
choosing
between
certainty
and
uncertainty.
You
are
choosing
the
type
of
uncertainty
you
want
and
how
concentrated
you
want
your
bet
to
be.
Graduating
Into
Recession,
Practicing
Inside
Turbulence
Rina
is
clear
that
the
2008
recession
shaped
everything
that
came
later.
She
started
law
school
in
2007.
By
graduation,
“no
one
was
working.
There
was
certainly
no
deal
work
going
on.”
She
calls
herself
a
“recession
graduate”
who
learned
early
that
macro
conditions
will
disregard
your
plans.
Employment
litigation
during
a
recession
gave
her
a
flood
of
work
and
immediate
responsibility.
“There
are
a
lot
of
juicy
cases
all
the
time,”
she
said.
She
was
taking
and
defending
depositions
and
drafting
motions
from
the
start.
That
pace
and
pressure
later
made
startup
life
feel
familiar,
not
destabilizing.
If
you
trained
in
environments
with
more
insulation,
be
honest
about
that.
You
can
build
the
muscles.
You
will
feel
the
intensity
more
quickly.
The
key
isn’t
asking
“am
I
resilient”
in
theory.
It
is
asking
whether
you
have
had
to
own
outcomes
before
in
situations
where
no
one
could
buffer
the
fallout
for
you.
Mission
Is
Not
Fluff.
It
Is
How
You
Survive
the
Middle.
On
paper,
Rina’s
path
looks
scattered:
spirits
made
in
a
lab,
construction
tech,
and
then
an
AI
platform
for
911
emergency
response.
The
through
line
is
mission.
Environmental
sustainability.
Practical
tools
for
real-world
infrastructure.
Public
safety.
She
also
chose
male-dominated
industries.
“I
had
this
urge,
and
this
need
to
kick
down
doors
for
myself
and
create
a
seat
for
myself
at
the
table
in
these
spaces
where
there
was
not
a
lot
of
diversity.”
That
choice
made
her
path
harder
and
sharper
by
design.
Mission
is
not
a
soft
factor
for
lawyers
in
startups.
It
is
what
carries
you
through
the
middle
chapters:
a
tough
funding
round,
a
volatile
market,
a
surprise
product
shift,
or
in
Prepared’s
case,
an
acquisition
process
triggered
in
part
by
the
CEO
being
hospitalized
with
a
spider
bite
that
nearly
cost
him
his
leg.
This
is
the
deeper
point
behind
thinking
in
bets.
You
cannot
predict
the
details.
You
can
only
decide
whether
the
mission,
team,
and
customers
matter
enough
that
the
volatility
is
acceptable.
If
you
are
evaluating
a
startup,
ask
yourself
plainly:
Do
I
want
to
think
about
this
problem
for
three
to
five
years?
Do
I
respect
the
customer?
Do
I
believe
the
world
is
better
if
this
product
scales?
If
the
answer
is
lukewarm,
the
bet
is
mispriced
before
it
even
starts.
The
Emotional
Reality
Of
Being
‘Calm’
During
An
Acquisition
Prepared
announced
its
acquisition
by
Axon
on
September
23,
and
the
acquisition
closed
on
October
1.
Internally,
the
intensity
had
been
building
for
months.
None
of
that
shows
up
in
the
press
release.
Rina
described
the
internal
experience
this
way:
“Everybody
expects
legal
to
be
calm
in
the
eyes
of
the
storm.”
You
become
the
anchor
for
a
team
that
may
be
anxious,
disoriented,
and
overwhelmed
by
the
unknowns.
That
expectation
comes
at
the
exact
moment
your
own
role
may
be
at
risk.
She
added,
“I
am
more
than
comfortable
admitting,
hey,
this
is
a
new
situation
for
all
of
us.
We
are
building
the
plane
as
we
are
flying
it.”
The
company
did
not
know
an
acquisition
was
coming
months
in
advance.
Conversations
with
Axon
moved
quickly.
Internal
reorganizations
were
happening
in
real
time.
Staying
functional
required
honesty
instead
of
forced
certainty.
The
leadership
team
respected
that
more
than
pretense.
If
your
company
is
heading
toward
an
acquisition
or
operating
in
a
consolidating
market,
prepare
yourself
emotionally
as
well
as
legally.
You
need
peers
who
can
normalize
what
you
are
going
through,
mentors
who
have
lived
M&A
integrations,
and
enough
personal
structure
to
process
the
experience
without
letting
it
consume
you.
From
Risk
Avoidance
To
Value
Creation
This
is
the
pivot
that
matters
most.
In
a
firm
or
a
large
company,
you
can
succeed
by
being
a
highly
accurate
legal
technician.
