Category: News Feeds

Biglaw
firms
would
really,

really
like
associates
to
come
back
to
the
office.
Whether
it’s
because
of
lease
obligations,
training
woes,
trying
to
build
a
culture,
or
all
of
the
above,
by
and
large,
firms
would
love
to
have
attorneys
back
in
the
office.
The
question
is
how
to
do
it.

While
we’ve
seen
some
carrot
approaches,
but
increasingly

mandates
are
the
default
—
and
that
now
includes
four-day
mandates.
But
what
will
happen
to
associates
who
don’t
get
on
board
with
the
rules
of
the
road?
They
can
expect
to
have
their
bonuses
docked
(or
perhaps
even
worse,
now
that

layoffs
of
all
kinds
are
upon
us).
We’ve
just
learned
that
yet
another
firm
has
joined
the
ranks
of
the
firms
that
are
explicitly
tying
office
attendance
to
associate
bonuses.

Osborne
Clarke
—
an
international
firm
with
nearly
1,000
attorneys
that
brought
in
$481,481,000
gross
revenue
in
2021,
putting
it
in
121st
place
on
the
Global
200
—
recently
opted
to
make
office
attendance
mandatory
three
times
each
week
in
order
to
be
eligible
for
a
bonus.

RollOnFriday
has
additional
details
in
an
exclusive
report:

The
firm’s
Chief
People
Officer,
Graham
de
Guise,
told
RollOnFriday:
“We
do
expect
our
people
to
be
in
the
office
‘more
often
than
not’,”
which
means
“three
days
a
week
spent
in
one
of
our
offices
or
with
clients.”

Outlining
how
this
would
affect
bonuses,
de
Guise
said:
“To
be
considered
for
a
bonus,
our
people
would
normally
need
to
reach
our
minimum
expectations
across
a
number
of
areas,”
which
includes
“being
in
the
office
‘more
often
than
not’.”

He
also
extolled
the
virtues,
from
OC’s
perspective,
of
working
in
the
office,
as
he
said
it
“brings
so
many
benefits
in
building
and
maintaining
relationships,
collaboration
sparking
ideas
and
learning
from
each
other
as
well
as
preserving
our
unique
culture.”

Those
who
remain
bonus-eligible
at
the
firm
may
receive
“performance
bonuses
up
to
20%,”
as
well
as
“a
discretionary
long-term
incentive
plan
with
a
bonus
of
up
to
40%
paid
over
a
period
of
three
years.”
On
top
of
that,
the
firm
awarded
eligible
employees
with
a
“4%
profit
share”
in
June.

Now
that
this
attendance-based
bonus
eligibility
trend
has
taken
off,
will
other
Biglaw
firms
follow?
If
your
firm
is
linking
bonuses
to
office
attendance
let
us
know.
You
can email
us
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Thanks.

EXCLUSIVE
Osborne
Clarke
makes
office
attendance
mandatory
for
bonus
[RollOnFriday]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

---

---

Everybody
knows
that
rules
are
rules
—
simple
as
that.
Unless
of
course
your
attempt
at
racial
gerrymandering
doesn’t
work;
then,
it
only
makes
sense
to
invoke
the
totally
legitimate
and
not
made-up
independent
state
legislature
theory.
And
if,
for
whatever
reason,
the
Supreme
Court
decides
that

state
legislatures
don’t

actually
have
authority
over
state
courts,
then
that’s
that.
That’s
one
of
the
things
about
the
rule
of
law
—
laws
don’t
only
bind
when
you
like
them.
Unfortunately,
that
isn’t
one
of
the
things
true
about
contemporary
republicanism.

Some
of
you
may
think
that
there
is
no
need
to
set
off
the
alarms.
Do
we
even
know
that
the
new
map
will
also
cut
off
Black
people
from
being
able
to
vote?
And
to
those
people,
I
say
you
must
not
have
seen
this:

If
buying
a

Supreme
Court
justice
or

two…
or

three…
or

four
doesn’t
work,
the
right
has
an
impressive
way
of
bypassing
the
rules
while
heavily
insisting
on
being
the
ones
to
enforce
them.
Remember
when
they
were
trying
to
use
“constitutional
sheriffs”
to
bypass
the
rulings
they
didn’t
like?

Constitutional
sheriffing
is
an
admittedly
thorny
road.

