Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
The
US
and
Israel
attacked
Iran
over
the
weekend,
and
Congress
is
scrambling
to
catch
up.
In
this
episode,
Breaking
Defense’s
Aaron
Mehta
is
joined
by
Stacie
Pettyjohn
of
the
Center
for
a
New
American
Security
to
discuss
Sen.
Tim
Kaine’s
push
for
a
war
powers
vote
and
how
it
might
play
out.
On
February
20,
2026,
the
Supreme
Court
held,
in
a
6-3
decision,
that
the
president’s
use
of
IEEPA
tariffs
—
particularly
the
so-called
Liberation
Day
tariffs
—
was
unconstitutional.
In
the
aftermath,
major
companies
have
flooded
the
courts
with
lawsuits
demanding
refunds
for
the
tariffs
they’ve
already
paid.
This
comes
on
top
of
others
who
filed
refund
claims
earlier,
betting
(correctly)
on
this
outcome.
It
all
sounds
like
welcome
news
for
consumers
who’ve
shelled
out
more
for
the
same
stuff
lately.
But
will
those
refunds
actually
trickle
down
from
businesses
to
their
customers?
Or
will
companies
just
pocket
the
windfall?
To
figure
this
out,
let’s
review
how
tariffs
actually
get
collected
in
the
United
States.
Before
goods
can
enter
the
country,
the
importer
must
clear
them
through
U.S.
Customs
and
Border
Protection
(CBP).
That
means
filing
an
entry
summary,
where
duties
and
tariffs
are
calculated
using
the
appropriate
codes
from
the
Harmonized
Tariff
Schedule
(HTS).
Once
the
importer
pays
the
tariffs
and
passes
inspections,
the
goods
are
released
into
U.S.
commerce.
But
CBP
has
up
to
314
days
to
revisit
and
adjust
the
tariff
amount
if
the
importer
got
the
HTS
codes
wrong.
After
that
window
closes
without
action,
the
entry
is
“deemed
liquidated”
—
the
calculation
is
final.
Liquidation
status
matters
because
it
dictates
how
importers
can
challenge
the
tariffs
and
seek
refunds.
For
unliquidated
entries,
they
can
file
a
Post-Summary
Correction
(PSC)
with
CBP.
If
the
PSC
is
accepted,
a
refund
will
be
issued.
For
liquidated
entries,
the
importer
must
file
a
formal
protest
within
180
days
of
liquidation.
If
denied,
they
get
another
180
days
to
sue
in
the
U.S.
Court
of
International
Trade.
Crucially,
any
refund
goes
to
the
importer
of
record
—
not
the
final
consumer
downstream.
Take
a
simple
case:
You
import
a
widget
directly
from
overseas,
pay
the
IEEPA
tariff
to
clear
customs,
and
get
it
released.
As
the
importer
of
record,
you
can
pursue
a
refund
via
PSC,
protest,
or
lawsuit.
Now
let’s
look
at
the
more
common
scenario:
You
buy
that
imported
widget
at
a
store.
Proving
the
price
hike
was
purely
from
the
tariff
is
already
an
uphill
battle.
Even
if
you
could,
you
can’t
ask
the
CPB
because
you
are
not
the
importer
of
record.
You
would
have
to
ask
the
store.
There’s
a
slim
chance
the
store
plays
nice.
FedEx,
one
of
the
large
companies
suing
for
refunds,
has
pledged
to
return
any
tariff
refund
it
recovers
back
to
shippers
and
customers
who
paid
them.
But
don’t
count
on,
especially
from
a
small
business.
They
might
offer
creative
excuses,
tell
you
to
pound
sand,
or
suggest
you
take
it
up
with
Trump
personally.
And
if
the
store
bought
from
a
distributor
or
middleman?
Then
the
store
isn’t
the
importer
of
record,
so
they
will
not
get
a
refund
from
the
CBP.
The
people
most
likely
to
see
actual
tariff
refunds
are
those
who
paid
CBP
directly
or
businesses
with
explicit
policies
to
rebate
customers.
But
if
you
snagged
a
fake
Labubu
doll
at
the
local
flea
market,
you’re
probably
out
of
luck.
Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
*
Judge
Breyer
calls
out
Elon
Musk’s
lawyer
for
giving
“false
impression”
to
the
jury
in
Twitter
case,
but
she
was
just
staying
on
brand
as
a
Grok
representative.
[Law360]
*
More
states
consider
alternative
licensure
paths.
[ABA
Journal]
*
Supreme
Court
seemed
unconvinced
that
defendants
can
waive
their
rights
to
appeal
and
then
be
stuck
with
an
arbitrary
sentence.
[National
Law
Journal]
*
With
its
sparse
decision
striking
down
California
law
preventing
schools
from
outing
students,
the
Court
drapes
itself
in
dangerous
power.