In
a
startup,
that
is
not
enough.
“If
you
are
just
pointing
out
the
law
and
regulations,
you
are
not
adding
any
value
separate
and
apart
from
outside
counsel,”
Rina
said.
Startups
need
generalists
who
can
negotiate
commercial
deals,
structure
partnerships,
build
privacy
and
security
foundations,
and
support
product
decisions.
Your
value
shifts
from
risk
minimization
to
enabling
the
company
to
move.
You
are
no
longer
a
step
in
a
workflow.
You
are
part
of
the
engine.
Before
joining
a
startup,
ask
yourself:
Do
I
enjoy
working
directly
with
sales,
product,
and
engineering
teams?
Do
I
know
how
to
connect
legal
risk
to
revenue
and
growth?
Can
I
move
at
a
speed
that
sometimes
feels
uncomfortable?
These
are
learned
skills,
but
only
if
you
want
to
learn
them.
Seeing
Your
Career
As
A
Series
Of
Intentional
Experiments
At
the
end
of
our
conversation,
I
asked
Rina
for
a
final
takeaway.
She
said,
“Be
humble
to
uncertainties.
A
lot
is
not
within
your
control.
A
lot
is
luck
and
timing.”
That
humility
is
not
resignation.
It
is
clarity.
If
you
understand
that
you
are
making
a
bet
every
time
you
choose
a
job,
you
can
make
better
and
more
intentional
choices.
You
can
evaluate
missions
more
honestly.
You
can
prepare
for
volatility
instead
of
resisting
it.
You
can
show
up
as
a
legal
operator
who
helps
the
company
move,
not
one
who
braces
against
every
risk.
Startups
are
not
for
everyone.
They
are
also
not
inherently
reckless
or
chaotic.
They
are
experiments
in
speed,
mission,
market
timing,
and
people.
If
you
choose
well
and
place
your
bet
consciously,
one
intense
year
can
stretch
your
career
further
than
10
quiet
years
anywhere
else.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.
A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.
Joshua
Kleinfeld,
Chief
Counsel
to
the
Secretary
of
the
Department
of
Education,
is
currently
on
leave
from
his
professorial
role
at
George
Mason
University’s
law
school
(ASS
Law,
to
its
friends)
but
would
love
to
be
its
next
dean.
His
agency,
of
course,
launched
an
investigation
into
George
Mason
University
for
alleged
“DEI
violations,”
accusing
the
school’s
first
Black
president
of
waging
a
“university-wide
campaign
to
implement
unlawful
DEI
policies,”
and
generally
trying
to
bully
the
institution
into
submission.
No
conflicts
of
interest
there!
But
beyond
the
general
skeeviness
of
applying
for
a
job
at
the
school
your
Department
is
harassing,
Kleinfeld
penned
an
application
letter
for
the
job
that
reads
less
like
a
cover
letter
and
more
like
a
note
slipped
under
the
door
by
a
guy
who
knows
where
you
live.
George
Mason
has
been
under
siege
by
the
Trump
administration
since
mid-2025.
The
Department
of
Education
opened
a
Title
VI
investigation
in
July
2025
based
on
complaints
from
a
handful
of
conservative
professors.
By
August,
the
DOE
had
already
concluded
that
the
university
violated
federal
civil
rights
law,
with
the
Department’s
Acting
Assistant
Secretary
Craig
Trainor
declaring
that
President
Gregory
Washington
“waged
a
university-wide
campaign
to
implement
unlawful
DEI
policies
that
intentionally
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
race.”
That
a
federal
probe
reached
this
wide-ranging
conclusion
within
one
month
might
make
you
think
it
was
all
a
sham
investigation
except….
That’s
multiple
compounding
investigations
carpet
bombing
one
university
president.
If
only
Republicans
could
muster
the
sort
of
outrage
they
have
for
a
Black
university
administrator
and
apply
it
to
—
oh,
I
don’t
know
—
a
pedophile
sex
trafficking
ring
with
ties
to
the
White
House.
Washington,
to
his
credit,
has
refused
to
resign
—
unlike
UVA’s
Jim
Ryan,
who
was
effectively
pushed
out
over
similar
manufactured
controversies.
As
a
tenured
professor
taking
a
leave
of
absence
to
serve
in
the
federal
government,
Kleinfeld
applying
to
serve
as
the
dean
isn’t
inherently
unusual.
What
IS
unusual
is
that
he’s
applying
to
lead
a
school
that’s
part
of
a
university
his
agency
investigated.
One
suspects
he
would
say
that
his
current
job
—
and
its
directly
adversarial
relationship
to
the
university
he
hopes
to
hire
him
—
shouldn’t
have
anything
to
do
with
the
decision.
