Category: News Feeds

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
data
collected
by
ALM,
what
percentage
of
partners
in
the
Am
Law
100
are
of
the
nonequity
variety?

Hint:
Nonequity
partnership
is
increasingly
popular
in
Biglaw,
with
just
10
firms
in
the
Am
Law
100
having
only
one
tier
of
partnership.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Winning
a
gold
medal
is
hard.
Repeating
as
gold
medalists
is
even
harder.
At
the
2012
Summer
Olympics
in
London,
the
eight
women
rowing
for
the
United
States,
as
well
as
their
coxswain,
were
heavy
favorites
to
reprise
their
winning
ways
from
Beijing
four
years
earlier.
And
repeat
they

did,
in
a
start-to-finish
win
by
half
a
boat
length
over
the
silver
medalist
Canadiens.
It
was
such
a
convincing
win
that
the
cox,
Mary
Whipple,
later

said
that
she
was
tempted
during
the
last
250
meters
to
just
stay
quiet
and
“soak
it
in,”
at
least
before
she
remembered
that
it
was
her
job
to
let
the
rowers
know
how
much
more
of
the
race
remained.
I
confess
that
rowing
is
on
my
mind,
as
my
rowing
club
plans
to
open
the
2026
season
this
weekend.
Also
on
my
mind
is
a
litigation
finance

event
I
attended
at
NYU
Law
recently,
which
featured
a
full-day’s
worth
of
interesting
conversation
about
where
we
are
in
terms
of
litigation
finance
and
today’s
legal
ecosystem.
Taken
together,
I
think
I
may
have
stumbled
on
a
useful
way
of
thinking
about
one
of
the
critical
questions
regarding
third-party
litigation
funding
of
IP
disputes,
the
question
of
“control.”

To
start,
some
context
on
the
role
of
the
cox
in
an

“eight”
might
be
helpful.
While
the
boat
carries
eight
rowers,
each
sitting
in
a
different
“seat”
with
a
defined
role,
it
also
has
a
coxswain,
or
cox.
It
is
the
job
of
the
cox
to
help
steer
the
boat
—
which
is
a
monstrosity
at
over
60
feet
long
and
over
200
lbs.,
even
as
it
is
just
two
feet
wide
or
less
—
as
well
as
to
help
the
crew
pace
themselves
over
the
2,000
meters
of
a
typical
rowing
race.
The
cox
does
the
latter
by
making
“calls,”
such
as
to
increase
the
stroke
rate,
or
by
sharing
how
much
distance
remains.
In
between,
the
cox
will
often
exhort
the
crew,
including
by
using
colorful
and
emotional
language,
in
the
hopes
of
squeezing
every
bit
of
power
and
endurance
from
each
seat
in
the
pursuit
of
victory.
You
can
think
of
the
cox
as
a
coach
in
the
boat,
if
that
helps.
It
is
a
critical
role,
but
just
one
of
many
critical
roles
that
must
be
played
at
the
highest
level
in
order
to
achieve
Olympic
glory.
Put
simply,
one
can
put
together
a
gold-medal
performance
as
the
cox,
but
if
the
crew
is
not
to
standard,
or
if
the
equipment
such
as
the
boat
or
oars
are
faulty,
or
even
if
the
conditions
of
the
race
don’t
favor
the
race
plan
used,
the
results
can
turn
out
a
lot
worse
than
anticipated.
And
what
is
true
of
the
cox
in
an
Olympic
race
is
often
true
of
a
funder
in
a
high-stakes
IP
dispute.

Let’s
complete
the
proposed
analogy
between
an
Olympic
eight
race
and
a
funded
IP
dispute
before
getting
into
how
it
may
address
the
question
of
control.
If
we
submit
that
the
funder
is
like
the
cox,
I
would
argue
that
the
ultimate
claim
holder
is
like
the
institution
in
whose
name
the
boat
is
rowing.
Their
name
is
behind
the
effort,
and
they
stand
to
gain
from
a
successful
result,
but
a
lot
of
what
leads
to
that
successful
result
is
work
done
by
others,
or
tied
to
the
strength
of
their
“equipment,”
or
legal
assets
such
as
their
patents.
The
rowers
themselves
are
the
equivalent
of
the
legal
team,
whose
consistent
and
effective
effort
over
the
course
of
the
race
or
dispute
is
essential
to
a
positive
result.
Just
as
the
eight
will
feature
rowers
with
different
roles,
so
too
the
legal
teams
in
an
IP
dispute
will
have
lawyers
performing
different
roles,
from
lead
trial
counsel
down
to
the
most
junior
associate
on
the
team.
And
what
about
the
funder’s
investors?
They
are
similar
to
team
sponsors,
or
college
boosters,
who
help
provide
the
backing
that
allows
the
team
to
do
what
it
does
but
are
often
far
removed
from
the
actual
deployment
of
the
capital
—
by
design.
At
bottom,
as
with
any
competitive
endeavor,
winning
—
on
either
the
legal
or
rowing
front
—
requires
concerted
teamwork
and
resolute
focus
on
achieving
victory
from
the
first
team
practice
or
meeting
until
the
crossing
of
the
finish
line
in
the
Olympic
final
or
its
legal
equivalent. As
well
as
the
money
to
get
there,
of
course.

With
our
analogy
complete,
let’s
turn
back
to
the
cox
and
the
question
of
control.
Does
the
cox
“control”
the
boat
—
or
in
our
analogy
does
the
funder
control
the
claim?
I
submit
that
the
answer
is
a
subjective
one.
If
I
were
representing
a
collegiate
cox
prospect
trying
to
negotiate
an
athletics
scholarship
in
exchange
for
a
commitment
to
a
powerhouse
rowing
program,
the
answer
would
be
definitely.
I
would
argue
that
keeping
the
boat
on
course,
motivating
the
crew
in
the
maelstrom
of
a
race,
and
executing
on
the
race
plan
is
essential
to
getting
to
the
desired
outcome.
And
on
the
flip
side,
if
I
were
one
of
the
rowers,
or
even
the
team
owner
asked
to
give
the
cox
a
raise,
I
might
say
that
while
the
cox
has
an
important
job
to
do,
it
is
a
job
that
is
more
fungible
—
and
that
nothing
the
cox
is
doing
amounts
to
control
over
the
boat,
especially
in
light
of
the
work
that
the
rowers
or
equipment
are
doing
in
the
water.
Good
arguments
exist
on
both
sides
of
the
question,
with
the
true
answer
dependent
on
one’s
perspective
and
motivations. 

As
it
is
with
the
cox,
so
too
is
it
with
the
funder
control
debate.
To
those
wanting
to
paint
the
funder
as
having
control,
the
argument
is
simple.
If
a
funder
is
putting
up
the
money,
and
placing
the
claimant
in
the
position
of
a
(nonrecourse)
debtor,
of
course
they
are
exercising
control,
even
when
the
underlying
contract
says
they
are
not.
And
funders
retort
that
they
let
the
lawyers
run
the
cases
and
the
clients
decide
when
to
settle,
so
even
though
they
are
putting
up
the
money,
they
are
ceding
control
to
those
they
are
funding.

