Category: News Feeds

The
legal
technology
company

Altorney
today
announced
the
general
availability
of
MARC,
a
generative
AI-powered
document
review
system
designed
to
automate
first-pass
review
decisions
before
documents
enter
traditional
review
platforms.

After

first
announcing
MARC
last
March
and
going
through
a
pilot
period
with
corporate
legal
departments,
the
company
is
now
releasing
the
product
for
general
availability
to
corporate
legal
teams,
litigation
service
providers
and
law
firms.

The
Problem
MARC
Addresses

The
product
tackles
a
core
inefficiency
in
e-discovery
workflows:
organizations
typically
load
entire
document
sets
into
expensive
review
platforms,
only
to
cull
large
portions
as
non-responsive.

Shimmy
Messing,
Altorney’s
CEO
and
co-founder,
says
this
approach
creates
unnecessary
costs
and
security
risks.

“If
you’re
loading
your
million
documents
into
a
review
platform,
as
an
example,
and
then
immediately
culling
out
800,000
of
them
for
not
hitting
keywords
or
not
being
part
of
TAR
or
whatever,
you
still
have
these
800,000
documents
sitting
there
in
your
database
that
you’re
paying
for
and
that
are
exposed
from
a
risk
factor
after
leaving
your
corporate
environment,”
Messing
said
during
a
demonstration
of
the
product
for
LawSites.

MARC’s
approach
is
to
automate
the
culling
and
initial
review
decisions
before
documents
reach
the
review
platform,
ideally
within
the
organization’s
own
environment.
This
means
only
relevant
documents
–
already
tagged
with
first-pass
decisions
on
issues
like
privilege,
confidentiality
and
responsiveness
–
are
loaded
into
expensive
hosting
platforms.

How
MARC
Works

MARC
operates
as
a
text
analytics
tool
that
sits
between
data
collection
and
the
review
platform.
The
system
is
agnostic
about
which
large
language
model
(LLM)
it
uses.
Organizations
can
deploy
MARC
with
Altorney’s
provided
Llama
model
installed
locally,
or
integrate
it
with
their
preferred
approved
models,
including
those
from
Azure
or
OpenAI.

MARC
can
operate
entirely
within
an
organization’s
firewall,
with
no
data
transmitted
externally.
“All
the
data
can
stay
there,”
Messing
said.
“Nothing
has
to
go
out
to
OpenAI
or
Azure
AI
–
it
can
all
be
contained
in
a
local
environment.”

This
approach
provides
security
while
also
reducing
costs,
as
local
LLMs
avoid
the
per-token
charges
associated
with
cloud-based
AI
services.

Rachi
Messing,
Altorney’s
co-founder,
said
that
installation
typically
requires
just
30-40
minutes
of
IT
time,
after
which
the
system
is
largely
self-managing.

Protocol
Analysis,
Not
Prompt
Engineering

Among
MARC’s
distinguishing
features
is
its
deliberate
avoidance
of
requiring
prompt
engineering
by
users.

Rather
than
requiring
users
to
craft
precise
prompts
–
a
skill
Rachi
Messing
described
as
“really
hard
to
master”
and
prone
to
inconsistency
–
MARC
uses
what
it
calls
a
“protocol
analysis”
approach.

With
this
approach,
users
upload
background
materials
about
a
case
into
a
folder.
These
materials
might
include
complaints,
subpoenas,
counterclaims,
pleadings,
or
even
informal
documents
like
an
email
from
in-house
counsel
outlining
a
new
matter
or
an
HR
complaint
in
an
internal
investigation.

MARC
then
generates
a
comprehensive
protocol
document
in
Microsoft
Word
format.
This
protocol
includes:

• Identification
  of
  all
  parties
  involved.
• Relevant
  date
  ranges.
• An
  overview
  of
  the
  matter.
• Key
  individuals
  and
  their
  roles.
• Relevant
  technologies
  and
  products.
• Different
  themes
  of
  the
  case.
• Specific
  issues
  to
  identify
  within
  the
  dataset.

Attorneys
can
then
edit
this
Word
document
directly,
adding
missing
individuals,
removing
irrelevant
parties,
narrowing
overly
broad
themes,
or
adjusting
other
parameters.

The
edited
protocol
is
uploaded
back
into
MARC,
which
then
uses
it
as
the
foundation
for
all
subsequent
analysis.

This
approach
keeps
the
workflow
in
familiar
territory
for
legal
professionals,
Rachi
Messing
said.
“There’s
no
reason
we
need
attorneys
to
become
prompt
engineers,
but
they
love
editing
Word
docs.”

Processing
and
Validation

Once
the
protocol
is
finalized,
MARC
can
ingest
data
from
multiple
sources:
text
files
on
a
file
system,
Microsoft
Purview
exports
from
M365,
or
directly
from
Relativity
databases.
The
system
includes
an
integration
that
allows
users
to
point
MARC
at
specific
saved
searches
within
Relativity
without
actually
moving
the
data.

MARC’s
results
can
be
verified
through
a
sampling
and
validation
workflow.
The
system
automatically
determines
the
statistically
valid
sample
size
needed,
analyzes
those
documents
according
to
the
protocol,
and
tags
them
as
relevant
or
not
relevant
at
a
low
per-document
cost.

These
sampled
documents
can
be
pushed
to
Relativity
or
exported
via
load
file
for
attorney
review.
Once
attorneys
validate
the
sample,
their
decisions
are
compared
against
MARC’s
determinations.
If
discrepancies
exist,
the
system
can
regenerate
the
protocol,
analyzing
what
needs
to
change
to
correctly
classify
the
disputed
documents
without
affecting
already
correct
decisions.

This
iterative
process
continues
until
the
legal
team
is
satisfied
with
MARC’s
performance.
Then
the
full
dataset
is
processed,
at
a
rate
of
over
one
million
documents
per
24
hours.

Deep
Analysis
Capabilities

Beyond
simple
relevance
determinations,
MARC
can
perform
multiple
types
of
analysis
in
a
single
pass,
all
included
in
a
single
additional
cost.
These
analyses
include:

Privilege
Review:
MARC
analyzes
documents
for
attorney-client
privilege
and
work
product
protection,
providing
reasoning
for
each
determination,
identifying
parties
involved,
noting
whether
privilege
was
potentially
waived
by
third-party
involvement,
assigning
confidence
levels,
and
automatically
generating
privilege
descriptions
suitable
for
privilege
logs.