When
I
wrote
about
its
use
on
an
issue
I
cared
about,
I
at
least
had
enough
decency
to
admit
that
it
requires
treading
complicated
waters
that
get
muddied
really
quickly
when
it’s
about
the
stuff
you
don’t
like
as
much.
Good
luck
finding
that
transparency
on
the
other
side:

If
only
there
was
an
act
of
some
sort
to
protect
the
rights
of
voters.
A
voting
rights
act,
if
you
will.
Oh
yeah,
the
Court
basically
got
rid
of
that.
Call
me
crazy,
but
I
think
the
majority
opinion
said
something
about
no
longer
needing
such
preemptive
measures?
Bet
whoever
wrote
that
is
feeling
really
smart
right
about
now.

---

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

While
Above
the
Law
readers

are

well

aware
of
the
unique
cybersecurity
hazards
law
firms
face,
specific
best
practices
continue
to
evolve.

Is
your
firm
prepared
to
detect
and
respond
to
threats?
What
are
the
biggest
challenges
you’re
facing?
What
steps
are
you
considering?

Please
take
a
few
minutes
to
share
your
thoughts
and
help
us
benchmark
your
industry.
Respondents
who
complete
the
survey
will
receive
a
chance
to
win
a
$250
gift
card.

With
a
constant
influx
of
new
apps,
emerging
data
types,
and
increasing
data
silos,
forward-thinking
organizations
are
reevaluating
their
eDiscovery
strategies.

Are
you
ready
to
join
them?

In
this
eBook,
our
friends
at
Onna
will
help
you
reduce
costs,
gain
efficiency,
and
circumvent
risks
by
emphasizing
two
fundamental
principles
of
legal
operations:
optimizing
processes
and
making
smart
investments
in
technology.

Dive
in
to
explore:

• How
  collaboration
  tools
  create
  new
  challenges
  for
  eDiscovery
• Addressing
  the
  problem
  of
  unstructured
  data
• The
  implications
  of
  recent
  eDiscovery
  case
  law
• Strategies
  for
  modernizing
  your
  eDiscovery
  approach

Fill
out
the
form
today!

Eversheds
Sutherland
may
have
the
urge
to
merge,
but
the
firm
isn’t
willing
to
go
that
far
just
yet.
Instead,
the
global
firm
is
making
waves
with
its
decision
to
enter
into
a
“cooperation
agreement”
with
China’s
King
&
Wood
Mallesons.
While
this
isn’t
a
merger
per
se,
the
new
arrangement
will
tie
up
the
firms’
more
than
6,000
and
billions
of
dollars
of
revenue
under
the
same
referral
umbrella.

The

American
Lawyer
has
additional
details
on
what,
exactly,
will
occur
under
this
plan:

Under
the
referral
arrangement,
KWM
China
will
refer
all
future
matters
requiring
legal
advice
in
the
U.K.,
Europe,
Middle
East,
Africa
and
South
America
to
Eversheds
Sutherland
International,
while
Eversheds’
clients
requiring
China
advice
will
be
referred
to
KWM.

The
cooperation
agreement
gives
Eversheds
access
to
the
lucrative
Chinese
market,
which
is
currently
closed
off
to
foreign
firms
due
to
strict
regulations.

As
part
of
this
arrangement,
KWM
will
cease
operations
in
the
U.K.,
Europe
and
the
Middle
East
by
the
end
of
October
2024,
with
all
of
those
employees
invited
to
join
a
local
Eversheds
offices.

Here
are

statements
from
Wang
Junfeng,
global
chairman
of
KWM,
and
Lee
Ranson,
chief
executive
of
Eversheds
Sutherland
International,
on
the
new
about
the
alliance:

Junfeng:
“We
are
delighted
to
have
reached
this
agreement
with
Eversheds
Sutherland
(International)
after
having
successfully
worked
together
on
a
number
of
important
client
matters
over
the
last
year.
Demand
for
international
legal
services
has
increased
and
diversified
at
pace,
and
Eversheds
Sutherland
(International)
is
an
ideal
fit
for
our
clients
with
its
extensive
worldwide
network.
Both
firms
share
a
commitment
to
quality,
efficiency
and
providing
the
highest
levels
of
client
service.
This
arrangement
is
an
exciting
development
in
the
international
legal
market,
bringing
elevated,
global
service
offerings
and
new
opportunities.”