Ultimately,
even
if
we
accept
that
there
will
always
be
differing
opinions
on
the
question
of
a
funder’s
control,
I
think
it
is
also
clear
that
the
context
of
when
the
question
is
asked
is
also
very
relevant
to
the
analysis.
For
example,
one
must
distinguish
between
a
cox’s
input
when
the
rowers
are
putting
in
the
meters
on
the
erg
during
training
camp,
to
when
the
cox
is
calling
out
the
stroke
rate
for
the
final
sprint
in
an
Olympic
race.
In
the
former,
the
cox’s
voice
is
just
one
of
many
that
the
rowers
may
hear,
while
in
the
latter
scenario
the
cox’s
voice
is
the
most
important
one
in
the
universe
to
the
team.
Likewise,
a
funder’s
input
into
the
client’s
decision
making
may
be
mildly
impactful
in
the
early
stages
of
a
case,
but
that
same
funder
voice
when
settlement
negotiations
are
being
undertaken
with
a
jury
out
deliberating
may
have
much
more
weight.
Does
that
weight
ever
rise
to
the
question
of
control?
We
can
keep
debating
that,
and
will
likely
do
so
until
a
legislative
definition
of
some
kind
arises.
On
the
judicial
side,
we
already
know
that
there
are
varying
opinions
on
whether
the
question
is
worth
asking,
as
well
as
with
respect
to
what
the
answer
might
be.
Choppy
waters
indeed.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

8am,
the
parent
company
of
a
suite
of
practice
and
business
management
products
for
lawyers
and
accountants,
is
now
guaranteeing
next-day
payments
for
customers
of
its
LawPay
and
CPACharge
payments
platforms,
it
said
today.

The
company
also
announced
new
capabilities
that
it
says
streamline
billing
and
improve
visibility
into
financial
performance
for
its
customers.

The
company
said
that
next-business-day
deposits
will
now
be
standard
across
all
its
payment
products.
It
says
it
is
the
only
legal
payments
provider
that
guarantees
next-business-day
funding
for
credit
card
transactions
at
no
added
cost.

8am
says
it
is
also
introducing
modernized
dashboards
and
new
customizable
reports
to
give
firms
a
live
view
of
billing,
payments
and
trust
activity
directly
within
8am
MyCase.

For
customers
that
also
have
its
Smart
Spend
product,
these
new
features
will
include
automated
tracking
and
management
of
firm
and
case
expenses.

The
company
also
announced
a
new
integration
between
LawPay
and
the
financial
and
practice
management
platform
Elite
3E
that
will
allow
firms
to
more
easily
manage
invoices
involving
multiple
parties,
enabling
payments
to
be
split,
collected
and
tracked
directly
within
existing
systems.

“With
next-day
payments,
firms
can
count
on
funds
hitting
their
account
the
very
next
morning,
ready
to
be
put
to
work,”
said
Leslie
Witt,
chief
product
officer.
“Combined
with
enhanced
visibility
into
billing,
expenses,
and
trust
activity,
we’re
giving
firms
everything
they
need
to
manage
their
finances
in
one
place
and
turn
cash
flow
from
a
business
constraint
into
a
growth
driver.”

It’s
said
that
history
repeats
itself,
first
as
tragedy,
then
as
farce.
When
it
comes
to
indictments,
the
Trump
administration’s
Department
of
Justice
has
streamlined
the
process
by
skipping
straight
to
farce
and
then
somehow
doing
it
twice.

A
federal
grand
jury
in
the
Eastern
District
of
North
Carolina

has
indicted
former
FBI
Director
James
Comey
for
the
high
crime
of
arranging
seashells.
Specifically,

posting
a
photo
to
Instagram
last
May
of
shells
on
a
beach
spelling
out
“86
47,”
captioned
“Cool
shell
formation
on
my
beach
walk.”
The
indictment
levels
two
counts
—
making
a
threat
against
the
president
under
18
U.S.C.
§
871(a),
and
transmitting
a
threat
in
interstate
commerce
under
§
875(c).

Because
Comey
arranges
sea
shells
by
the
sea
shore.

This
indictment
arrives
following
the
DOJ’s
faceplant
late
last
year,
when
insurance
lawyer
Lindsey
Halligan
attempted
to
indict
Comey
for
making
false
statements
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
Halligan,
an
illegal
appointment
with
no
more
authority
than
a
random
person
off
the
street
—
to
use
the
federal
judge’s
language
—
had
been

unlawfully
appointed
on
top
of
turning
in
a

fake
indictment
the
full
grand
jury
never
voted
on.
This
epic
screw
up
resulted
in
the

putative
charges
against
Comey
becoming
time-barred.

That
earlier
indictment
was
bullshit.
But
at
least
it
was
serious-sounding
bullshit.
Going
after
Comey
for
lying
about
authorizing
leaks
seems
like
something
a
real
prosecutor
might
charge.

By
contrast,
the
new
indictment
in
the
Eastern
District
of
North
Carolina
lacks
such
gravitas.
The
government
lodged
criminal
charges
against
the
former
FBI
Director
for
using
Prohibition-era
slang
for
tossing
an
unwelcome
guest…
in
shell
form.

If
this
wasn’t
stupid
enough,
the
indictment
manages
to
MISSTATE
THE
LAW
in
the
indictment.
Count
I
describes
Comey’s
supposed
crime
as
creating
an
image
that
“a
reasonable
recipient
who
is
familiar
with
the
circumstances
would
interpret
as
a
serious
expression
of
an
intent
to
do
harm
to
the
President
of
the
United
States.”
Any
first-year
law
student
who
completed
Crim
Law
—
a
competence
bar
EDNC
US
Attorney
Ellis
Boyle
seemingly
failed
to
clear
—
will
note
that
the
Supreme
Court
in

Counterman
v.
Colorado
(2023),
replaced
the
“reasonable
recipient”
standard,
requiring
instead
a
showing
the
speaker
subjectively
understood
that
the
statement
would
be
perceived
as
threatening.
Even
if
the
indictment
included
the
proper
standard,
the
government
would
face
an
uphill
battle
since
Comey
deleted
the
post
the
same
day,
saying
that
he
hadn’t
realized
“86”
had
violent
connotations
—
which
it
doesn’t
really,
but
whatever
—
and
apologized.

The
second
count,
that
Comey
then
distributed
the
threat,
suffers
the
same
defects
as
the
first.

But
the
genuinely
unhinged
part
of
the
indictment
appears
on
the
next
page.
A
forfeiture
notice
seeking
“any
property,
real
or
personal,
which
constitutes
or
is
derived
from
proceeds
traceable
to
the
said
offense.”

Do
they
want
the
shells?