PII
and
PHI
Detection:
The
system
identifies
personally
identifiable
information
and
protected
health
information
with
granular
control
over
what
types
to
flag.
Users
can
specify,
for
example,
that
they
only
want
to
identify
financial
information
and
health
information
while
ignoring
personal
email
addresses
or
phone
numbers.
MARC
performs
entity
analysis,
associating
information
across
a
document
even
when,
for
instance,
a
person’s
name
appears
on
page
two
and
their
Social
Security
number
on
page
seven.

Issue
Coding:
The
system
can
tag
documents
according
to
case-specific
issues
defined
in
the
protocol.

Confidentiality
Analysis:
MARC
evaluates
documents
for
confidentiality
designations,
including
trade
secrets
and
other
sensitive
business
information.

Hot
Document
Identification:
The
system
can
flag
potentially
significant
documents
requiring
priority
review.

Foreign
Language
Processing:
MARC
automatically
translates
and
summarizes
documents
in
foreign
languages,
allowing
English-language
protocols
to
analyze
non-English
documents
and
providing
summaries
in
English
for
reviewers.

Output
and
Transparency

For
every
document
it
processes,
MARC
provides
not
just
a
decision
but
also
its
reasoning.
In
the
demonstration,
one
example
showed
MARC
tagging
a
document
as
not
relevant.
Its
explanation
detailed
that,
although
the
document
mentioned
UV
protection
technology,
which
could
potentially
make
it
relevant,
it
concerned
exterior
paint
rather
than
interior
window
coatings,
making
it
irrelevant
to
the
specific
case.

This
transparency
serves
multiple
purposes.
It
allows
legal
teams
to
understand
and
validate
the
AI’s
decision-making
process,
provides
documentation
for
defensibility,
and
helps
identify
where
the
system
might
need
refinement
through
protocol
adjustments.

Documents
are
also
enriched
with
summaries
and,
for
relevant
documents,
snippets
highlighting
the
most
pertinent
portions.
All
this
information
can
be
exported
or
integrated
directly
back
into
Relativity.

Cost
Savings
and
Predictability

Altorney
says
that
in
the
pilot
program
testing
of
MARC,
users
saw
significant
efficiency
gains.

The
company
highlighted
one
Fortune
500
company
case
involving
more
than
200,000
documents
where
MARC
achieved
62%
review
cost
savings
and
78%
hosting
cost
savings.
The
company
claims
an
80%
reduction
in
documents
transferred
to
hosted
review
platforms
and
an
86%
reduction
in
cycle
time
compared
to
traditional
review.

Its
costs
are
also
predictable
with
a
high
degree
of
precision,
the
company
says.
In
one
proof-of-concept
with
30,000
documents,
Altorney
provided
the
customer
with
a
budget
estimate
of
$2,500.
The
actual
cost
came
in
at
$2,506
–
a
level
of
budget
predictability
the
customer’s
AI
team
said
they
had
never
before
had
with
an
AI-based
product.

Rachi
Messing
emphasized
that
beyond
cost
savings,
the
technology
addresses
human
inconsistency
in
review.
“You
give
the
same
document
to
four
different
attorneys
and
you’ll
come
out
with
four
different
decisions.”

In
tests
comparing
MARC’s
decisions
to
completed
human
reviews,
customers
found
that
discrepancies
often
revealed
human
reviewers
had
been
either
over
broad
or
over
narrow,
allowing
them
to
tune
MARC
to
find
what
they
actually
needed.

An
Expanding
Market

When
Altorney
initially
launched
MARC
in
March,
it
focused
exclusively
on
corporate
legal
departments
for
behind-the-firewall
deployment.

The
reasoning
for
that
limited
focus
was
both
technical
and
strategic.
The
company
believed
that
culling
should
happen
within
the
corporate
environment
before
data
leaves
for
external
review
platforms,
reducing
both
costs
and
security
risks.

However,
the
market
quickly
pushed
the
company
to
expand
its
approach.
Some
corporate
customers
expressed
strong
interest
in
using
the
product
but
indicated
that
internal
security
and
IT
approval
processes
could
take
up
to
two
years.

These
customers
asked
to
host
MARC
at
their
preferred
litigation
service
providers,
which
would
enable
them
to
accelerate
deployment
while
still
achieving
cost
savings
from
reduced
data
volumes.

Once
the
LSPs
were
on
board
and
began
using
the
product,
they
wanted
to
also
be
able
to
use
it
with
their
law
firm
customers.
That
led
Altorney
to
open
the
platform
to
law
firms.

“We’ve
now
opened
it
up
and
a
lot
of
LSPs
and
law
firms
are
hopping
on
board
and
have
it
installed
in
their
environments
as
well,”
Shimmy
Messing
said.

Pricing
Model

MARC
uses
volume-based
pricing
with
two
tiers.
The
initial
relevance
determination
costs
just
pennies
per
document
or
less.

Additional
analysis
–
including
privilege,
confidentiality,
issue
coding,
PII,
PHI
and
other
determinations
–
is
also
priced
at
a
single
per-document
rate
of
just
a
few
cents,
depending
on
volume.

Notably,
organizations
can
rerun
analyses
without
additional
charges
if
requirements
change,
such
as
modifications
to
a
confidentiality
order.

Humans
in
the
Loop

Despite
the
automation,
Altorney
emphasizes
that
MARC
is
designed
to
keep
humans
involved
in
the
review
process.

“GenAI
doesn’t
eliminate
the
need
for
human
oversight
–
but
it
enables
the
right
human
to
be
in
the
right
place
at
the
right
time
to
optimize
their
value,”
said

Stephen
Goldstein,
the
company’s
chief
product
officer.

Rather
than
replacing
human
reviewers
entirely,
Altorney’s
vision
for
MARC
is
to
transform
first-pass
review
into
quality
control
review,
allowing
reviewers
to
then
work
two
to
three
times
faster
on
a
smaller
set
of
more
important
documents.

Shimmy
Messing
acknowledged
that
while
some
users
might
eventually
feel
comfortable
producing
documents
straight
from
MARC
without
human
review,
most
currently
prefer
having
“eyes
on
everything,”
using
MARC’s
determinations
to
accelerate
rather
than
replace
human
judgment.

‘The
Ultimate
Truth
Seeker’

Altorney
was
founded
by
brothers
Shimmy
and
Rachi
Messing
in
late
2021.
The
company
initially
focused
on
its
Altorney
platform,
a
marketplace
for
document
reviewers
and
legal
talent,
which
launched
at
Legalweek
in
2022.