Ranson:
“We
are
excited
to
be
entering
into
these
arrangements
with
the
leading
firm
in
China.
Our
clients
have
increasingly
complex
needs
for
PRC
legal
advice
in
China,
and
this
new
arrangement
creates
the
platform
to
deliver
a
solution
of
the
very
highest
calibre
as
well
adding
strength
to
our
European
and
Middle
East
businesses.
Working
together
on
certain
client
development
opportunities
will
also
create
opportunities
for
us
to
generate
significant
new
work
across
the
globe.”

Notably,
the
agreement
does

not
include
the
Eversheds
U.S.
practice.
Best
of
luck
to
the
two
firms
as
they
begin
this
new
journey
together.

Eversheds
Sutherland
Forms
Alliance
With
China’s
KWM
[American
Lawyer]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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

Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Succession
planning.
You
may
not
*want*
to
think
about
it
—
what
with
aging
practically
verboten
in
our
youth-obsessed
culture
—
but
you
really
have
to
do
it.
Building
a
lasting
legacy
requires
it.

But
how
do
you
implement
a
succession
plan
that
satisfies
the
needs
of
your
practice
and
your
clients?
Industry-wide
changes
to
the
path
to
law
firm
partnership
and
Gen
Z’s
take-it-or-leave
it
to
that
brass
ring
of
the
legal
profession
only
complicate
the
matter.
These
thorny
questions
and
more
will
be
tackled
in
an
upcoming
webinar,
hosted
by
Leopard
Solutions,
on
Wednesday,
July
26
at
1:00
p.m.
EST
/
10:00
a.m.
PST.

This
webinar
will
share
hiring
and
promotion
trends
that
Leopard
Solutions
have
been
tracking
while
igniting
strategies
to
what
law
firms
should
consider
to
ensure
they
have
a
robust
succession
plan
that
ensures
firm
growth
and
longevity.

Key
takeaways:

• State
  of
  the
  legal
  industry
  trends
  on
  hiring
  and
  promotion
• New
  and
  lateral
  associates’
  road
  to
  partnership
  changes
• Law
  firm’s
  consideration
  when
  approaching
  succession
  planning

Presenters:

Bruce
MacEwen,
President,
Adam
Smith,
ESQ.
Kathryn
Rubino,
Senior
Editor,
Above
the
Law
Scott
Love,
President,
The
Attorney
Search
Group
Laura
Leopard,
CEO
and
Founder,
Leopard
Solutions

Register
here.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

Friends,
let’s
give
a
warm
welcome
to
John
Lauro,
the
newest
lawyer
throwing
his
heretofore
good
reputation
on
the
pyre
in
sacrifice
to
Donald
J.
Trump.

The
Tampa-based
white
collar
defender
announced
this
weekend
that
he’ll
be
representing
the
former
president
with
regard
to
the
apparently
imminent
indictment
by
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
in
connection
with
the
attempt
to
block
certification
of
President
Biden’s
electoral
victory. 
Naturally
he
made
a
beeline
for
Fox
News
to
assure
the
MAGA
faithful
that
the
fight
against
the
DEEP
STATE
WITCH
HUNT
is
in
good
hands.

Lauro
telegraphed
repeatedly
that
his
legal
argument
will
consist
of
attacks
on
the
independence
of
the
prosecutor,
paired
with
a
rehash
of
the
same
debunked
allegations
of
election
fraud
which
led
Trump’s
supporters
to
storm
the
Capitol
two
years
ago.

“Look
what’s
happening
to
our
beautiful
country,”
he
responded
to
the
opening
question
from
host
Sandra
Smith
about
whether
Trump
would
accept
the
special
prosecutor’s
invitation
to
appear
before
the
grand
jury.
“For
the
first
time
in
our
history,
a
sitting
president
is
using
the
Department
of
Justice
to
go
after
a
political
opponent
criminally,
while
that
political
opponent
is
leading
in
the
polls.”

He
continued
with
a
bizarre
claim
that
the
president
had
some
kind
of
obligation
—
perhaps
under
the
Take
Care
Clause?
—
to
disrupt
the
electoral
certification.

There’s
no
need
to
appear
in
front
of
any
grand
jury
right
now,
President
Trump
did
absolutely
nothing
wrong,
he’s
done
nothing
criminal,
and
he’s
made
his
case
that
he
was
entitled
to
take
these
positions
as
president
of
the
United
States.
When
he
saw
all
these
election
discrepancies
and
irregularities
going
on,
he
did
what
any
president
was
required
to
do,
because
he
took
an
oath
to
do
exactly
that.