As
many
people
learned
from

the
Afroman
case,
law
enforcement’s
forfeiture
powers
are
extensive
and
deeply
corrupt.
The
language
of
the
indictment
flags
the
government’s
authority
to
seek
“substitute
assets”
in
the
event
they
can’t
actually
find
the
supposedly
ill-gotten
gains.
But
even
with
broad
latitude
to
steal
from
defendants,
it’s
hard
to
imagine
what
the
government
expects
to
get
out
of
James
Comey.
He’s
not
a
Kardashian
—
he’s
not
paid
thousands
of
dollars
for
posting
viral
vacation
Instas.
Perhaps
this
forfeiture
language
is
copypasta
the
government
mindlessly
drops
into
every
indictment.
But
given
the
cynical
and
petty
nature
of
this
Justice
Department,
it’s
hard
to
see
this
as
anything
but
a
threat
to
rob
the
former
FBI
Director.

In
some
ways,
it’s
fitting
that
the
pursuit
of
Comey
found
its
way
back
to
the
8647
nonsense.
When
the
image
first
appeared,
current
FBI
Director
(for
now!)
Kash
Patel
told
America
that
he
was

prioritizing
protecting
Trump’s
reputation
over
child
sex
predators.
Or,
more
accurately,
over

catching
child
sex
predators.
That’s
a
key
clarification
or
else
the
sentence
doesn’t
actually
make
sense,
does
it?

At
least
it’s
not
all
bad
news
for
the
Comey
family.
A
federal
judge
let

Maurene
Comey’s
lawsuit
go
forward.
Now
the
administration
is
arguing
in
one
court
that
they
would
never
retaliate
against
the
Comey
family,
while
in
another
court
prosecuting
Jim
Comey
for
a
beach
photo.

Why
did
this
loser
of
a
case
drop
now?
It’s
pretty
simple:
the
DOJ
wants
to
tie
this
shell
picture
from
a
year
ago
to
the

White
House
Correspondents’
Dinner
incident.
The
administration
needs
to
bootstrap
as
much
on
top
of
that
story
as
it
can
before
it
fades
from
the
headlines
and
bring
attention
back
to
topics
like

Todd
Blanche
covering
up
the
Epstein
files
or

why
Kash
Patel
is
being
called
“J.
Edgar
Boozer”
behind
his
back.

Is
this
prosecution
frivolous?
Yes.
Is
it
an
ominous
uptick
in
the
administration’s
willingness
to
chill
civil
liberties
and
stifle
criticism?
Also
yes.
It’s
an
uncommon
intersection:

Frivolinous.

(Indictment
available
on
the
next
page…)

Ex-FBI
Director
James
Comey
indicted
for
his
‘8647’
seashell
post
on
Instagram
[CNBC]

Earlier:

James
Comey
Enjoys
Long
Walks
On
The
Beach…
So
MAGA
Gonna
Send
Him
To
El
Salvador
Prison
Camp

Kash
Patel
Says
He’s
Prioritizing
Social
Media
Mocking
Trump
Over
‘Child
Sex
Predators,
Fentanyl
Traffickers,
Terrorists’

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

Their
enrollment
going
up
is
surprising.
It’s
just
been
going
down,
down,
down
for
the
last
several
years.

— 

Tiffane
Cochran,
vice
president
of
research
at
the
AccessLex
Institute,
in
comments
given
to
the

ABA
Journal,
concerning
the
growing
number
of
male
students
enrolled
in
JD
programs.
This
is
the
first
time
since
2010
that
the
number
of
male
enrollees
has
increased,
climbing
to
50,900
in
2025,
compared
to
49,000
in
2024.
Women
still
dominate
when
it
comes
to
JD
enrollment,
making
up
56%
of
all
law
students
(67,400
enrollees
in
2025).

---

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.

Back
in
2024,
during
Donald
Trump’s
New
York
civil
fraud
trial,
Trump’s
legal
team
—
spearheaded
by
former
Foley
&
Lardner
partner
Chris
Kise
—

sent
a
number
of
emails
to
the
judge
asking
for
the
unusual
accommodation
that
Trump
be
allowed
to
deliver
remarks
as
part
of
his
closing
argument.
And
when
you
read
through
those
emails,
you
can
sort
of
pinpoint
a
moment
where
it
seemed
as
though
the
man
with
an
actual
law
degree
stopped
drafting
the
correspondence
and
turned
it
over
to
a
rapidly
deteriorating
dementia
patient.
It
was
right
around
the
point
where
the
emails
stopped
using
phrases
like
“fraught
with
ambiguities”
and
started
demanding
that
Trump
be
allowed
“to
speak
about
the
things
that
must
be
spoken
about.”

We
bring
up
this
episode,
because
yesterday,
the
Department
of
Justice
filed
a
Rule
62.1
motion
asking
Judge
Richard
Leon
for
an
indicative
ruling
that
he’ll
dissolve
his
preliminary
injunction
stalling
the
White
House
ballroom
project.
While
signed
by
Associate
Attorney
General
Stanley
Woodward
and
featuring
the
Keystone
Kops
signature
block
of
Acting
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
and
Principal
Associate
Attorney
General
Trent
McCotter,
it’s
almost
impossible
to
believe
anyone
licensed
to
practice
law
wrote
this
document.
It
arrives
hot
on
the
heels
of
Assistant
Attorney
General
Brett
Shumante’s
opportunistic
letter
demanding
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation,
the
plaintiff
in
the
ballroom
case,

voluntarily
drop
the
suit
it’s

winning
in
light
of
the
failed
attack
on
the
White
House
Correspondents’
Dinner.

The
Trust
did
not
oblige.

Bringing
us
to
this
filing.
“It’s
not
the
most
pressing
crisis
this
country
faces
but
I
cannot
get
over
the
fact
that
a
qualification
for
being
a
top
lawyer
at
the
DOJ
now
is
apparently
being
functionally
illiterate,”

Jay
Willis
of
Balls
&
Strikes
remarked.
“This
shit
reads
like
a
seventh
grader
wrote
it.
What
are
we
doing
here
man.”

Given
that
it’s

not
the
most
pressing
crisis,
but
it

is
incredibly
embarrassing,
this
is
exactly
what
we
at

Above
the
Law
stand
ready
to
break
down.
And
any
illusion
that
Trump
didn’t
compose
broad
swaths
of
this
motion
is
dispelled
right
off
the
bat:

“The
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation”
is
a
beautiful
name,
but
even
their
name
is
FAKE
because
when
they
add
the
words
“in
the
United
States”
to
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation,
it
makes
it
sound
like
a
Governmental
Agency,
which
it
is
not.

Sentence
one!
Sentence
one
of
a
federal
court
filing
signed
by
the
Department
of
Justice
triumvirate
of
torpidity
includes
a
wholly
unnecessary
“beautiful”
and
an
all
caps
“FAKE,”
rising
to
a
crescendo
circling
a
syntactic
cul-de-sac
where
the
writer
loses
track
of
the
antecedent.