MARC
emerged
from
a
collaboration
with
Goldstein,
now
the
chief
product
officer
and
formerly
global
director
of
practice
support
at
Squire
Patton
Boggs.
Last
year,
he
approached
the
Messings
with
work
he’d
been
doing
on
using
gen
AI
for
first-pass
review.

After
evaluating
his
technology,
they
decided
to
productize
it,
spending
the
latter
half
of
2024
and
early
2025
developing
MARC
into
a
commercial
product.

The
product
name
honors
the
founders’
late
father,
Marc
Messing,
an
attorney,
rabbi
and
educator
who
died
of
pancreatic
cancer
in
2021.
Shimmy
Messing
described
him
as
“the
ultimate
truth
seeker,”
making
the
name
appropriate
for
a
tool
designed
to
find
truth
in
document
sets.

Both
founders
have
extensive
backgrounds
in
the
e-discovery
industry,
having
both
started
their
careers
at
Merrill
Corporation
in
the
early
2000s.

With
MARC
now
generally
available,
Shimmy
Messing
told
me,
Altorney
positions
itself
as
a
“boutique
coding
shop”
creating
“elegant,
unconventional
legal
software”
that
addresses
persistent
pain
points
in
legal
work
–
first
with
legal
talent
sourcing
through
its
Altorney
platform,
and
now
with
AI-powered
document
review
through
MARC.

Prepare
the
world’s
tiniest
violin,
my
friends.
At
a
recent
Catholic
University
Law
School
event,
while
sharing
his
thoughts
on
life,
the
universe,
and
everything
with
his
former
clerk
Jenn
Mascott
(currently
nominated
to
the
Third
Circuit

despite
a
complete
lack
of
connections
to
the
state
of
Delaware),
Justice
Clarence
Thomas
explained
that
he

put
the
brakes
on
his
George
Washington
Law
teaching
gig
after
Dobbs
because
of
“unpleasantness.”

Oh
no!
The
horror.
Unpleasantness,
you
say?

What
an
absolute
snowflake.

He
didn’t
want
to
keep
teaching
a
class…
where
he
had
all
the
power,
controlled
the
syllabus,
the
grading,
and
the
air
conditioning.
A
class
populated
by
students
who,
almost
certainly,
skewed
mostly
his
way
(who
else
is
taking
a
Thomas
class?).
Come
on,
man!
I
know
you
prefer
hanging
out
with
fawning
admirers

willing
to
pay
for
your
luxury
vacations,
but
if
you’re
going
to
do
this
job,
you’ve
got
to
be
able
to
handle
a
couple
side-eyes
in
a
seminar
room.

You
know
what’s
unpleasant?
People
having
forced
births
because

a
witchhunter
from
the
1600s
said
so.
It’s
the
same
thing
with

Amy
Coney
Barrett’s
recent
lament
that
her
family
forced
her
to
make
some
coherent
legal
justification
for
her
superlegislature
cosplay
to
overturn
longstanding
Constitutional
rights.
Sorry
gang,
you
don’t
get
to
run
away
because
someone
points
out
that
your
“deeply
rooted
in
history
and
tradition”
arguments
are
about
as
historical
as
the
History
Channel.
And
even

Ancient
Aliens
is

better
sourced
than
these
Second
Amendment
opinions.

Honestly,
the

Ancient
Aliens
comparison
is
more
apropos
than
it
might
seem
at
first
blush.
You
know
how
every
episode
involves
the
same
rotating
panel
of
talking
heads
whether
they’re
explaining
how
Egyptians
and
Mesoamericans
couldn’t
possibly
have
independently
come
up
with
the
idea
for
a
pyramid
despite
being
the
most
intuitive
design
imaginable
or
how
angels
look
like
astronauts?
That’s
because
the
conspiracy
theory
world
is
a
big
circle
jerk
of
pseudo-academics.
Now,
for
a
fun
experiment,
check
out
the
“history”
the
conservative
legal
movement
cites
in
their
opinions.
Notice
how
it’s
mostly
secondary
law
review
articles
published
by
former
clerks
turned
academics
slapping
together
shoddy,
cherry-picked
research
to
paper
up
the
thesis
that
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
was
a
scrivener’s
error?
Idea
laundering
in
action,
all
to
prevent
the
judges
from
having
to
stand
behind
the
history
directly…
it’s
been
vetted
(by
3L
law
review
editors,
anyway)!

But
that’s
the
thing.
These
people
are
just
too
chickenshit
to
stand
behind
their
principles
in
the
face
of
vague
disdain.
During
the
civil
rights
era,
judges
faced
actual
terroristic
threats
—
the
Chief
Justice
highlighted
this
in
his
annual
report,

before
comparing
those
threats
to
being
criticized
by
law
bloggers
—
but
stood
by
their
decisions.
That’s
not
where
this
movement
is.
They’ve
got
two
modes:
shocked
pearl-clutching
that
anyone
would
be
so
impolitic
to
question
their
delicate
genius
and

active
troll.
And
both
flavors
rest
on
the
cloistered,
unaccountable
perch
they’ve
fashioned
for
themselves
to
enact
policy
from
the
bench
well
beyond
anything
imagined
by
the
Framers.
The
throughline
of
the
conservative
legal
movement
is
taking
reckless,
unaccountable
fiat
and
equating
it
with
jurisprudential
bravery.

If
it’s
unpleasant
to
hear
a
few
students
question
your
historical
fan
fiction,
maybe
don’t
reshape
the
lives
of
millions
based
on
it.

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Quits
Law
School
Class,
Depriving
Students
Of
BOTH
Sides
Of
The
‘Do
Gay
People
Have
Human
Rights?’
Debate

Amy
Coney
Barrett’s
Fetish
For
Phony
Reluctance

Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
Thinks
You’re
Stupid
And
He’s
Probably
Right

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

If
you
thought
it
was
hard
to
get
in
to
a
T14
as
a
student,
imagine
the
uphill
battle
you’d
be
facing
if
you
were
selling
them
software!
Most
law
schools
are
so
conservative
in
their
approach
to
teaching
devices
that
their
only
student-focused
large
language
model
is
the
Bluebook.
Despite
the
challenges,
Harvey
convinced
Stanford,
UCLA,
NYU
and
Notre
Dame
to
adopt
the
AI
in
order
to

experiment
with
their
students
keep
generations
of
future
lawyers
on
the
cutting
edge
of
legal
tech.
That
was
back
in
August.
Since
then,
Harvey
boosted
their
presence
in
several
additional
prestigious
law
schools.
According
to
their
website,
the
new
law
schools
welcomed
to
the
fold
are:
WashU,
Penn,
UChicago,
Boston
University,
Fordham,
BYU,
UGA,
Villanova,
Baylor,
SMU,
and
Vanderbilt.
This
list
isn’t
in
order
of
acquisition
of
course
—
just
personal
preference.