Lauro
went
on
to
suggest
that
Trump
was
merely
asking
that
the
certification
should
be
paused
to
allow
for
an
“audit”
on
January
6,
2021.

The
only
thing
that
President
Trump
asked
is
a
pause
in
the
counting
so
those
seven
contested
states
could
either
re-audit
or
re-certify.
I’ve
never
heard
of
anyone
getting
indicted
for
asking
for
an
audit.
What
President
Trump
was
looking
for
was
the
truth,
was
to
find
out
exactly
what
happened
in
those
seven
contested
states.
That’s
just
not
criminal.

Remember
when
those
loons
rampaged
through
the
halls
of
Congress
shouting
“AUDIT
MIKE
PENCE?”

No?

So
weird!

In
point
of
fact,
the
president
has
no
role
in
the
electoral
certification.
Indeed
under
the

“safe
harbor”
provision, 3
U.S.C.
§
5,

once
a
state
certifies
its
electors
and
transmits
them
to
the
archivist
those
certifications
“shall
be
treated
as
conclusive
in
Congress
with
respect
to
the
determination
of
electors
appointed
by
the
state.”

The
swing
states
had
all
undertaken
audits
and
recounts,
and
Trump’s
dozens
of
election
lawsuits
had
come
to
naught.
What
Trump
wanted
was
for
Vice
President
Pence
to
pretend
that
his
role
as
President
of
the
Senate
entitled
him
to
reject
the
legally
certified
electoral
certificates
and
accept
the
fraudulent
ones
ginned
up
by
the
Trump
campaign.
And,
barring
that,
Trump
wanted
his
supporters
to
stop
the
vote
by
force.

And
it
really
is
quite
astonishing
that
Lauro
is
regurgitating
the
same
lines
as
John
Eastman,
who
even
acknowledged
in
his

email
to
Pence’s
aide
Greg
Jacob
during
the
attack
that
what
he
was
asking
for
was

not
legal:

So
now
that
the
precedent
has
been
set
that
the
Electoral
Count
Act
is
not
quite
so
sacrosanct
as
was
previously
claimed,
I
implore
you
to
consider
one
more
relatively
minor
violation
and
adjourn
for
10
days
to
allow
the
legislatures
to
finish
their
investigations,
as
well
as
to
allow
a
full
forensic
audit
of
the
massive
amount
of
illegal
activity
that
has
occurred
here.

Lauro,
who
consistently
referred
to
Trump
as
the
president,
while
inveighing
against
“Joe
Biden
and
his
Justice
Department,”
decried
what
he
described
as
a
“coordinated
effort,
a
collusive
effort”
to
“tie
[Trump]
up
in
knots
in
the
middle
of
a
campaign
that
he’s
leading
in.”

“You
know,
if
I
appear
in
court,
I’m
going
to
representing
not
on
the
President
of
the
United
States,
but
the
sovereign
citizens
of
this
country
who
deserve
to
hear
the
truth,”
he
blustered,
with
absolutely
zero
pushback
from
his
Fox
hosts.

The
only
resistance
came
from
host
John
Roberts
when
Lauro
declared
that
he
was
going
to
put
the
whole
trial
on
television
—
or
at
least
demand
to
run
the
thing
on
Pay-Per-View
and
dare
the
DOJ
to
block
him.

LAURO:
The
first
thing
we
would
ask
for
is
let’s
have
cameras
in
the
courtroom
so
all
Americans
can
see
what’s
happening
in
our
criminal
justice
system.
And
I
would
hope
the
Department
of
Justice
would
join
in
that
effort.
So
that
we
take
the
curtain
away,
and
all
Americans
can
get
to
see
what’s
happening.
This
is
unprecedented
to
threaten
a
president.

ROBERTS:
You
might
want
to
have
that
discussion
with
Donald
Trump,
because
he’s
the
one
who
didn’t
want
cameras
in
the
courtroom
when
he
was
indicted
in
New
York,
so…

LAURO:
That’s
different.
We’re
going
to
have
a
process.

ROBERTS:
You
also
can’t
have
cameras
in
federal
courts.

LAURO:
You
can
ask
for
it.

ROBERTS:
You
can
ask
for
it.
You’re
not
going
to
get
’em.

Let’s
go
out
on
a
limb
and
assume
that
the
federal
court
in
DC
is
not
about
to
allow
video
cameras
in
its
courtroom.
Although,
if
it
did,
we’d
pay
big
bucks
to
watch
Lauro
make
these
nonsensical
arguments
in
front
of
a
US
District
judge.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments podcast.