Did
Todd
Blanche
learn
this
expert
wordsmithing
at
Cadwalader?

If
we
must
quibble
with
Willis,
he
has
an
unduly
dim
view
of
seventh
graders.
Indeed,
we’ve
scientifically
clocked
Trump’s
output
at

a
fourth-grade
reading
level.

In
fact,
the
United
States
refused
to
continue
funding
it
in
2005
because
they
strongly
disagreed
with
their
mission
and
objectives.

It.
The
United
States
is
an
“it.”
I
know
these
people
don’t
understand
pronouns,
but
this
is
ridiculous.
In
addition
to
being
grammatically
accurate,
using
the
proper
pronoun
here
would
avoid
the
confusion
of
starting
the
next
sentence
with
“they”
shifting
without
any
marker
to
the
Trust.
For
the
record,
the
Trust
should
also
be
an
“it.”

They
are
very
bad
for
our
Country.
They
stop
many
projects
that
are
worthy,
and
hurt
many
others.
In
this
case,
they
are
trying
to
stop
one
that
is
vital
to
our
National
Security,
and
the
Safety
of
all
Presidents
of
the
United
States,
both
current
and
future,
their
families,
staff,
and
Cabinet
members.

Random
and
incorrect
capitalization?
BY
GOD
THAT’S
DONALD
TRUMP’S
MUSIC!

But
this
did
not
deter
them
because
they
suffer
from
Trump
Derangement
Syndrome,
commonly
referred
to
as
TDS,
as
noted
by
Democrat
Senator
John
Fetterman,
of
Pennsylvania,
and
are
represented
by
the
lawyer
for
Barack
Hussein
Obama,
Gregory
Craig.

Friends,
this
is
still
the
first
page.
Even
if
you’re
compromising
your
professional
credibility
as
lawyers
to
spit
out
the
nonsense
the
client
dictates,
at
least
write
“Trump
Derangement
Syndrome
(‘TDS’).”
Have
some
self-respect.
Fetterman
makes
a
surprise
cameo
as
the
man
who
routinely
appears
on
cable
news
to
declare
that
he
suffered
severe
brain
injury
and
it
made
him
conservative
—
and
somehow
Republicans
fail
to
see
how
that
might
look
bad
for
them.
And,
of
course,
Barack

Hussein
Obama
—
no
“president,”
yes
“Hussein”
—
joins
the

dramatis
personae
because

everything
is
about
Barack
Obama
with
these
yahoos.

The
lower
section
of
the
building
does
not
work
without
the
upper
section
and,
likewise,
the
upper
section
of
the
building
does
not
work
without
the
lower.
It
is
all
one
highly
integrated
unit!
As
an
example,
one
venting
system,
one
electrical
system,
one
plumbing
system,
one
security
system,
one
air
conditioning
and
heating
system,
one
elevator
connector
and,
very
importantly,
one
structural
steel
and
enforced
concrete
system
—
and
more.
Even
the
bullet
proof
windows
and
glass,
and
the
heavy
steel,
drone
proof
roof,
protect
what
is
below. 

And
a
thermal
exhaust
port
no
more
than
two
meters
wide.
Pivoting
to
another
bit
of
sci-fi
imagery
from
the
last
century,
make
sure
you
read
the
second
sentence
in

the
Big
Brother
voice
from
the
Apple
ad.
This
account
is,
what
we
in
the
business
would
call
“legally
irrelevant.”
The
crux
of
the
lawsuit
is
that
Trump
can’t
unilaterally
demolish
and
rebuild
national
monuments
without
congressional
approval.
This
proves
that

something
has
to
sit
atop
this
bunker,
but
does
nothing
to
establish
that
it
has
to
be
a
gaudy
ballroom,
much
less
this
architectural
monstrosity.
And,
of
course,
is
silent
on
why
the
president
gets
to
unilaterally
decide
any
of
this.

With
such
a
facility,
it
would
have
been
impossible
for
an
attack
like
that
which
took
place
last
Saturday
evening
in
D.C.
when
an
attempted
assassin,
armed
with
a
shotgun,
pistol,
and
knives,
charged
through
a
security
checkpoint
at
the
Washington
Hilton
in
an
attempt
to
assassinate
President
Donald
J.
Trump,
First
Lady
Melania
Trump,
and
members
of
the
President’s
Cabinet
and
senior
staff,
during
the
White
House
Correspondents’
Dinner.

There’s
a
lot
wrong
with
this,
including
the
oft-noted
fact
that
the
Correspondents’
Dinner
is
not
an
official
event
and
the
president
doesn’t
have
to
attend
if
he
doesn’t
want
to,
but
as

Matt
Szafranski
pointed
out
yesterday,
the
proposed
ballroom
IS
NOT
BIG
ENOUGH
TO
HOST
THE
WHITE
HOUSE
CORRESPONDENTS’
DINNER.
The
WHCD
typically
draws
over
2,500
attendees.
The
Trump
ballroom
project
claims
to
accommodate
999
people.
Why
is
no
one
else
pointing
this
out?

Three
assassination
attempts—including
the
attempt
in
Butler,
Pennsylvania,
where
an
assassin’s
bullet
hit
the
President’s
ear—is
enough.

Oh,
I
see
what
you
did
there!
A
little
nod
to

Buck
v.
Bell
and
“three
generations
of
imbeciles are
enough.”
Just
without
matching
verb
tense.

In
addition,
in
the
long
and
storied
history
of
the
White
House
dating
back
to
1791,
Congress
has
never
dictated
or
tampered
with
the
zoning,
permitting,
or
architectural
aspects
of
any
Project,
especially
one
being
given
FREE
OF
CHARGE
AS
A
GIFT
TO
THE
COUNTRY!

Is
the
ballroom
an
essential
part
of
national
security
or
a
gift?
Because
it
seems
irresponsible
to
have
a
vital
national
security
project
crowdfunded
by
wealthy
donors.

Alas,
it
is
not
free
of
charge
anyway,
despite
this
capitalization.
As
the

New
York
Times
reports,
Trump
is
handing
out
secret
no-bid
contracts
to
the
construction
company
working
on
the
ballroom
to

pay
them
millions
and
millions
over
estimates
for
other
projects.
Though,
in
light
of
the
WHCD
attack,
this
Congress
will
probably
go
ahead
and
greenlight
taxpayer
funds
anyway.

Without
such
a
location,
the
President
is
thus
put
to
the
choice
of
risking
his
safety
by
attending
events
in
unsecure
venues—be
it
the
tents
on
the
White
House
lawn,
or
places
like
the
Washington
Hilton
(which
is
now
home
to
two
attempted
presidential
assassinations)—or
forgoing
those
events
entirely—to
the
detriment
of
his
constitutional
responsibility
to
“speak[]
to
and
on
behalf
of
the
American
people,”

Trump
v.
United

States,
603
U.S.
593,
617-618
(2023).