For
anyone
wondering
about
the
score,
Harvey
landed
8
of
the
17
top
14
law
schools
in
the
country!

That
isn’t
a
typo
by
the
way.
Maybe
the
inclusion
of
Harvey
will
be
the
thumb
on
the
scale
the
schools
need
to
bring
us
back
to
a
list
of
14
that
actually
makes
sense.
That
said,
if
the
schools
that
added
Harvey
to
their
repertoire
fall
in
rank
while
the
ones
that
abstained
go
up,
it
might
not
be
the
best
look
for
the
LLM
specifically
catered
to
law.
A
word
to
the
students:
no
matter
how
good
the
AI
is,
remember
that
you’re
ultimately
the
one
that
has
to
do
the
learning.
You
shouldn’t
need
to
be
humbled
by
a
closed
book
written
exam
before
you
take
that
to
heart.

UChicago,
Penn,
Vanderbilt,
WashU,
Boston
University,
Fordham,
BYU,
UGA,
Villanova,
Baylor,
SMU
Join
:Harvey:
Law
School
Program
[Harvey.ai]

Earlier:

Harvey
Begins
Law
School
Program
To
Get
Students
Hooked

---

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.

Maybe
it’s
my
OCD,
or
being
a
nerd
(I
know,
shocking),
or
being
a
control
freak
(did
I
mention
my
OCD),
but
I
am
a
massive
proponent
of
reducing
the
types
of
cases
you
handle
to
a
series
of
checklists
and
workflows.
No
matter
how
complex
or
varied
your
cases
are,
or
their
quantity,
creating
a
written,
step-by-step
process
for
handling
each
type
of
case
will
increase
efficiency,
quality
control,
and
outcomes.

This
approach
–
reducing
your
caseload
to
a
set
of
processes
that
serve
as
a
tool
to
ensure
you
consider
all
the
various
methods
and
steps
in
your
cases
–
is
often
overlooked
because
it
is
time-consuming,
non-billable,
and
requires
regular
review
and
updates
(these
checklists
must
be
reviewed
and
updated
periodically).
Additionally,
some
lawyers
believe
their
cases
are
too
complex
to
be
reduced
to
step-by-step
processes. 
What
they
do
is
so
unique,
so
intellectual,
that
it
cannot
possibly
be
reduced
to
checklists. 
And
yes,
we
are
not
automatons,
and
we
cannot
simply
follow
decision
trees
automatically.
However,
I
would
argue
that,
regardless
of
complexity,
50-90%
of
every
case
can
be
reduced
to
checklists. 
And
that
merely
the
effort
to
look
at
your
cases
and
write
out
how
you
handle
them
from
beginning
to
end
will
make
you
a
better
lawyer.

I
handle
a
variety
of
litigation-based
matters. 
Throughout
my
career,
I
have
litigated
a
wide
range
of
cases,
from
asbestos
to
zoning,
and
everything
in
between. 
And
early
in
my
career,
I
looked
at
my
cases
from
the
vantage
point
of
–
what
is
every
possible
thing
I
can
do
in
the
case
and
what
makes
sense
under
different
sets
of
circumstances.
And
I
wrote
out
checklists. 
Not
just
for
me,
but
for
everyone
on
the
team,
to
ensure
we
were
all
moving
in
the
right
direction,
pursuing
the
proper
goals,
and
advancing
the
client’s
objectives.
As
I
handled
more
of
the
same
matters,
I
refined
my
checklists
to
accommodate
my
increasing
experience
and
knowledge.

If
you
can
see
your
whole
cases,
from
pre-suit
through
trial,
you
are
taking
those
actions
that
advance
your
goals
(and
refraining
from
those
that
don’t).
If,
conversely,
you
are
relying
on
what’s
in
your
head
about
tactics,
steps,
and
approaches,
you
will
likely
miss
one
or
more
crucial
aspects
of
your
case.

So,
how
do
you
reduce
your
matters
to
a
series
of
checklists?

First,
define
the
different
matters
you
handle.
If
all
you
handle
is
litigation,
then
there
will
be
a
lot
of
transferable
to-do
lists
from
one
type
of
matter
to
another
(serving
discovery
and
third-party
subpoenas,
retaining
experts,
deposing
parties,
etc.).
For
me,
my
list
would
include,
among
other
items,
commercial
litigation
(breach
of
contract,
non-competes,
IP,
etc.),
personal
injury
(trucking,
auto,
premises,
negligent
security),
products
(one-off
products,
drug
&
medical
device,
toxic
tort,
etc.),
and
so
on. 

Second,
I
would
then
take
my
categories
and
create
a
workflow
for
each,
writing
out
each
step,
aspect,
and
off-ramp
of
that
case.
I
would
literally
type
every
little
and
big
thing
I
can
do
when
handling
that
type
of
matter
into
a
Word
document
—
the
more
steps,
the
more
to-dos,
the
more
checklists,
the
more
detail,
the
better.
  

Third,
I
would
share
it
with
my
team
for
their
input,
and
ask
them
to
add,
revise,
and
augment
these
lists. 

Fourth,
whenever
I
started
on
a
new
matter,
I
would
share
the
appropriate
list
for
the
proper
case
and
have
everyone
type
their
notes
into
this
document
about
the
steps
being
followed,
taken,
or,
for
that
matter,
avoided.
This
document
will
serve
as
a
single
source
of
information,
helping
everyone
keep
track
of
what
has
been
done
and
what
remains
to
be
done.
This
works
whatever
side
of
the
“V”
you’re
on.

Fifth,
the
way
we
handle
cases
evolves,
and
these
checklists
will
be
updated
during
the
litigation
process
to
reflect
that.

Is
this
a
lot
of
work?
Yes.
A
lot
of
non-billable
work?
Yes.
But
these
checklists
will
keep
you
and
your
team
focused
on
what
needs
to
be
done,
when,
and
how.
Without
such
controls,
you
are
constantly
reminding
yourself
and
your
team
what
to
do
next.
This
reduces
unnecessary
control
and
micro
supervision
of
your
matters.