A
recent
group
conversation
turned
to
the
upcoming
release
of
new
rules
and
regulations
surrounding
the
use
of
AI.
Around
the
table,
in-house
lawyers
sighed,
groaned,
and
sat
back
with
slumped
shoulders. 

“I’m
not
even
close
to
ready,”
one
shared.
“We’re
still
trying
to
get
on
top
of
GDPR
and
other
privacy
regulations.”
Many
others
are
in
the
same
boat. 

Nonetheless,
there’s
little
doubt
that
GCs
and
legal
teams
will
soon
see
AI-focused
rules
and
requirements
added
to
the
mix
of
privacy
regulations
their
organizations
must
already
follow.
And
for
many,
participation
won’t
be
optional,
as
their
companies
must
continue
experimenting
with
AI
to
remain
competitive. 

Let’s
look
at
recent
developments
and
several
challenges
AI
regulations
will
create
for
corporate
legal
teams.
The
news
is
good,
as
many
lawyers
already
know
a
lot
about
how
to
practice
the
responsible
use
of
AI,
putting
them
on
a
ready
path
to
keep
clients
on
the
right
side
of
any
future
AI
regulations.

AI
Regulations
Are
A
Moving
Target,
Coming
Fast

The
European
Union
and
other
institutions
watched,
sitting
idly
by
as
social
networks
destroyed
citizens’
privacy.
Now,
they
refuse
to
make
the
same
passive
mistake
with
AI.

As
Caterina
Rodelli,
EU
policy
analyst
at
the
nonprofit
organization
Access
Now,


said,
“The
European
Parliament
must
enter
[future
discussions]
with
the
strongest
possible
position
to
protect
the
rights
of
all
people
inside
and
entering
the
EU.”

The
EU’s
current


AI
Act

creates
stringent
obligations
for
governments
and
companies
that
use
AI
tools
such
as
facial
recognition,
biometric
surveillance,
and
other
applications.
The
AI
Act
—
and
other
guidelines,
regulations,
and
eventual
litigation
outcomes
—
will
no
doubt
require
companies
to
provide
detailed
information
on
how
their
AI
systems
work,
including
how
the
tools
make
decisions
and
what
data
they
use.
Many
companies
will
find
these
disclosures
a
significant
obstacle,
especially
those
that
rely
heavily
on
proprietary
algorithms
and
data
sets.  

In
addition,
the
AI
Act
creates
a
new
regulatory
framework
for
high-risk
AI
applications,
such
as
those
used
in
healthcare,
public
services,
and
transportation.
Companies
that
make
or
use
these
apps
will
need
to
adhere
to
rigorous
transparency,
accountability,
and
safety
standards.

As
with
GDPR,
violating
AI
regulations
will
likely
lead
to
costly
penalties.
Any
missteps
by
larger
companies
with
higher
profiles
and
resource
levels
will
likely
attract
more
negative
attention
from
regulators,
consumers,
and
the
media.
However,
midsize
and
small
companies
can
also
face
significant
reputational
and
financial
damage
if
found
in
violation.

Courts
And
Agencies
Actively
Shape
AI
Regulations

Italy
initially


banned
ChatGPT,
an
AI-powered
chatbot
developed
by
OpenAI,
when
the
Italian
Data
Protection
Authority
suspected
ChatGPT
collected
and
processed
sensitive
personal
information
without
user
consent.
(ChatGPT
has
since
been
reinstated
there.)
Though
you
can


opt
out
of
ChatGPT’s
data-gathering
methods,
qualms
linger
over
the
potential
use
of
generative-AI
tools
to
collect
personal
data,
spread
misinformation,
and
engage
in
harmful
activities.  

Regulatory
agencies
across
the
globe
have
expressed
concern
over
AI’s
potential
impact
on
privacy
and
security,
driving
some
to
take
steps
to
regulate
AI-powered
chatbots
and
other
AI
applications.
According
to
Stanford
University’s


2023
AI
Index,
127
countries
passed
37
AI-related
laws
in
2022.
Most
of
the
123
AI-related
bills
countries
have
passed
since
2016
were
in
recent
years.