He
can’t
attend
events
in
tents
on
the
White
House
lawn?
So…
where
does
Trump
plan
to
watch
this?

That’s
the
UFC
match
the
official
White
House
account
claims
Trump
will
place
on
the
White
House
lawn.
I
guess
maybe
he’ll
watch
from
the
window
of
his
ballroom?
Is
Trump
now
committing
not
to
hang
out
in
tents
on
the
Ellipse
to
coordinate
the
next
assault
on
the
Capitol?
That
might
be
a
nice
fringe
benefit
for
the
country.

If
any
other
President
had
the
ability,
foresight,
or
talents
necessary,
to
build
this
ballroom,
which
will
be
one
of
the
greatest,
safest,
and
most
secure
structures
of
its
kind
anywhere
in
the
World,
there
would
never
have
been
a
lawsuit.
But,
because
it
is
DONALD
J.
TRUMP,
a
highly
successful
real
estate
developer,
who
has
abilities
that
others
don’t,
especially
those
who
assume
the
Office
of
President,
this
frivolous
and
meritless
lawsuit
was
filed.
Again,
it’s
called
TRUMP
DERANGEMENT
SYNDROME. 

I
believe
we
defined
the
term
as
TDS
earlier.

While
Trump
enjoys
describing
himself
in
a
manner
best
described
as
Pyongyang-chic,
it
doesn’t
have
to
make
its
way
into
filings.
But
that’s
the
nature
of
a
Department
of
Justice
staffed
by
lawyers
who
have
sacrificed
their
oaths
to
the
Constitution
and
styled
themselves
as

Trump’s
personal
lawyers
—
which,
it’s
worth
noting,
both
Blanche
and
Woodward
were
before
this.

But
it’s
also
why
state
licensing
authorities
remain
the

final
defense
of
the
profession.
Trump
might
have
dictated
this
brief,
but
these
lawyers
slapped
their
names
on
it.
These
are
the
lawyers
who
signed
their
credibility
away
to
a
brief
that
raises
serious
questions
about
their
ability
to
competently
practice
law.
They
allowed
the
president
turn
federal
courts
into
amateur
hour,
a
decision
that
would
raise
ethical
questions
if
they
were
placing
their
client’s
whims
over
their
professional
experience
and
judgment.
But
on
top
of
that,
the
president
is
not,
in
fact,
the
Department’s
client.
The
DOJ
is
supposed
to
represent
the
United
States
and
place
its
interests
above
the
White
House’s
current
occupant.

Or
“their”
interests
since
we’ve
just
abandoned
grammar.

Earlier:

Good
Job
DOJ,
Now
The
Conspiracy
Theorists
Have
A
Point

The
Hilariously
Stupid
Emails
Between
Trump’s
Lawyer
&
The
Judge
Over
His
Closing
Argument
Request
Disbar
Them
All:
The
Only
Accountability
Left
For
Trump’s
Lawyers

---

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.

Early
in
my
career,
I
thought
networking
meant
showing
up,
shaking
hands,
and
finding
a
way
to
turn
conversations
into
opportunities.
That
approach
led
me
to
a
lot
of
meetings,
a
lot
of
business
cards,
and
a
surprising
amount
of
stuff
I
didn’t
need,
from
financial
products
to
random
services
I
bought
just
to
support
someone
else.
At
the
time,
it
felt
like
the
right
move.
In
reality,
I
was
missing
the
bigger
picture.

What
I
eventually
learned
is
that
rainmakers
don’t
chase
business.
They
build
what
I
call
“karma
capital.”
They
invest
in
people,
relationships,
and
reputation
long
before
they
ever
see
a
return.
Over
time,
that
investment
compounds
in
ways
that
traditional
networking
never
will.

If
you
feel
like
you
are
putting
in
the
hours
but
not
seeing
the
results,
you
may
be
stuck
as
what
I
call
a
“professional
meeter.”
Busy,
active,
visible,
but
not
moving
the
needle.
The
shift
comes
when
you
stop
thinking
only
of
yourself
and
you
start
focusing
on
the
success
of
others.

Here
are
five
ways
to
build
real
momentum
by
climbing
Karma
Mountain.

1.
Stop
Selling
and
Start
Understanding

Most
lawyers
walk
into
a
meeting
thinking
about
how
to
position
themselves,
how
to
impress,
or
how
to
eventually
land
the
work.
That
mindset
creates
pressure,
and
people
feel
it
immediately.

The
better
approach
is
to
remove
the
agenda
of
selling
altogether.
Focus
on
asking
thoughtful
questions,
listening
closely,
and
showing
that
you
understand
what
the
other
person
is
all
about.
When
someone
feels
understood,
trust
builds
quickly.
That
trust
is
what
opens
doors,
not
a
polished
pitch.

There
is
a
basic
human
need
to
be
heard
and
understood.
When
you
meet
that
need,
you
stand
out
in
a
way
most
lawyers
never
will.

2.
Lead
With
Value
Before
You
Earn
It

One
of
the
fastest
ways
to
build
karma
is
to
help
someone
without
expecting
anything
in
return.
I
recently
saw
a
consultant
in
the
legal
space
launch
a
new
book.
Instead
of
waiting
for
an
introduction
or
thinking
about
what
I
could
gain,
I
reached
out
and
offered
him
a
chance
to
promote
it
on
my
podcast,
BE
THAT
LAWYER.

That
one
gesture
created
goodwill
immediately.
It
opened
the
door
to
a
relationship
that
started
on
the
right
foot,
not
based
on
a
transaction,
but
on
selflessness
and
being
of-service.

I
do
the
same
thing
when
I
meet
with
legal
marketing
agencies.
Many
are
strong
on
marketing
but
struggle
with
business
development.
I
will
spend
time
walking
them
through
better
ways
to
approach
conversations,
showing
them
how
a
sales-free
model
builds
trust
and
avoids
resistance.
I
am
not
billing
for
that
time.
I
am
building
karma.

That
is
how
relationships
get
traction.

3.
Treat
Networking
Like
a
Skill,
Not
an
Activity

Too
many
lawyers
treat
networking
like
something
you
just
go
out
and
do.
Show
up,
grab
a
drink,
have
a
few
conversations,
and
hope
something
sticks.

That
is
not
a
strategy.
That
is
guesswork.

Networking
is
a
skill
set.
There
is
language
that
works,
structure
that
creates
better
conversations,
and
a
process
that
leads
to
real
outcomes.
When
you
become
a
student
of
those
skills,
everything
changes.
You
become
more
efficient,
more
confident,
and
far
more
effective.

If
you
are
going
to
spend
100
to
300
hours
a
year
meeting
people,
it
makes
sense
to
invest
time
learning
how
to
do
it
right.
Otherwise,
you
are
just
staying
busy
without
building
anything
meaningful.

4.
Do
What
You
Say
You
Are
Going
to
Do

This
is
where
a
lot
of
lawyers
quietly
lose
ground.