But
when
he
took
a
job
with
the
federal
government
to
help
oversee
education,
he
had
to
understand
that
it
might
carry
consequences
that
could
complicate
his
future
return
to
higher
education.
You
don’t
get
to
accept
the
prestigious
benefits
of
high
government
service
and
then
claim
to
be
a
victim
when
it
creates
a
conflict.
And
then
there’s
this
letter
from
Kleinfeld
making
his
case
to
the
ASS
Law
community
for
the
job.
For
most
of
its
12
pages,
it’s
a
pretty
standard
deanship
pitch.
But
then,
in
the
second-to-last
substantive
paragraph,
he
flags
“past
controversies,
sometimes
with
political
overtones,
have
strained
ties
between
the
law
school
and
the
university,”
which
is
quite
the
spin
on
“I’m
senior
legal
counsel
for
a
federal
agency
that
launched
a
probe
to
pressure
the
university
president
to
resign.”
Then
to
close
out
the
letter,
in
the
final
substantive
paragraph,
Kleinfeld
puts
forth
a
key
qualification
to
separate
him
from
the
rest
of
the
candidates:
As
Scalia’s
dean,
I
may
also
be
able
to
present
positive
aspects
of
GMU
to
the
federal
government,
showcasing
the
university’s
good
faith
commitment
to
marketplace
of
ideas
values.
Over
my
last
year-plus
in
government,
I’ve
had
a
broad
portfolio
developing
relationships
with
people
not
just
at
the
Department
of
Education
but
throughout
the
grant-making
and
civil
rights
agencies
of
the
government.
My
commitment
to
a
marketplace
of
ideas
in
higher
education
is
well-known,
and
I
would
be
able
to
speak
with
credibility
about
my
efforts
to
implement
that
commitment
at
Scalia
Law.
Whatever
he
might
have
intended,
that
paragraph
sure
reads
as
“nice
school
you’ve
got
here…
shame
if
anything
happened
to
it.”
He
set
up
that
there
had
been
“controversies…
with
political
overtones”
and
then
immediately
asserts
that
—
if
he
gets
the
job
—
then
maybe
the
federal
government
doesn’t
cause
as
much
trouble.
He
frames
it
as
a
byproduct
of
his
stellar
skills
at
“developing
relationships,”
but
it
certainly
gives
protection
money
vibes.
And
if
it
isn’t
what
he
meant
to
signal,
then
you’ve
got
to
question
his
drafting
skills.
The
Trump
administration’s
assault
on
higher
education,
by
its
nature,
creates
an
environment
where
institutions
feel
compelled
to
install
compliant
leaders.
Watching
the
DOE
ramrod
a
month-long
investigation,
heap
on
more
pressure
across
the
government,
and
then
have
a
DOE
official
offer
himself
up
as
a
way
to
smooth
over
relations
with
the
government?
There’s
a
certain
irony
in
seeing
a
broad
based
attack
on
“DEI,”
accusing
minorities
of
getting
positions
that
aren’t
based
on
merit
and
then
watching
someone
from
the
attacking
agency
try
to
get
a
job
citing
his
relationships.
Again,
maybe
he’s
not
trying
to
spell
it
out
like
this,
but
we
have
to
evaluate
the
four
corners
of
the
document.
Since
the
legal
profession
runs
on
avoiding
even
the
appearance
of
impropriety,
the
question
for
the
powers-that-be
at
George
Mason
should
be:
if
they
hire
the
DOE’s
lawyer,
and
investigations
subsequently
go
away,
will
anyone
believe
it
was
a
coincidence?
Unfortunately,
I’m
not
even
sure
ASS
Law
has
the
requisite
sense
of
shame
to
care
one
way
or
the
other.
In
July,
President
Trump
announced
the
construction
of
a
new
ballroom
adjacent
to
the
White
House.
“It’ll
be
near
it
but
not
touching
it—and
pays
total
respect
to
the
existing
building,
which
I’m
the
biggest
fan
of,”
he
said,
vowing
to
protect
the
East
Wing.
“It’s
my
favorite.
It’s
my
favorite
place.
I
love
it.”
By
October,
the
East
Wing
was
gone,
reduced
to
a
pile
of
rubble
dumped
in
East
Potomac
Park.
The
president
lied.
And
when
he
got
sued
by
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation
to
block
construction
of
the
planned
90,000-square
foot
neo-Versailles
monstrosity,
his
administration
lied
some
more.
But
there
are
consequences
when
you
lie
to
federal
judges,
as
the
president
just
found
out
for
the
second
time
in
three
weeks.