Meanwhile,


GitHub
Copilot,


MidJourney,
and
Stable
Diffusion

and
their
generative-AI
tools
face
copyright
infringement
lawsuits
filed
on
behalf
of
original
creators
such
as
programmers,
writers,
and
artists.
IP
and
other
cases
will
likely
increase
as
companies
and
individuals
grapple
with
the
implications
of
AI-powered
tools
that
can
generate
new
(but
not
necessarily
original)
text,
code,
images,
and
videos.

Are
We
Headed
Toward
AI
Specialization? 

The
outcomes
of
lawsuits
and
regulatory
actions
are
bound
to
affect
whether
and
how
companies
build
and
adopt
AI
tools.
Larger
organizations
may
opt
to
focus
on
AI
for
niche
use
cases
that
are
less
risky
and
aligned
with
their
core
competencies.
Some
midsize
and
small
companies
are
already
priced
out
and
would
need
help
to
secure
the
talent
to
compete.

But
you
never
know.
Smaller
companies
and
freelancers
may
find
opportunities
to
fill
in
the
gaps.
This
is
especially
likely
in
markets
and
industries
considered
too
risky
or
not
profitable
enough
for
big
players
to
invest.
We
already
see
more
specialized
AI
tools
tailored
to
the
needs
of
specific
industries,
companies,
groups,
and
use
cases,
broadening
the
AI
market
and
potentially
making
AI
more
accessible
to
more
people. 

Don’t
Wait,
Only
To
Get
Left
Behind.
Explore
AI
Now.

Do
not
wait
to
explore
AI!
Just
be
intentional.
Implement
safeguards
to
strike
the
right
balance
and
reap
the
benefits
of
AI
while
avoiding
legal
and
reputational
risks.
Another
step
—
along
with
protecting
user
privacy
and
preventing
bias
—
is
establishing
proper
governance
measures
to
monitor
algorithmic
performance,
data
collection,
and
usage. 

Requirements
will
evolve
as
lawmakers,
judges,
and
regulators
learn
more
about
AI
and
its
impact.
Approach
AI
with
a
mindset
of
responsible
experimentation
and
a
commitment
to
ethical
and
transparent
practices
to
start
a
step
ahead
and
on
the
right
foot.

---

Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
VP
at



LexisNexis and CEO
of Parley
Pro,
a
next-generation
contract
management
company
that
has
pioneered
online
negotiation
technology.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
founded
the Women
Serve
on
Boards movement
that
advocates
for
women
to
participate
on
corporate
boards
of
Fortune
500
companies.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and 



Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers,
her
next
book
(ABA
2023).
You
can
follow
Olga
on
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Digital
health
startup


Dorsata

has
filed
a
lawsuit
against
EHR
provider


athenahealth

and
women’s
health
company


Unified
Women’s
Healthcare.
The
startup
alleged
that
athenahealth stole
trade
secrets,
used
deceptive
business
practices
and
breached
its
contract
—
and
that
Unified
aided
and
abetted
these
purported
practices.

Dorsata
filed
its
lawsuit
in
the
civil
court
of
Suffolk
County,
Massachusetts
on
Wednesday.
Dorsata
alleged
nine
counts
against
athenahealth:
unfair
and
deceptive
acts
and
practices,
breach
of
oral
contract,
breach
of
fiduciary
duty,
common
law
fraud,
unjust
enrichment,
theft
of
trade
secrets,
tortious
interference
with
current
customers,
breach
of
nondisclosure
agreement
and
commercial
disparagement.
The
startup
also
brought
two
counts
against
Unified
—
aiding
and
abetting
a
breach
of
fiduciary
duty,
as
well
as
breach
of
contract.

The
defendants
moved
to
impound
the
complaint
on
Friday
morning,
Dorsata
CEO
David
Fairbrothers
told


MedCity
News. By
trying
to
impound
the
complaint,
athenahealth
and
Unified
are
seeking
to
eliminate
public
access
to
the
lawsuit
and
prevent
Dorsata
from
speaking
about
it
to
the
press.
However,
at
the
time
of
this
article’s
publication,
the
complaint
was
still
available
for
public
viewing
on


Massachusetts’
state
court
website. 

Specializing
in
data
tools
that
help
obstetricians,
Dorsata
offers
a
platform
that
aims
to
reduce
disparities
in
medical
care
during
pregnancy
and
prevent
avoidable
complications.
About
700
OB-GYN
providers
across
the
country
use
the
startup’s
platform,
Fairbrothers
said.

Dorsata
partnered
with
athenahealth
in
2016
and
has
been
providing
its
tool
to
obstetricians
who
use
the
company’s
EHR
since
then,
he
added.