They
make
commitments
in
meetings,
promise
introductions,
agree
to
follow
up,
and
then
let
things
slip.
Maybe
it
is
not
intentional,
but
it
is
noticeable.
People
keep
score,
even
if
they
never
say
it
out
loud.

Every
missed
follow-up,
every
late
arrival,
every
rescheduled
meeting
chips
away
at
your
credibility.
On
the
flip
side,
every
kept
promise
builds
trust.

If
you
say
you
are
going
to
connect
two
people,
do
it
quickly.
If
you
schedule
a
meeting,
show
up
on
time.
If
you
offer
help,
follow
through.

Karma
is
built
on
consistency.
Reliability
is
one
of
the
fastest
ways
to
separate
yourself
from
the
crowd.

5.
Become
Known
as
a
Giver

The
most
successful
rainmakers
I
know
all
share
one
trait.
They
are
givers.

They
walk
into
meetings
thinking
about
how
they
can
help
the
other
person,
not
how
they
can
benefit
themselves.
They
listen
for
opportunities
to
make
introductions,
share
ideas,
or
connect
people
who
should
know
each
other.

A
simple
but
powerful
habit
is
to
take
notes
during
a
meeting
and
identify
at
least
one
person
you
can
introduce
them
to.
It
might
be
a
potential
client,
but
more
often
it
is
a
strategic
partner.
Someone
who
can
expand
their
network
or
open
doors
they
could
not
access
on
their
own.

Then
you
follow
through
with
a
thoughtful
introduction.
Not
a
quick
email,
but
a
quality
connection
that
shows
you
understand
both
sides
and
why
it
matters.

That
is
how
you
build
a
reputation
as
someone
who
creates
value.
And
once
that
reputation
takes
hold,
people
start
looking
for
ways
to
help
you
in
return.

Climbing
Karma
Mountain
is
not
about
being
nice
for
the
sake
of
it.
It
is
about
being
intentional
in
how
you
build
relationships.
It
is
about
playing
the
long
game
in
a
profession
that
often
rewards
short-term
thinking.

When
you
combine
these
five
principles,
something
shifts.
Your
network
becomes
stronger.
Your
conversations
become
more
meaningful.
Your
opportunities
become
more
consistent.

More
importantly,
you
become
the
kind
of
lawyer
(and
human)
people
want
to
be
around,
want
to
work
with,
and
want
to
refer.
And
that
is
when
rainmaking
stops
feeling
like
a
grind
and
starts
working
the
way
it
is
supposed
to.

If
you
want
to
take
this
further,
email
me
at


[email protected]
and
I
will
send
you
a
FREE
copy
of
my
e-book,


The
Attorney’s
Networking
Handbook,
also
available
on
Amazon.
You
can
also
dive
deeper
into
these
strategies
on
my
podcast,
Future
Rainmakers,
or
explore
the
ALL
NEW

BE
THAT
LAWYER
Community
to
gain
access
to
all
of
my
content,
including
networking
best
practices
and
how
to
build
your
own
Karma
Mountain.

---

Steve
Fretzin
is
a
five-time
bestselling
author,
host
of
the BE
THAT
LAWYER and Future
Rainmakers podcasts,
and
a
business
development
coach
who
works
exclusively
with
attorneys.
For
more
than
18
years,
he
has
helped
lawyers
build
strong
books
of
business
without
selling,
pitching,
or
chasing,
using
his
proven
Sales-Free
Selling™
approach.
His
clients
consistently
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
his
coaching
and
systems
for
driving
meaningful,
measurable
growth.
Steve
can
be
reached
directly
at [email protected],
or
through
his
website
at www.bethatlawyer.com.
Connect
with
him
on
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin.
His
ALL
NEW BE
THAT
LAWYER
Community is
changing
how
lawyers
develop
the
skills
never
taught
in
law
school.
Learn
more
at www.bethatlawyer.com/community

For
many
law
students,
having
a
cold
call
on
unexpected
topics
broadcasted
to
millions
would
be
a
nightmare.
But
Jamie
Ding
has
been
answering
with
style
—
he
showed
off
his
knowledge
and
recall
for
31
straight
games
of
“Jeopardy!.”
While
he
was
dethroned
on
his
32nd
showing,
the
silver
lining
is
that
his
win
record
will
be
cemented
in
the
show’s
history.

USA
Today
has
coverage:

Jamie
Ding,
the
New
Jersey
law
student
whose
“Jeopardy!”
run
cemented
himself
among
the
show’s
greatest
players,
lost
on
April
27
after
a
31-game
win
streak.
The
33-year-old
was
defeated
by
Greg
Shahade,
a
chess
player
from
Philadelphia
who
won
$33,000
during
Monday’s
game.
…
Ding
won
31
straight
games
on
“Jeopardy!,”
marking
a
historic
run
on
the
show.

It
puts
the
Princeton
University
alumnus
as
the
player
with
the
fifth
most
consecutive
game
wins
and
fifth
highest
winnings
in
the
show’s
history,
according
to
the

“Jeopardy!”
leaderboard.

As
sad
as
it
is
to
see
Ding
go,
the
$882,605
in
total
winnings
he
secured
helps
to
soften
the
blow.
And
if
you’re
looking
for
some
inspiration
on
what
to
spend
the
cash
on,

an
understated
bomber
jacket
with
the
number
31
sewn
on
the
wrist
would
be
one
hell
of
a
flex.
Cheers
to
an
amazing
showing!

As
important
as
it
is
to
focus
on
your
readings
in
law
school,
you’ll
come
out
of
the
ordeal
a
more
balanced
person
if
you
have
some
other
hobbies
on
the
side.
Not
everyone
is
suited
to
make
history
on
Jeopardy!,
but
there’s
a
lot
of
value
in
gaming
from
time
to
time.
Joining
a
D&D
group
probably
won’t
be
a
~$900k
side
quest
like
Ding’s
win
streak
was,
but
it
could
still
be
a
great
way
to
get
out
of
your
comfort
zone
and
meet
some
new
people
along
the
way.
Or
if
public
game
shows
are
your
thing,

Survivor
might
be
more
your
speed.
Live
a
little!

Jamie
Ding’s
‘Jeopardy!’
Streak
Ends.
How
He
Got
Dethroned
[USA
Today]

Earlier:

Law
Student
Finds
Himself
In
The
Best
Jeopardy
Possible

---

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.

For
decades,
the
legal
industry
has
operated
on
a
pricing
model
protected
by
a
comfortable
buffer:
the
gap
between
what
legal
work
actually
costs
to
produce
and
what
the
market
has
been
willing
to
pay
for
it.
That
gap
has
been
sustained
by
information
asymmetry,
process
opacity,
and
institutional
inertia.
It
is
the
foundation
on
which
law
firm
economics
have
been
built.

AI
is
collapsing
that
foundation,
and
it
is
doing
so
faster
than
most
firms
or
legal
departments
fully
appreciate.