The
DC
Circuit
has
now
ordered
the
government
to
explain
exactly
which
part
of
this
gilded
monument
to
Trump’s
vanity
is
for
national
security,
with
an
eye
to
blocking
everything
else.
Please!
Judge
Richard
Leon,
the
irascible
Bush
appointee
overseeing
this
case
at
the
district
court,
issued
a
walloping
preliminary
injunction
on
March
31.
In
his
inimitable
style,
he
doled
out
27
exclamation
points
and
four
“pleases.”
Such
as
“according
to
Defendants,
any
construction
delay
will
undermine
national
security.
Please!”
The
trial
judge
described
the
government’s
legal
theory
as
a
“Rube
Goldberg
contraption”
—
which
is
kinder
than
calling
it
bullshit,
but
less
accurate.
Under
40
U.S.C.
§
8106,
“a
building
or
structure
shall
not
be
erected
on
any
reservation,
park,
or
public
grounds
of
the
Federal
Government
in
the
District
of
Columbia
without
express
authority
of
Congress.”
The
White
House
is
part
of
President’s
Park,
which
encompasses
the
White
House
Visitor
Center,
Lafayette
Park,
the
Eisenhower
Office
Building,
the
Treasury
Building,
and
the
Ellipse.
So
that
would
seem
to
be
the
end
of
the
matter.
But
the
administration
points
to
3
U.S.C.
§
105(d),
which
authorizes
Congress
to
appropriate
funds
to
the
president
for
the
“care,
maintenance,
repair,
alteration,
refurnishing,
improvement,
air-conditioning,
heating,
and
lighting”
of
the
White
House
Executive
Residence.
The
claim
is
that
this
law
empowers
Trump
to
tear
down
or
construct
anything
he
likes.
Could
he
pave
paradise
and
put
up
a
parking
lot
…
or
a
Trump
Tower?
The
DOJ
says
YES!
Congress
only
appropriated
$2.5
million
for
Trump
to
“maintain”
the
White
House,
but
luckily
Trump’s
corporate
pals
—
many
of
whom
just
happen
to
have
business
before
the
federal
government!
—
are
queuing
up
to
pick
up
the
tab.
The
National
Park
Service
can
accept
private
donations
under
54
USC
§
101101,
and
gladly
started
hoovering
up
cash.
But
during
the
early
phase
of
the
lawsuit,
the
White
House
claimed
that
the
Park
Service
had
handed
all
funds
off
to
the
Office
of
the
Executive
Residence
(EXR),
which
is
the
responsible
for
janitorial,
cooking,
and
general
maintenance
of
the
White
House,
and
no
longer
controlled
any
aspect
of
the
project.
This
wheeze
was
enough
to
defeat
the
first
iteration
of
the
Trust’s
case,
which
was
based
on
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Since
the
APA
only
applies
to
agency
actions,
and
EXR
isn’t
an
agency,
Judge
Leon
denied
the
Trust’s
first
motion
for
a
preliminary
injunction.
At
the
same
time,
he
strongly
hinted
that
the
Trust
should
refile
its
action
as
an
ultra
vires
claim.
On
March
1,
the
Trust
obediently
docketed
the
amended
ultra
vires
complaint,
and
on
March
31,
Judge
Leon
granted
a
preliminary
injunction
blocking
construction
of
the
ballroom
except
as
“necessary
to
ensure
the
safety
and
security
of
the
White
House.”
This
caveat
reflected
the
changing
reality
on
the
ground,
as
well
as
the
government’s
shifting
claims
about
the
project.
Previously,
to
defeat
the
Trust’s
request
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
preserving
the
status
quo,
the
government
said
that
it
was
only
constructing
below-grade
features,
including
an
armored
bunker,
hospital,
and
classified
military
installation,
all
of
which
were
billed
as
necessary
for
national
security
(and
wholly
separate
from
the
decorative
building
planned
above
them).
The
government
represented
that
none
of
that
construction
would
lock
in
design
features
above
ground,
and
thus
there
was
no
imminent
harm
to
enjoin.
“Any
aesthetic
harms
remain
hypothetical
(if
cognizable
at
all),
because
plans
for
the
East
Wing
are
still
in
development,
months
remain
until
the
start
of
above-ground
construction,
and
the
work
that
must
proceed
below-grade
will
not
lock
in
the
scope
of
the
above-grade
construction,”
the
DOJ
wrote
in
a
reply
brief.
But
as
the
project
progressed,
with
planned
construction
of
the
ballroom
itself
scheduled
to
be
begin
this
month,
the
government’s
position
shifted.
Suddenly,
the
entire
structure
now
implicated
national
security,
whether
above
or
below-grade.