The
complaint
alleged
that
in
2021,
athenahealth
approached
Dorsata
and
“proposed
that
they
work
together
to
pursue
a
broader
relationship
with
Unified,
the
largest
obstetrics
and
gynecological
doctors
group
in
the
United
States.”
To
do
this,
athenahealth
suggested
that
it
work
together
with
Dorsata
to
provide
Unified
with
an
integrated
solution,
the
lawsuit
said.

Next,
Dorsata
signed
a
non-disclosure
agreement
and
provided
trade
secrets
and
other
confidential
information
to
athenahealth
—
including
financial
projections,
customer
pricing,
material
contracts
and
software
architecture
—
according
to
the
complaint.
The
startup’s
decision
to
provide
this
information
was
“heavily
influenced”
by
the
likelihood
that
it
would
be
acquired
by
athenahealth,

the
lawsuit
said.

Operating
under
the
understanding
that
the
two
parties
would
present
the
software
product
to
Unified
as
a
joint
venture,
Dorsata
developed
a
tool
called
vU.
However,
athenahealth
was
simultaneously
creating
its
own
version
of
vU
that
it
planned
to
pitch
to
Unified
without
Dorsata’s
knowledge,
the
lawsuit
charged.

Dorsata
poured
“significant
time
and
resources”
into
the
development
of
vU,
and
as
a
result,
the
company
needed
“a
significant
cash
infusion
to
continue
to
develop
its
business,”
according
to
the
lawsuit.
The
startup
decided
to
borrow
$6
million
from
athenahealth
because
of
its
belief
that
athenahealth
“would
either
purchase
Dorsata
or
continue
its
joint
venture
to
expand
their
relationship
with
Unified.”
Athenahealth
“cultivated
this
perception,”
the
complaint
said.

When
it
gave
Dorsata
these
funds,
athenahealth
also
signed
a
promissory
note
prohibiting
Dorsata
from
doing
business
with
any
of
its
competitors,
the
startup
alleged.

By
assuring
Dorsata
that
it
was
interested
in
developing
a
joint
solution
for
Unified,
athenahealth
“was
able
to
acquire
significant
knowledge
of
the
inner
workings
of
Dorsata’s
technology,”
the
lawsuit
alleged.
It
wasn’t
until
after
this
insider
information
was
shared
that
Dorsata
realized
athenahealth
never
had
any
intention
of
pitching
the
joint
product
to
Unified,
the
complaint
said.

When
athenahealth
cut
Dorsata
out
of
its
deal
with
Unified,
the
startup
was
left
with
a
“limited
ability”
to
generate
the
revenue
needed
to
pay
the
EHR
vendor
back
its
$6
million
by
2025,
the
complaint
said.
It
also
said
that
athenahealth
is
telling
Dorsata’s
customers
that
the
startup
“is
financially
impaired
and
will
not
remain
in
business
in
the
future.”

Dorsata
is
seeking
damages
in
the
amount
of
loss
of
expected
profits,
loss
of
company
valuation,
injury
to
reputation,
future
lost
business
and
unlawfully
gained
commercial
marketplace
advantage.
The
startup
has
also
asked
the
court
to
prevent
athenahealth
from
collecting
the
$6
million
it
loaned
to
Dorsata
by
deeming
the
EHR
vendor’s
promissory
note
“a
fraudulent
artifice
intended
to
prevent
Dorsata
from
competing
in
the
marketplace.”

An
athenahealth
spokesperson
told


MedCity
News

the
company
believes
“the
suit
is
without
merit”
and
plans
to
defend
itself
“vigorously.”

MedCity
News’

interview
with
Dorasata’s
Fairbrothers
occurred
shortly
after
athenahealth
moved
to
impound
the
complaint,
so
he
was
barred
from
commenting
specifically
about
the
lawsuit.
However,
he
did
discuss
the
broader
issue
at
hand,
declaring
that
it’s
not
uncommon
for
EHR
companies
to
deceive
their
digital
health
partners.

“I’ve
had
more
than
a
couple
of
digital
health
founders
reach
out
to
me
in
the
past
day
with
their
stories
of
their
EHR
partners
eventually
competing
with
them
head-to-head
after
years
of
development
and
work
with
their
mutual
customers,”
Fairbrothers
said.
“To
me,
this
is
anti-competitive
and
monopolistic
in
a
critical
industry
to
our
country.”

Photo:
putilich,
Getty
Images