Every
industry
has
structural
inefficiencies
that
sustain
its
economics.
In
legal
services,
the
billable
hour
is
not
merely
a
pricing
mechanism.
It
is
the
operating
system
of
the
entire
business
model.
It
determines
how
firms
staff
matters,
how
they
evaluate
associates,
how
they
compensate
partners,
and
how
they
grow
revenue.
It
is
also
fundamentally
misaligned
with
the
value
clients
actually
receive.

Consider
a
straightforward
example.
Two
attorneys
handle
the
same
type
of
employment
matter.
One
resolves
it
in
40
hours.
The
other
takes
120
hours.
Under
hourly
billing,
the
client
pays
three
times
more
for
the
slower
attorney,
despite
receiving
the
same
outcome.
The
system
does
not
reward
efficiency.
As
most
general
counsel
would
acknowledge,
it
rewards
the
opposite.

This
misalignment
has
persisted
for
so
long
that
many
in
the
industry
treat
it
as
a
law
of
nature
rather
than
what
it
actually
is:
a
market
distortion
that
has
been
too
expensive,
too
invisible,
and
too
entrenched
to
close.
Until
now.

Across
the
broader
economy,
AI
is
systematically
eliminating
the
gaps
between
what
work
costs
to
produce
and
what
the
market
charges
for
it.
In
financial
markets,
automated
systems
have
already
dismantled
inefficiencies
that
once
sustained
entire
trading
desks.
The
same
dynamic
is
now
accelerating
across
professional
services,
and
the
legal
industry
is
squarely
in
the
crosshairs.

AI
attacks
the
economics
of
legal
services
on
multiple
fronts.
The
most
obvious
is
the
production
layer.
Legal
research
that
consumed
hours
of
associate
time
can
now
be
completed
in
minutes.
Contract
review,
document
drafting,
deposition
summaries,
and
regulatory
analysis
are
all
experiencing
dramatic
compression
in
production
time.
When
an
AI
tool
can
generate
a
competent
first
draft
of
a
research
memo
in
minutes,
the
10
hours
historically
billed
for
that
task
no
longer
reflect
an
economic
reality.

But
the
compression
goes
deeper
than
speed.
AI
also
eliminates
variance
in
execution
quality.
A
brief
produced
by
AI
at
2
a.m.
is
no
different
from
one
produced
at
10
a.m.
There
is
no
fatigue,
no
distraction,
no
inconsistency.
In
an
industry
where
variation
in
human
performance
has
long
been
absorbed
into
billable
hours
without
consequence
to
the
provider,
this
is
a
direct
challenge
to
the
economic
model.

AI
further
commoditizes
the
information
synthesis
layer.
Law
firms
have
historically
charged
a
premium
for
the
ability
to
aggregate
information
from
multiple
sources
and
apply
judgment
across
complex
fact
patterns.
When
a
corporate
legal
department
can
run
a
comprehensive
research
query
across
regulatory
filings,
case
law,
and
internal
documents
in
minutes,
the
intermediary
whose
value
rests
on
assembling
information
loses
its
pricing
power.

If
there
were
any
doubt
that
corporate
clients
intend
to
act
on
these
shifts,
recent
moves
by
major
technology
companies
should
dispel
it.
Meta
has
updated
its
outside
counsel
billing
guidelines
to
flag
and
refuse
payment
for
tasks
the
company
believes
could
have
been
performed
by
AI.
If
a
line
item
on
an
invoice
looks
like
something
an
AI
tool
could
handle,
such
as
summarizing
a
deposition,
drafting
routine
correspondence,
or
compiling
case
law
on
a
settled
question,
Meta
reserves
the
right
to
reject
it.

Meta
is
not
alone.
Zscaler’s
published
outside
counsel
guidelines
already
state
that
any
time
and
cost
associated
with
AI-generated
work
product
shall
not
be
passed
on
to
the
company.
UBS
updated
its
billing
guidelines
in
early
2026
with
AI-specific
provisions.
The
message
from
major
corporate
legal
departments
is
converging
fast:
If
a
machine
can
do
the
work,
the
client
is
not
paying
a
lawyer’s
hourly
rate
for
it.

Think
about
what
this
means
structurally
for
firms.
A
large
portion
of
associate
billing
has
historically
been
based
on
tasks
now
within
the
capabilities
of
commercially
available
AI
tools:
document
summarization,
first-pass
research,
deposition
digests,
contract
provision
extraction,
and
timeline
construction.
When
clients
systematically
refuse
to
pay
for
those
line
items,
the
firms
that
survive
are
the
ones
that
have
already
restructured
their
workflows
to
use
AI
for
the
commodity
layer
and
bill
for
the
judgment
layer
on
top.
The
firms
still
staffing
three
associates
to
summarize
a
document
production
are
going
to
watch
their
invoices
come
back
redlined.

This
also
creates
a
paradox
for
firms
operating
on
an
hourly
billing
basis.
If
a
firm
discloses
that
it
used
AI
to
complete
a
task
efficiently,
the
client
may
refuse
to
pay
for
it.
If
the
firm
fails
to
disclose
it
and
continues
to
bill
full
hours,
the
disconnect
between
effort
and
invoice
becomes
increasingly
difficult
to
defend.
There
is
no
clear
path
through
that
dilemma
under
the
hourly
model.
The
pricing
structure
itself
is
broken.

The
hourly
billing
model
has
survived
previous
waves
of
technology
because
those
waves
were
incremental.
E-discovery
tools
made
document
review
faster,
but
firms
adjusted
staffing
and
rates
to
preserve
revenue.
Legal
research
databases
reduced
time
in
law
libraries,
but
the
billing
conversation
did
not
change.

AI
is
different
in
kind,
not
just
degree.
The
compression
is
happening
across
multiple
dimensions
simultaneously,
and
the
pace
is
accelerating
with
each
model
release.
More
importantly,
what
Meta,
Zscaler
and
UBS
are
doing
is
something
no
previous
technology
cycle
produced:
clients
imposing
AI-efficiency
standards
on
their
outside
counsel
through
private
contract,
faster
and
more
precisely
than
any
regulatory
body
could.
This
is
the
market
doing
what
legislation
cannot.

There
is
a
useful
parallel
from
the
design
and
publishing
industry.
In
the
mid-1980s,
the
arrival
of
desktop
publishing
software
fundamentally
disrupted
the
commercial
typesetting
business.
For
decades,
producing
professional-quality
printed
materials
required
specialized
typesetting
equipment,
trained
operators,
and
a
production
workflow
that
could
take
days
or
weeks.
Clients
paid
for
access
to
that
infrastructure
because
there
was
no
alternative.