“Canvas
tents,
which
are
necessary
without
a
ballroom,
are
significantly
more
vulnerable
to
missiles,
drones,
and
other
threats
than
a
hardened
national
security
facility,”
the
administration
insisted
in
an
emergency
motion
to
the
DC
Circuit
seeking
to
stay
the
trial
court’s
injunction.
“This
order
is
untenable
and
must
be
stayed
in
that
the
building
is
under
construction,
with
deep
Top
Secret
excavations,
foundations,
and
structures,
already
built,
and
ready
to
receive
heavily
fortified,
for
security
reasons,
steel,
bullet,
ballistic,
and
blast
proof
glass,
and
drone
proof
roofing
materials,
which
must
be
finished
quickly,
and
not
allowed
to
be
exposed
to
the
conditions
and
elements
of
an
open
construction
site,”
the
government
warned.
“Time
is
of
the
essence!”
Meanwhile
at
the
White
House,
Trump
insisted
that
the
work
would
continue
as
before
because
the
injunction
allowed
construction
as
needed
for
national
security,
“So
that’s
called
‘I’m
allowed
to
continue
building
as
necessary.’”
The
Trust
filed
a
motion
to
clarify,
asking
Judge
Leon
to
tell
the
White
House
that
they
can’t
just
shout
NATIONAL
SECURITY!
and
keep
building.
But
meanwhile,
the
DC
Circuit
panel
issued
its
ruling
on
Saturday.
Making
the
record
In
dissent,
Trump
appointee
Judge
Neomi
Rao
huffed
that
she
would
have
stayed
Judge
Leon’s
order
in
its
entirety.
She
insisted
that
3
U.S.C.
§
105(d)
is
capacious
enough
to
allow
Trump
to
do
literally
anything
he
likes
to
the
people’s
house.
And
she
rejected
the
Trust’s
claim
to
aesthetic
standing
based
on
the
disgust
and
horror
of
trustees
who
see
this
temple
of
vulgarity
when
they
walk
through
Lafayette
Park.
These
arguments
will
surely
feature
prominently
—
one
hopes
in
an
angry
dissent!
—
when
the
case
lands
at
the
Supreme
Court.
But
yesterday’s
majority
consisted
of
Judges
Patricia
Millet
and
Brad
Garcia,
appointed
respectively
by
Obama
and
Biden,
who
simply
rolled
their
eyes
at
the
government’s
histrionics.
Citing
“serious
factual
questions
about
the
relationship
between,
on
the
one
hand,
above-ground
construction
of
the
ballroom
itself
and
the
maintenance
of
safety
and
security,
and
prior
governmental
representations
that
the
below-ground
and
above-ground
stages
were
distinct
and
the
above-ground
design
features
subject
to
change,”
the
majority
remanded
the
case
to
Judge
Leon
with
orders
to
“promptly
address
the
pending
motion
to
clarify
how
the
injunction
and
its
exception
will
ensure
safety
and
security
pending
litigation.”
This
will
create
a
more
robust
record,
locking
the
government
into
claims
about
the
security
implications
of
each
element
of
the
project.
Alternatively,
the
panel
gave
the
White
House
until
Friday
to
ask
the
Supreme
Court
for
yet
another
shadow
docket
assist,
on
the
theory
that
making
Trump
wait
to
do
something
illegal,
when
he
really
wants
to
do
it
anyway,
constitutes
irreparable
harm.
So
far,
the
government
hasn’t
signaled
if
it
intends
to
ask
the
six
horsemen
of
the
apocalypse
to
weigh
in.
But
you
can
bet
your
sweet
bippy
that
Judge
Leon
is
raring
to
ask
the
government
whether
it
was
lying
to
in
January
when
it
said
that
the
natsec
stuff
was
underground,
or
in
April
when
it
accused
him
of
endangering
the
president
by
making
him
eat
dinner
in
a
tent
where
he
might
get
drone
striked.
“Napoleon”
was,
of
course,
the
name
George
Orwell
gave
to
the
pig
who
ran
Animal
Farm
after
the
animals
overthrew
the
humans.
Orwell
wrote
in Animal
Farm:
“In
his
speeches,
Squealer
would
talk
with
tears
rolling
down
his
cheeks
of
Napoleon’s
wisdom,
the
goodness
of
his
heart,
and
the
deep
love
he
bore
to
all
animals
everywhere.”
“I
love
working
for
President
Trump.
It’s
the
greatest
honor
of
a
lifetime.
…
If
he
chooses
to
nominate
somebody
else
and
asks
me
to
go
do
something
else,
I
will
say,
‘Thank
you
very
much.