Consider
this
approach
not
just
for
your
matters,
but
for
all
your
firm’s
matters,
to
improve
efficiency,
avoid
mistakes,
and
enhance
outcomes.

---

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.

When
it
comes
to
artificial
intelligence,
law
firms
that
take
an
early
implementation
lead
are
positioning
themselves
for
compounding
advantages
in
the
years
to
come.

So
how
can
you
beat
your
competitors
in
advancing
from
“tool
mode”
—
where
individual
applications
solve
problems
in
isolation
—
to
more
holistic
AI
adoption?

Join
us

October
21st
at
1
p.m.
ET
for
this
discussion
about
effective
and
ethical
AI
implementation
in
midsize
and
large
law
firms.

We’ll
explore
how
your
firm
can:
•
Drive
value
through
customization
•
Maintain
effective
governance
and
data
security
•
Reach
the
next
stage
of
maturity
in
AI
adoption

Eligible
for
1.0
General
Credit

Save
your
spot
and
sign
up
today!

In
today’s
volatile
political
climate,
many
lawyers
are
finding
themselves
forced
to
start
a
firm
on
the
fly
—
either
due
to
a

clash
of
values
with
Biglaw or termination
from
government
service or
possibly
even
displacement
by
AI.
 Regardless
of
the
reason,
these
suddenly
solos
don’t
have
the
luxury
of
months
of
planning
to
get
a
law
firm
up
and
running.

But
the
good
news
is
that
starting
a
firm
on
the
fly
doesn’t
mean
it
has
to
look
fly-by-night.
 In
addition
to
a
computer
and
Internet
access,
here
are
six
indispensable
technology
tools,
that
cost
$20/month
or
less,
that
can
help
you
start
a
sleek
and
streamlined
practice
in
a
weekend.
 

1.
Self-Scheduling
Tools:
End
the
Email
Tennis
Match
Forever

Starting
out,
there’s
nothing
more
mission-critical
than
getting
the
word
out
to
as
many
contacts
as
possible.
And
while
a
bulk
email
announcement
is
a
good
start,
one-on-one
Zoom
calls
or
in-person
coffee
dates
are
more
likely
to
result
in
real
conversation
and
yield
real
business.

Yet
nothing
screams
“amateur
hour”
quite
like
the
coordination
email
dance:
“How
about
Tuesday
at
2?”
“Tuesday
doesn’t
work,
what
about
Wednesday
at
3?”
“Wednesday
I’m
in
court,
maybe
Thursday
morning?”
 That’s
why
you
should
invest
in
a
calendaring
tool
like Calendly.com (free
–
$16/month)
or
AcuityScheduling.com
($16
–
$49/month).
 These
products
let
you
set
your
availability
and
link
your
calendar
everywhere
(e.g., email
signature,
LinkedIn
profile,
website
footer)
so
contacts
book
themselves
without
a
single
coordination
email.
 And
as
an
added
bonus,
you
look
like
you
have
your
act
together.
 Down
the
line,
when
you’re
ready,
you
can
even
use
these
tools
for
paid
consultations
with
prospective
clients.
 (Here’s
a video on
how
to
set
up
Calendly
for
free
and
paid
consults.)

2.
Payment
Processing:
Make
It
Stupid-Easy
for
Clients
to
Pay

Without
a
mechanism
for
accepting
payment,
your
new
firm
is
nothing
more
than
a
hobby
or
a
charity
(and
even
charities
have
GoFundMe
sites).
 And
the
ability
to
accept
paper
checks
won’t
cut
it
in
an
age
where
the
vast
majority
of
clients
pay
bills
online.
 Practice
management
platforms
like
Clio
or
MyCase
offer
integrated
payment
processors
—
but
if
you’re
too
overwhelmed
to
figure
out
which
one
to
pick,
you
can
opt
for LawPay.com as
a
stand-alone
product
but
Freshbooks,
Stripe,
Zelle,
or
even
Venmo
in
a
pinch
will
get
the
job
done.
 As
for
processing
fees,
some
jurisdictions
allow
you
to
pass
these
costs
on
to
clients
but
starting
out,
you’re
better
off
eating
the
charges
as
a
cost
of
doing
business.

3.
Online
Presence:
Stop
Hiding
Behind
“Professional
Tradition”

These
days,
an
online
presence
—
more
so
than
a
brick
and
mortar
office
—
confirms
that
you’re
real.
 But
you
don’t
need a
$10,000
website
as
proof.
 Starting
out,
any
social
media
site,
whether
on
LinkedIn,
Instagram,
or
even
TikTok
will
suffice
if
you
can
stock
it
with
some
useful
content.
 If
your
target
clients
favor
something
more
traditional,
you
can
throw
up
a
one-page
website
for
free
using Carrd.co.
 The
site
is
easy
to
use
but
if
you
can’t
get
the
results
you
want,
you
can
enlist
a
contractor
from Fiverr.co to design
a
site
with
Carrd
for
under
$20.

4.
 Communications
Tools:
Call
Me,
Maybe

Out
of
the
gate,
you’ll
need
a
way
to
communicate
with
clients.
 But
in
today’s
world,
communicatons
aren’t
limited
to
the
phone.
 You
can
opt
for
VOIP
(Voice
Over
IP)
platforms
like
Dialpad
or
RingCentral,
combined
voice
and
video
like
Zoom
or
GoogleMeet, CaseStatus.com for
texting,
and of
course,
good
old-fashioned
email.
So
long
as
your
engagement
agreement
makes
clear
to
clients
how
you’ll
communicate
with
them,
there’s
no
need
to
make
yourself
available
by
phone
24-7.

5.
E-Signature
Capability:
Kill
the
Print-Sign-Scan
Cycle
Forever

Nothing
kills
momentum
like
administrative
friction.
Your
client
is
ready
to
hire
you,
excited
about
moving
forward,
and
then
you
email
them
a
PDF
with
instructions
to
“print,
sign,
scan,
and
return.”
Half
won’t
have
access
to
a
printer.
The
other
half
will
let
the
document
sit
on
their
desk
for
a
week
while
they
figure
out
how
to
scan
it
back.
 That’s
why
an
e-signature
platform
is
imperative.
 You
can
start
with
the
e-signature
functions
baked
into
tools
you
already
use
like
Google
workspace,
Microsoft
365,
Adobe,
or
a
law
practice
management
platform.