When
PageMaker
and
then
QuarkXPress
arrived,
a
single
designer
with
a
Macintosh
could
produce
camera-ready
output
in
hours.
The
early
adopters
charged
traditional
typesetting
rates
for
work
done
at
a
fraction
of
the
old
cost.
For
a
while,
the
margins
were
extraordinary.
But
within
a
few
years,
every
design
firm
had
the
same
tools.
Clients
realized
the
output
was
no
longer
scarce.
Typesetting
as
a
standalone
billable
service
collapsed
entirely.
The
value
migrated
upstream
to
design
strategy,
brand
thinking,
and
creative
direction.
The
production
layer
became
table
stakes.

The
legal
industry
is
in
the
early
stage
of
this
same
arc.
Firms
using
AI
to
produce
deliverables
at
a
fraction
of
the
old
cost
while
still
billing
at
historical
hourly
rates
are
enjoying
a
temporary
margin
advantage.
But
that
window
is
closing.
As
AI
tools
become
universally
available
and
clients
develop
their
own
capabilities
and
OCG
enforcement
mechanisms,
such
as
Meta’s,
the
information
asymmetry
that
protects
hourly
billing
will
evaporate.
The
firms
and
legal
departments
that
recognize
this
trajectory
and
act
now
will
be
positioned
for
what
comes
next.
Those
that
continue
to
operate
as
if
hourly
billing
is
permanent
will
find
themselves
on
the
wrong
side
of
a
rapid
repricing.

The
good
news
for
legal
operations
professionals
is
that
the
alternative
to
hourly
billing
is
not
hypothetical.
Value-based
pricing
(VBP)
has
been
the
standard
in
virtually
every
other
major
professional
services
industry
for
decades.
Management
consulting
firms,
accounting
firms,
and
investment
banks
all
moved
away
from
hourly
billing
long
ago.
They
price
on
deliverables,
outcomes,
and
defined
scopes
of
work.
The
legal
industry
has
been
the
last
holdout.

Under
a
properly
structured
value-based
pricing
model,
clients
pay
fixed
fees
tied
to
specific
tasks,
phases,
and
deliverables.
The
conversation
shifts
from
effort
to
outcomes.
Budget
predictability
improves
dramatically.
Invoice
review,
which
in
some
legal
departments
consumes
10
to
20
percent
of
in-house
attorney
time,
is
eliminated
entirely.
And
total
legal
spend
typically
drops
by
20
to
50
percent.

VBP
also
resolves
the
AI
disclosure
paradox
that
hourly
billing
creates.
When
a
firm
is
paid
a
fixed
fee
for
a
defined
phase
of
work,
it
does
not
matter
whether
the
firm
used
AI,
associates,
or
a
combination
of
both
to
produce
the
deliverable.
The
client
is
paying
for
the
outcome,
not
the
input.
The
firm
is
incentivized
to
be
efficient,
to
deploy
AI
where
it
adds
value,
and
to
apply
attorney
judgment
where
it
matters.
There
is
no
conflict
between
disclosure
and
compensation.

The
transition
to
VBP
does
not
require
firms
to
take
on
unlimited
risk.
Properly
structured
fixed-fee
arrangements
use
per-occurrence
pricing
for
unpredictable
activities
like
depositions
or
motions,
phased
pricing
that
reflects
the
natural
progression
of
a
matter,
and
defined
scopes
that
make
the
economics
clear
to
both
sides.
This
is
not
a
capped-fee
arrangement,
which
still
requires
hourly
billing
and
invoice
review.
It
is
a
fundamentally
different
approach
to
pricing
legal
services,
based
on
the
value
delivered
rather
than
time
spent.

AI
does
not
eliminate
the
need
for
lawyers.
It
eliminates
the
need
for
a
particular
type
of
legal
work
to
be
performed
by
lawyers
in
the
way
it
has
always
been
done.
The
value
does
not
disappear.
It
migrates
upstream.

When
AI
collapses
the
cost
of
legal
research,
the
value
shifts
to
judgment,
strategy,
and
client
counseling.
When
AI
automates
contract
drafting,
the
value
shifts
to
deal
structuring,
negotiation,
and
risk
assessment.
When
AI
handles
the
production
layer
of
litigation,
the
value
shifts
to
case
strategy,
courtroom
advocacy,
and
settlement
judgment.
This
pattern
is
predictable
and
consistent:
The
new
value
is
always
closer
to
judgment,
taste,
and
relationships,
and
further
from
production,
execution,
and
information
retrieval.

The
economics
of
that
migration
only
work
if
the
pricing
model
changes
along
with
the
work.
You
cannot
price
upstream
judgment
on
an
hourly
basis
and
expect
the
market
to
function
rationally.
The
attorney
who
resolves
a
matter
with
a
single
well-placed
phone
call
delivers
enormous
value.
Under
hourly
billing,
that
value
generates
a
fraction
of
the
revenue
that
a
drawn-out
process
would.
VBP
corrects
this
by
paying
for
the
outcome,
not
the
clock.

The
pace
of
AI
development
is
accelerating.
Major
model
releases
are
now
quarterly,
with
each
release
expanding
the
frontier
of
what
can
be
automated.
The
gap
between
firms
that
have
adopted
AI
and
those
that
have
not
is
growing.
Meanwhile,
the
gap
between
legal
departments
that
have
moved
to
VBP
and
those
still
mired
in
hourly
billing
is
growing
even
faster.

More
importantly,
corporate
clients
are
not
waiting
for
firms
to
adapt.
Meta’s
OCG
update
is
not
an
isolated
event.
It
is
the
leading
edge
of
a
wave.
As
more
legal
departments
adopt
their
own
AI-specific
billing
provisions,
firms
that
have
not
restructured
their
economics
will
face
a
choice:
Either
disclose
AI
use
and
accept
reduced
revenue,
or
remain
silent
and
hope
clients
do
not
notice.
Neither
option
is
sustainable
under
the
hourly
model.

For
legal
operations
professionals,
this
is
not
a
future
problem.
It
is
a
present-tense
strategic
decision.
Every
month
spent
reviewing
hourly
invoices
for
work
that
could
be
priced
on
a
fixed
fee
basis
is
a
month
of
wasted
in-house
attorney
productivity.
Every
engagement
structured
on
hourly
rates
is
an
engagement
where
the
client
bears
all
the
risk,
absorbs
all
inefficiency,
and
has
no
budget
predictability.
The
firms
that
will
thrive
over
the
next
five
years
are
the
ones
that
embrace
both
AI-driven
efficiency
and
value-based
pricing.
The
firms
that
cling
to
the
billable
hour
will
find
their
economics
hollowed
out
as
clients
like
Meta
simply
stop
paying
for
the
work
that
AI
can
do.

---

Ken
Callander
is
Managing
Principal
of
Value
Strategies
LLC,
a
consulting
practice
that
advises
corporate
legal
departments
on
outside
counsel
pricing
strategy.
He
previously
served
as
Head
of
Legal
Operations
at
Uber
Technologies.
He
is
a
Certified
Pricing
Professional
and
holds
a
degree
in
Physics
from
Stanford
University.