I
love
you,
sir.’”
Susie
Wiles:
“The
president’s
promises
made
to
the
American
people
have
been
kept
time
and
time
and
time
again.”
Kristi
Noem:
“The
border
is
99.99%
safe,
under
control.
You
have
completely
reversed
the
entire
situation.”
Elon
Musk:
“[T]his
could
be
the
greatest
administration
since
the
founding
of
the
country.”
Hmmm
…
George
Orwell, Animal
Farm:
“It
had
become
usual
to
give
Napoleon
the
credit
for
every
successful
achievement
and
every
stroke
of
good
fortune. You
would
often
hear
one
hen
remark
to
another,
‘Under
the
guidance
of
our
leader,
Comrade
Napoleon,
I
have
laid
five
eggs
in
six
days’.”
“At
least
eight
of
the
projects
touted
by
the
White
House
had
sought
or
secured
critical
local
incentive
packages
before
Trump
took
office
while
at
least
a
half
dozen
other
projects
had
already
been
announced
by
local
officials
or
the
companies
themselves,
Reuters
found.”
Hmmm
…
George
Orwell, Animal
Farm:
Napoleon
“personally
congratulated
the
animals
on
their
achievement,
and
announced
that
the
mill
would
be
named
Napoleon
Mill.”
Life
as
a
DC
lawyer
may
be
especially
challenging
right
now
due
to
the
whims
and
fancies
of
the
current
administration,
but
for
many
lawyers,
Washington
is
the
place
to
be
if
they
want
to
do
work
related
to
the
government,
be
it
litigation,
transactional,
or
even
lobbying.
But
which
firms
are
considered
the
best
in
the
nation’s
capital?
Thanks
to
Vault’s
recently
released
regional
rankings,
we
now
know
which
Biglaw
firms
are
dominating
the
legal
scene
in
DC.
This
ranking
is
based
on
votes
tabulated
from
associates
who
were
asked
to
rate
firms
on
a
1
to
10
scale
based
on
their
prestige
within
the
region.
Here
are
the
top
10
most
prestigious
firms
in
Washington,
DC
(you
can
see
the
full
list
from
Vault
by
clicking here):
Covington
&
Burling
Williams
&
Connolly
Latham
&
Watkins
Gibson
Dunn
(+1)
Kirkland
&
Ellis
(+1)
Skadden
(-2)
WilmerHale
(+4)
Cravath
(not
ranked
in
2026)
Hogan
Lovells
(-1)
Arnold
&
Porter
There
was
some
interesting
movement
in
the
ranking,
in
that
WilmerHale,
one
of
the
firms
fighting
against
Trump’s
executive
order,
moved
up
quite
a
bit,
while
Paul,
Weiss,
the
very
first
firm
to
make
a
deal
with
Trump,
dropped
out
of
the
Top
10
entirely,
landing
at
No.
13.
It
looks
like
defending
the
rule
of
law
is
one
of
the
most
prestigious
things
a
firm
can
do
in
DC
these
days.
Congrats
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
Vault’s
Washington,
DC
rankings.
How
did
your
firm
do
this
time? Email
us,
text
us
at
(646)
820-8477,
or
tweet
us
@atlblog to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.
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.
*
White
House
ballroom
construction
resumes
for
now.
[Reuters]
*
Winston
carries
healthy
profit
growth
into
its
merger
with
Taylor
Wessing.
[American
Lawyer]
*
Fourth
Circuit
agrees
to
let
Big
Ballz
have
all
your
Social
Security
information.
Surely
nothing
can
go
wrong!
[Courthouse
News
Service]
*
Speaking
of
the
Fourth
Circuit,
Judge
Julius
Richardson
in
a
concurrence
declared
that
emergency
orders
were
“precedent”
which
is,
um,
not
at
all
how
that
works.
[One
First]
*
Oil
companies
want
a
litigation
shield
like
the
gun
manufacturers
have.
[New
York
Times]
*
Ed
Blum
is
back
with
a
new
effort
to
purge
Black
students
from
schools.
[Balls
and
Strikes]
*
Trump
elevates
another
of
his
personal
attorneys
to
the
appellate
bench.
[Law360]
*
Wisconsin
switches
to
the
UBE
for
out-of-state
admits.
[ABA
Journal]
“This
is
not
a
sure
thing,”
said
Todd
Harrison,
a
defense
budget
expert
with
the
American
Enterprise
Institute.
“This
is
not
going
to
be
easy
to
get
through
Congress,
even
with
the
president’s
party
having
majorities
in
both
chambers.”