6.
AI
Platform:
Your
Cyber
Workhorse

Perhaps
the
most
indispensable
tool
for
starting
a
law
firm
on
the
fly
is
one
that
wasn’t
available
even
three
short
years
ago:
generative
AI.
 A
paid
version
of
a
general-purpose
AI
platform
—
ChatGPT,
Claude,
Gemini,
Perplexity, or NotebookLM
—
can
serve
as
your
cyber-paralegal,
marketing
assistant,
design
intern,
and
business
coach
rolled
into
one.
With
AI
at
your
fingertips,
you
can:

● Generate
marketing
content
(LinkedIn
posts,
press
releases,
client
alerts)
in
minutes.

● Draft
contracts,
engagement
agreements,
and
intake
forms
customized
to
your
practice.

● Create
placeholder
logos,
slogans,
or
website
copy
so
you
look
polished
from
day
one.

● Troubleshoot
tech
problems,
brainstorm
strategy,
and
even
role-play
client
interactions.

● Summarize
cases,
statutes,
or
regulatory
filings
while
you
handle
client
outreach.

Think
of
AI
not
as
a
gimmick
but
as
your
first
hire
—
your
proverbial
chef-cook-bottlewasher
that
works
24/7
that
never
sleeps,
never
bills
overtime,
and
never
complains
about
working
weekends.

Starting
a
law
firm
on
the
fly
is
never
ideal.
 But
with
today’s
tech
tools,
you
can
launch
a
firm
that
looks
fly
right
out
of
the
gate
and
is
well
positioned
to
soar.

---

Carolyn
Elefant
is
one
of
the
country’s
most
recognized
advocates
for
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers.
She
founded
MyShingle.com
in
2002,
the
longest-running
blog
for
solo
practitioners,
where
she
has
published
thousands
of
articles,
resources,
and
guides
on
starting,
running,
and
growing
independent
law
practices.
She
is
the
author
of
Solo
by
Choice,
widely
regarded
as
the
definitive
handbook
for
launching
and
sustaining
a
law
practice,
and
has
spoken
at
countless
bar
events
and
legal
conferences
on
technology,
innovation,
and
regulatory
reform
that
impacts
solos
and
smalls.
Elefant
also
develops
practical
tools
like
the

AI
Teach-In
to
help
small
firms
adopt
AI
and
she
consistently
champions
reforms
to
level
the
playing
field
for
independent
lawyers.
Alongside
this
work,
she
runs
the
Law
Offices
of
Carolyn
Elefant,
a
national
energy
and
regulatory
practice
that
handles
selective
complex,
high-stakes
matters.

The
bar
exam
is
less
of
a
test
of
legal
competence
and
more
of
a
Scantron-centric
hazing
ritual.
A
three-year
crucible
of
critical
learning
and
professional
training
capped
off
with
a
few
weeks
of
rote
memorization
for
the
sake
of
a
test
on
subjects
the
lawyer
will
never
advise
a
client
on
again.
In
the
real
world,
a
time-crunched,
doctrinal,
memory
test
on
issues
where
the
lawyer
has
no
experience
is
called
“malpractice,”
but
for
the
summer
before
entering
practice
we
call
it
“the
bar
exam”
and
pretend
it
makes
sense.

This
week,
Utah
announced
that
it
will
formally
introduce
an

alternate
pathway
to
licensure
to
allow
prospective
lawyers
to
skip
the
bar
exam
ritual
altogether
and
earn
their
license
through
a
combination
of
formal
education,
supervised
professional
experience,
and
a
tailored,
skill-based
exam.
Anyone
who
wants
to
take
the
bar
exam
is
still
welcome
to
it,
but
the
state
now
has
another
path
that
is
not
only
sufficient
for
vetting
competent
practitioners…
it’s
probably
better.

Utah
began
its
journey
toward
a
bar
exam
alternative
back
in
2020.
With
COVID
locking
down
the
country,
Utah
bucked
the
nation’s
hand-wringing
bar
examiners
and
pioneered
an

“emergency
diploma
privilege
plus”
admission
program
rather
than
cram
law
grads
into
an
exam
hall
and
see
who
coughed
first.
Spoiler
alert:
it
worked.
Lawyers
got
licensed.
Clients
got
represented.
The
judicial
system
didn’t
collapse.

While
the
National
Conference
of
Bar
Examiners,
the
surprisingly
financially
flush
“non-profit”
that
monetizes
this
gatekeeping
ritual
spent
the
lockdowns
ranting
that

diploma
privilege
a
threat
to
civilization.
With
a
straight
face,
they
claimed
the
exam
was
necessary
to
protect
the
public
—
and
not
without
a
dash
of
sexist
and
racist
tropes
for
flavor
—
even
though
the
evidence
weighed
entirely
to
the
contrary.
An
ABA
study
tracking
attorney
discipline
rates
found

no
difference
between
a
diploma
privilege
jurisdiction
and
states
that
cling
to
the
bar
exam.

Something
you’d
think
the
NCBE
would
understand
since

they’re
based
in
Wisconsin
and

led
by
a
diploma
privilege
recipient.

Upon
the
success
of
the
COVID-era
trial
program,
Utah
decided
to
explore
a
permanent
option.
To
that
end,
the
courts
set
up
a
panel
featuring
a
broad
spectrum
of
legal
experience
from
judges
to
professors
to
practitioners.
Importantly,
as
BYU
Law
Professor
Catherine
Bramble,
who
served
on
the
committee,
explained
the
group
included
alternative
pathway
skeptics
who
joined
the
group
expecting
to
reject
any
move
away
from
the
bar
exam.
But
after
years
of
meetings
with
the
NCBE,
the
scholarly
research
on
attorney
licensure,
and
reviewing
the
empirical
results
of
the
COVID
experiment,
the
body
voted
unanimously
to
adopt
an
alternative.

BYU
Law
Professor
Catherine
Bramble,
who
served
on
that
committee
and
then
joined
the
smaller
task
force
charged
with
settling
the
particulars,
explained
that
the
group
rose
to
the
challenge
to
“build
a
better
way
to
license
attorneys
based
on
understanding
the
skills
attorneys
need
for
practice.”
The
skills-centric
approach
draws
heavily
on
the
work
done
by
Professor
Deborah
Merritt,
whose
expansive
study
of
the
licensing
process
and
the
practical
needs
of
attorneys

earned
a
“fake
news”
shrug
from
the
NCBE.

Unsurprisingly,
based
on
that
response,
neither
the
current
bar
exam
—
and
the
much
ballyhooed
NextGen
exam
—
directly
satisfied
the
group
as
a
solution
meeting
the
identified
needs
of
future
practitioners.

According
to
Bramble,
the
task
force
flagged
a
few
key
areas
they
wanted
to
emphasize
in
any
alternative
process.
First,
a
commitment
to
curriculum
learning.
Applicants
spent
three
years
in
law
school…
honor
that.
We’ve
talked
about
that
here
at
Above
the
Law
before.
To
the
extent
specific
coursework
is
needed,
work
on
making
sure
it’s
available.
Second,
ample
supervised
practical
work
to
convey
satisfactory
achievement.
The
new
plan
requires
240
hours
of
supervised
work
(of
which
50
must
be
pro
bono),
which
is
on
top
of
the
ABA’s
requirement
that
graduates
complete
6
credit
hours
of
practical
work.
All
told,
this
amounts
to
over
500
hours
of
practical
work.

The
final
leg
of
the
new
procedure
is
a
written
exam,
though
it’s
a
far
cry
from
the
existing
bar
exam.
Instead,
applicants
will
take
a
Utah-commissioned
exam
that
provides
the
examinee
a
closed
universe
of
materials
and
asks
them
to
perform
tasks
that
a
typical
first-year
attorney
would
be
asked
to
perform.
“One
of
our
biggest
concerns
was
that
most
practicing
lawyers
couldn’t
pass
the
bar
exam
today,”
Bramble
explained.
“Either
we’re
all
not
competent
attorneys,
or
the
bar
exam
is
fatally
flawed
at
measuring
competence.”

Remember
when

Kathleen
Sullivan
of
all
people
couldn’t
pass
a
bar
exam?
Yeah,
that.

With
this
in
mind,
the
task
force
made
it
a
priority
that
the
written
exam
be
something
that
a
practicing
attorney
could
pick
up
and
pass
right
now
based
on
their
knowledge
and
experience.
It’s
not
just
a
waste
of
time
to
test
applicants
on
a
doctrinal
memory
test,
it
skews
the
whole
process
toward
applicants
with
more
resources.
If
you
have
disposable
income
for
a
prep
course
and
the
luxury
of
taking
off
work,

you’re
more
likely
to
pass
the
test.
That’s
not
a
useful
indicia
of
competence,
and
it
closes
off
the
profession
to
potential
lawyers
that
the
public
needs
to
address
mounting
access
to
justice
concerns.

This
is
the
sort
of
innovation
that
needs
to
take
root
across
the
country.
Go
back
to
first
principles…
what
is
the
goal
of
licensure?
If
it’s
attorneys
who
know
how
to
competently
and
ethically
do
the
job,
what
gives
a
state
the
confidence
that
an
applicant
can
handle
that
duty?

It’s
probably
not
“cramming
for
a
memory
test.”

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

It’s
nearly
impossible
to
avoid
the
effects
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(AI).
No
matter
what
your
role
entails
or
what
type
of
legal
organization
you
work
for,
AI’s
impact
is
inescapable.
Whether
it’s
increasing
workflow
efficiencies,
reducing
the
need
for
new
hires,
or
creating
new
roles
focused
on
AI
rollouts,
it
is
undoubtedly
changing
the
way
that
work
gets
done
in
the
legal
space
and
beyond.

You
need
look
no
further
than
the
results
of
two
recent
surveys
for
evidence
of
this
phenomenon:

LinkedIn’s
Guide
to
Futureproofing
Your
Career
and

ILTA’s
2025
Technology
Survey.
Both
include
data
on
AI’s
impact
on
the
workplace
and
how
it
is
shaping
the
future
of
jobs
by
shifting
expectations
on
outcomes
and
required
professional
skillsets.

If
you’re
unsure
how
your
legal
role
will
evolve
in
the
years
to
come,
these
latest
statistics
will
provide
actionable
insights.
From
replacing
certain
functions
to
expanding
hiring
for
certain
roles,
there’s
a
lot
of
predictable
—
and
sometimes
unexpected
—
change
on
the
horizon.

LinkedIn’s
Data 

Just
this
week,
LinkedIn
shared
the
results
of
a
survey
that
offered
insight
into
the
evolution
of
work
in
the
AI
era. According
to
LinkedIn’s
analysis,
85%
of
U.S.
professionals
expect
that
at
least
a
quarter
of
their
skills
will
be
impacted
by
AI.
Key
roles
respondents
reported
had
already
been
impacted
by
AI
included
media
and
communications,
marketing,
and
human
resources.

Although
this
data
is
broadly
applicable
to
the
entire
workforce,
the
functions
cited
as
the
most
likely
to
evolve
—
writer/editor,
data
analyst,
and
marketing
strategist
—
are
also
central
functions
within
law
firms.
This
means
that
when
firm
employees
use
AI
for
tasks
like
marketing
and
communications,
HR,
and
operations,
they
streamline
the
more
tedious
aspects
of
these
jobs
and
are
better
able
to
focus
on
more
impactful,
higher-level
work.

The
data
shows
that
some
types
of
work,
however,
are
less
affected.
As
the
report
notes,
“Jobs
grounded
in
physical
presence
or
human-to-human
interaction
are
seeing
slower
shifts.”
Thus,
for
lawyers,
face-to-face
work
like
courtroom
advocacy,
negotiation,
and
client
counseling
will
continue
to
be
in
high
demand.

In
other
words,
the
most
important
takeaway
is
that
human
skills
will
matter
more
than
ever.
“The
vast
majority
of
global
professionals
(79%)
believe
that
even
as
AI
becomes
more
advanced,
there’s
no
substitute
for
human
intuition
or
the
insights
we
glean
from
trusted
colleagues.
This
suggests
human
skills
like
conflict
mitigation,
adaptability,
innovating
thinking,
and
stakeholder
management
are
more
important
than
ever.
The
human
edge
comes
from
strong
judgement
and
the
ability
to
connect
the
dots
in
a
complex
environment.”

ILTA’s
Technology
Data

Data
from
ILTA’s
2025
Technology
Survey
mirrors
LinkedIn’s
findings,
highlighting
how
using
AI
to
address
administrative
and
operational
tasks
clears
the
way
for
higher-level
work. 

ILTA’s
data
shows
that
80%
of
firms
are
already
using
or
exploring
AI
and
expect
that
AI
will
also
impact
their
hiring
approach.
Just
as
LinkedIn’s
survey
highlighted
new
roles
emerging
around
AI
across
the
entire
workforce,
ILTA’s
results
confirm
the
same
trend
inside
law
firms.
To
support
AI
adoption,
firms
plan
to
increase
hiring
in
some
areas,
including
IT
(32%),
innovation
(26%),
and
knowledge
management
(20%). 