While
the
request
will
likely
satisfy
defense
hawks
who
have
pressed
Pentagon
officials
to
put
forward
a
budget
that
captures
the
totality
of
what
the
military
thinks
it
needs,
the
sheer
size
of
the
request
could
make
it
difficult
for
lawmakers
to
swallow.
The
$1.15
trillion
base
budget
request
alone
represents
the
first
ever
to
top
the
$1
trillion
mark.
“On
the
one
hand,
it
has
a
lot
of
the
things
that
Congress
has
been
asking
the
department
to
focus
on:
heavy
investments
in
munitions
production
—
both
interceptors
and
offensive
weapons,
heavy
investments
in
shipbuilding,
heavy
investments
in
space
based
stuff,”
said
Carlton
Haelig,
a
fellow
with
the
Defense
Program
at
the
Center
for
a
New
American
Security.
“But
it’s
still
a
really
large
ask
to
put
that
before
Congress
at
$1.5
trillion.”
The
first
task
for
Republicans
will
be
pushing
through
a
reconciliation
bill
with
$350
billion
for
defense
—
more
than
double
the
$150
billion
contained
in
the
reconciliation
bill
approved
last
year.
Trump
has
given
Republicans
a
June
1
deadline
to
pass
the
reconciliation
bill,
with
the
House
Budget
Committee
slated
to
meet
on
Wednesday
to
discuss
the
FY27
budget.
A
reconciliation
bill
can
be
passed
with
a
simple
majority,
and
with
53
Republicans
in
the
Senate,
that
should
be
fairly
easy.
However,
margins
are
razor
thin
for
House
Republicans,
who
occupy
217
seats
after
California
Rep.
Kevin
Kiley
switched
his
party
affiliation
to
independent
in
March.
Although
Kiley
has
continued
to
caucus
with
the
GOP,
some
fiscal
hawks
have
criticized
using
the
reconciliation
process
to
increase
spending,
with
Republican
Reps.
Thomas
Massie
and
Brian
Fitzpatrick
ultimately
voting
against
the
bill
last
year.
“They
can
only
afford
to
lose
one
vote
in
the
House,”
Harrison
said.
“That
package
is
going
to
have
to
be
carefully
crafted
to
balance
the
concerns
of
the
fiscal
conservatives
as
well
as
the
more
moderates
in
the
party
who
don’t
want
to
see
offsetting
cuts
in
things
like
Medicare
and
Medicaid.
“This
is
going
to
be
a
very
delicate
political
maneuver
for
[House
Speaker
Mike]
Johnson
to
try
to
get
this
through,”
he
added.
“It’s
going
to
be
hard.”
Meanwhile,
the
$1.15
trillion
defense
base
budget
will
face
a
tougher
road
to
passage
in
the
Senate,
where
60
votes
are
needed,
Harrison
said.
With
a
majority
that
doesn’t
breach
that
threshold,
Republicans
will
have
to
get
some
Democrats
onboard
to
push
the
bill
forward.
That,
too,
could
be
a
difficult
gambit,
due
to
cuts
to
areas
such
as
food
assistance,
housing
and
public
health,
which
have
riled
Democrats
who
typically
seek
parity
on
increases
to
defense
and
nondefense
spending.
“There’s
no
way
they
can
get
the
60
votes
because
of
the
non-defense
cuts,”
Harrison
said.
“If
they
were
going
to
get
it
through,
they
would
have
to
compromise
by
reversing
some
of
those
non-defense
cuts
to
agencies
like
NASA
and
others.”
Democratic
opposition
to
US
strikes
on
Iran,
as
well
as
continued
pleas
for
more
details
from
key
Republicans,
could
also
play
a
part.
Becca
Wasser,
the
defense
lead
at
Bloomberg
Economics,
posited
that
the
administration
could
be
compelled
to
provide
new
information
about
operations
as
a
way
of
solidifying
support
for
defense
spending.
“There’s
been
a
lot
of
conversations
within
Congress
about
desire
for
greater
transparency
on
issues
like
the
Iran
war,
and
that
might
be
part
of
the
trade
off,”
she
said,
adding
that
even
with
a
“very
convincing
case”
for
added
funding,
“there’s
still
going
to
be
a
lot
of
pressure”
from
lawmakers.
Another
potential
headwind
is
the
upcoming
midterm
election,
where
analysts
predict
Democrats
could
take
control
of
at
least
one
chamber
of
Congress.
“I
think
there’s
very
little
hope
of
the
base
budget
being
enacted
before
the
midterm
elections,”
Harrison
said.
Should
Democrats
win
a
single
chamber
in
November,
they
will
likely
wait
until
the
new
session
of
Congress
begins
in
January
to
restart
negotiations
with
Republicans,
with
a
spending
deal
following
somewhere
in
the
February
or
March
timeframe.