As
explained
in
ILTA’s
report,
AI
is
widely
used
in
legal
organizations
for
administrative
work.
Top
use
cases
include
IT
security
and
training
(64%),
research
(57%),
marketing
and
business
development
(55%),
litigation
support
such
as
e-discovery
and
training
(53%),
and
developing
presentations
(40%).
These
statistics
mirror
the
LinkedIn
data,
where
functions
like
marketing,
communications,
and
operations
were
reported
as
most
impacted
by
AI.

Firms
expect
AI
to
play
a
larger
role
in
core
legal
tasks
over
the
next
year.
The
most
common
planned
uses
include
summarizing
documents
(84%),
legal
research
(80%),
creating
initial
drafts
of
documents
(78%),
writing
presentations
(67%),
drafting
client
alerts
and
emails
(61%),
and
brainstorming
ideas
(59%).
This
aligns
with
LinkedIn’s
broader
conclusion
that
AI
will
reshape
day-to-day
work,
enabling
professionals
to
focus
on
higher-level
strategy,
judgment,
and
collaboration.

The
Path
Forward

AI
is
here
to
stay,
so
ignoring
it
simply
isn’t
an
option.
Instead,
embrace
the
productivity
gains
it
offers
and
prepare
your
firm
for
success
in
an
AI-enabled
business
landscape.

Firms
large
and
small
can
benefit
from
implementing
AI
tools
strategically.
The
potential
is
significant,
and
ensuring
that
your
firm
is
ahead
of
the
AI
adoption
curve
will
pay
off
long-term.
Learn
as
much
as
you
can
about
AI
trends,
and
take
advantage
of
data
from
surveys
like
LinkedIn’s
and
ILTA’s
to
aid
in
your
decision-making. 

Determine
which
functions
in
your
firm
can
be
handled
most
effectively
by
AI
tools.
Obtain
input
from
your
staff
and
ensure
that
they
receive
the
necessary
training
once
you’ve
incorporated
AI
into
your
law
firm’s
workflows.
Consider
AI-gained
efficiencies
when
forecasting
revenues
and
planning
for
the
year
to
come
to
ensure
that
you
fully
reap
the
benefits
of
your
AI
investment. 

The
firms
that
will
benefit
the
most
will
be
those
that
view
AI
as
a
tool
to
reduce
time
investment
in
low-value
work
and
focus
on
the
human
skills
clients
rely
on
the
most:
strategic
thinking,
sound
judgment,
and
trusted
advice.

---

Nicole
Black is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Principal
Legal
Insight
Strategist
at 8am,
the
team
behind
8am
MyCase,
LawPay,
CasePeer,
and
DocketWise.
She’s
been blogging since
2005,
has
written
a weekly
column for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers,
co-authors Social
Media
for
Lawyers:
the
Next
Frontier,
and
co-authors Criminal
Law
in
New
York.
She’s
easily
distracted
by
the
potential
of
bright
and
shiny
tech
gadgets,
along
with
good
food
and
wine.
You
can
follow
her
on
Twitter
at @nikiblack and
she
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

That
whole
“A
Republic,
if
you
can
keep
it”
thing
was
pretty
prescient.
We’re
currently
in
the
“big
if
true”
phase
of
that
maxim.
The
ABA
has
recently
taken
heat
for
stances
that
during
a
large
part
of
our
country’s
history
would
be
givens:
declaring
that
the
rule
of
law
is
worth
protecting,
that
the
President
shouldn’t
be
in
the
business
of
intimidating
his
domestic
political
opponents,
that
Kelly
Clarkson
is
still
the
best

American
Idol
winner,
the
usual.
And
although
these
things
are
objectively
true,
they’re
getting
harder
to
defend
as
the
organization
faces
heightened
political
pressure.

Law.com
has
coverage:

Since
President
Donald
Trump
started
signing
executive
orders
against
firms
over
clients
they’ve
represented,
the
ABA
cites
three
instances
when
it
could
not
secure
representation
for
matters
challenging
the
Trump
administration.

“In
short,
the
ABA’s
litigation
activity—which
it
has
historically
used
to
advance
its
core
goals—
has
been
impaired
as
a
consequence
of
the
Law
Firm
Intimidation
Policy.
This
impediment
to
the
ABA’s
activities
constitutes
organizational
injury,”
the
ABA
asserted
in
a
court
filing
on
Sept.
24.

That
said,
some
firms
still
have
the
heart
to
represent
the
ABA.
Susman
Godfrey
—

enemy
of
my
enemy
and
all
that
—
is
currently
representing
the
organization.
With
the
Texas
Supreme
Court’s
recent
move
to

cut
the
ABA
out
of
its
accrediting
role
over
its
political
actions,
it
is
nice
to
know
that
at
least
one
firm
in
Houston,
Texas
is
on
their
side.
For
the
other
firms
that
actually
believe
in
the
rule
of
law,
fighting
for
the
Bar
is
more
than
just
a
career
highlight.
It’ll
prove
to
be
a
moral
one.

Some
Law
Firms
Turning
Down
ABA
Work
After
Trump
Administration
Targets
Legal
Industry
[Law.com]

Earlier:

Texas
Plans
To
Cut
Law
School
Accreditation
Ties
With
The
ABA

---

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.

*
Federal
judiciary
can
stay
open
until
October
17
amid
shutdown.
After
that?
Have
you
guys
ever
seen

The
Purge?
[Reuters]

*
Lawyer
giving
out
roadside
legal
advice.
Did
you
know
lawyers
could
provide
pro
bono
work

without
a
corrupt
quid
pro
quo?
[Axios]

*
E-Verify
goes
down
after
government
shutdown
in
perfect
encapsulation
of
how
the
administration
doesn’t
care
about
immigration
beyond
authorizing
masked
vigilantism.
[Law360]

*
AI
threatens
data
privacy,
which
is
somehow
something
that
we
need
to
keep
telling
people.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Barrister
apprenticeships
coming
to
the
UK.
[Legal
Cheek]

*
Judge
suspended
for
showing
leniency
to
defendant
to
make
sure
she
wouldn’t
lose
her
baby
while
her
claim
was
handled.
[ABA
Journal]

*
DOJ
asking
for
stays
in
antitrust
cases
in
light
of
the
shutdown.
[National
Law
Journal]