Should
Democrats
defy
the
odds
and
take
both
the
House
and
Senate,
they
could
completely
disregard
the
president’s
budget
request
and
draft
their
own
bill,
Harrison
said.
And
Haelig
added
that
Democrats
could
seek
to
use
reconciliation
to
advance
their
own
political
priorities
if
they
controlled
Congress.
“It
just
raises,
I
think,
secondary
questions
about,
why
do
it
through
reconciliation?”
he
said.
“How
do
we
make
the
reconciliation
process
more
robust
for
oversight
and
accountability
in
terms
of
spending?”
‘Mortgaging
Modernization’
According
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
the
44
percent
boost
to
the
defense
budget
in
FY27
“exceeds
even
the
Reagan
buildup.”
The
request
includes
elevated
funding
for
Trump
administration
priorities,
including
$17.5
billion
for
Golden
Dome,
$5
billion
for
the
F-47
sixth-generation
fighter,
as
well
as
the
first
funding
for
the
Trump-class
battleship,
which
stands
to
receive
$1
billion
for
advance
procurement.
Both
Haelig
and
Wasser
pointed
out
that
much
of
the
funding
for
some
of
the
administration’s
top
modernization
priorities
is
housed
within
the
reconciliation
spending
request.
Haelig
specifically
noted
that
93
percent
of
the
budget
increase
for
munitions
is
reliant
on
reconciliation.
“It’s
really
setting
up
the
reconciliation
fight
as
paramount
to
continuing
the
defense
modernization
push,”
he
said.
“They’re
trying
to
push
the
reconciliation
package
through
because
it
contains
so
much
of
the
critical
capabilities,
even
more
so
given
that
those
are
the
exact
type
of
things
that
have
been
severely
depleted
in
the
last
few
weeks
in
the
conflict
with
Iran.”
The
big
exception,
Haelig
added,
is
the
shipbuilding
and
conversion
account,
where
only
9
percent
of
spending
is
made
up
of
reconciliation
funds.
Despite
the
Trump
administration’s
record-breaking
budget
request
for
FY27,
OMB’s
five-year
plan
through
FY31
shows
defense
spending
is
not
slated
to
hit
$1.5
trillion
again
in
that
timeframe.
While
base
budget
defense
spending
is
set
to
rise
to
$1.35
trillion
in
FY31,
per
OMB,
no
additional
reconciliation
funding
is
currently
anticipated
through
the
rest
of
Trump’s
term.
Wasser
speculated
that
the
massive
bump
to
defense
spending
in
FY27
could
be
a
negotiating
tactic,
and
that
by
starting
from
a
“maximalist
position,”
the
Trump
administration
positions
itself
to
get
a
larger
budget
than
it
would
have
if
it
had
offered
a
more
typically-sized
funding
increase.
“I
do
wonder
if
some
of
this
is
‘Here’s
our
best
case
for
what
we
would
like
to
have
and
like
to
see,’
acknowledging
that
this
is
probably
going
to
change
over
time,
based
on
what
[happens]
when
Congress
gets
involved,
based
on
what
industry
can
actually
do,”
she
said.
But
even
if
the
administration
gets
the
$1.5
trillion
it’s
asking
for
in
FY27,
when
reconciliation
funds
disappear
the
following
year,
the
Pentagon
will
be
left
having
to
figure
out
how
to
fund
the
same
batch
of
priorities
with
less
money,
Haelig
said.
“It’s
really
this
idea
of
like,
mortgaging
modernization
through
reconciliation,”
he
said,
“but
then
that
does
eventually
come
home
to
roost
in
future
budget
years.”
Under
the
new
framework,
salaries
range
from
around
US$370
for
lower
grades
to
nearly
US$900
for
senior
levels.
Entry-level
grades
such
as
A3
will
earn
between
US$370
and
US$375,
while
those
in
the
B
band
(grades
B1
to
B5)
will
receive
between
US$376
and
US$435.
Mid-level
employees
in
the
C
band
will
earn
between
US$463
and
US$536,
while
senior
grades
in
the
D
band
will
see
salaries
ranging
from
US$724
to
US$897
at
the
top
end.
Public
Service,
Labour
and
Social
Welfare
Minister
Edgar
Moyo
said
the
new
remuneration
structure
ensures
that
salaries
are
aligned
with
skills,
qualifications,
and
responsibilities
across
the
public
service.
Civil
servants
are
guaranteed
US$320
of
their
salary
in
hard
currency
(though
heavily
taxed),
with
the
remainder
payable
in
ZiG.
Kathryn