[Vox]
*
A
refresher
on
the
Court
of
International
Trade,
the
folks
deciding
all
the
tariff
refunds.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
Homeland
Security
probes
alleged
comments
Greg
Bovino
made
about
Jewish
lawyer.
[Guardian]
The
DOJ
Necromances
Back
Their
Biglaw
Executive
Order
Case:
Good
luck
unringing
the
$940M
bell.
Remember
To
Bring
Booze
To
Con
Law:
Gorsuch
put
the
alcoholism
back
in
the
Founding
Fathers.
Skadden
Gets
Sanctioned
In
Multimillion-Dollar
Case:
The
court
found
bad
faith
in
their
Virginia
Action
filing.
White
House
Gets
Moral
Talking
To
From
Kesha:
She
doesn’t
want
her
music
associated
with
‘mak[ing]
light
of
war.’
Pro
Bono
Is
Great,
But
How
Bono?:
Paladin
and
PLI
help
pro-bono-minded
law
students
find
their
path.
Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
an
analysis
by
Law.com,
which
U.S.
state
pays
its
judges
the
highest
salary?
Hint:
The
judicial
salary
in
this
state
is
$258,158
—
which
is
less
than
what
a
third-year
associate
makes
in
Biglaw.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
the
article
series, Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches, by
our
friends
at Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.
Most
lawyers
are
still
focused
on
AI
hallucinations.
The
concern
has
been
inaccurate
citations,
fabricated
cases,
and
sloppy
drafting.
That
is
yesterday’s
problem.
The
next
wave
of
risk
is
more
serious:
autonomous
AI
agents
that
act,
not
just
suggest.
A
recent
study
led
by
researchers
at
MIT
examined
dozens
of
widely
used
AI
agent
systems
and
found
something
unsettling.
Many
of
these
tools
lack
basic
monitoring,
meaningful
transparency,
and
reliable
stop
controls.
In
plain
English,
they
can
operate
with
limited
oversight
and,
in
some
cases,
with
limited
ability
to
shut
them
down
cleanly.
For
law
firms
experimenting
with
agentic
(agent
based)
AI,
that
should
get
your
attention.
Unlike
a
chatbot
that
drafts
text,
an
AI
agent
can
execute
multi-step
workflows.
It
can
send
emails,
retrieve
data,
update
records,
connect
to
external
systems,
and
make
conditional
decisions.
The
promise
is
efficiency.
The
risk
is
autonomy
without
governance.
The
researchers
pinpointed
three
main
vulnerabilities.
Firstly,
limited
logging
and
monitoring,
where
many
systems
offer
only
minimal
insight
into
actions
and
timing.
Secondly,
inadequate
disclosure,
with
some
agents
failing
to
clearly
indicate
when
they
are
functioning
as
AI
instead
of
a
human.
Thirdly,
ineffective
or
missing
kill
switches,
as
in
several
cases,
there
was
no
straightforward
method
to
stop
an
agent
once
it
was
active.
In
a
consumer
app,
that
might
be
annoying.
In
a
law
firm,
it
can
be
catastrophic.
Imagine
an
agent
embedded
in
client
intake
workflows
that
automatically
responds
to
prospective
clients,
updates
case
management
systems,
and
routes
documents.
If
it
misinterprets
input
and
sends
incorrect
communication,
who
identifies
the
mistake?
If
it
accesses
data
outside
its
designated
scope,
where
is
the
audit
trail?
If
it
causes
a
billing
or
notification
error,
can
you
trace
back
what
occurred?
Lawyers
work
in
a
profession
founded
on
accountability,
answering
to
clients,
courts,
regulators,
and
insurers.
The
Model
Rules
do
not
absolve
us
from
technological
incompetence;
instead,
they
mandate
supervision
of
non-lawyers
and
a
reasonable
grasp
of
the
tools
we
employ.
An
AI
agent
that
functions
outside
meaningful
human
oversight
is
not
merely
a
technological
issue
but
also
a
supervision
concern.
The
governance
gap
should
worry
firms
most.
Many
vendors
display
compliance
badges
and
security
certifications
yet
provide
little
public
documentation
on
how
their
agents
are
monitored,
tested,
or
constrained.
Capability
is
advancing
faster
than
control
frameworks.
That
imbalance
creates
exposure.
This
is
not
an
argument
against
the
use
of
AI
agents.
It
is
an
argument
for
discipline.
If
your
firm
is
evaluating
or
deploying
agentic
AI,
start
with
three
questions.
First,
can
you
clearly
identify
what
the
agent
did?
Detailed
logging
and
audit
trails
are
not
optional.
If
you
cannot
reconstruct
the
sequence
of
actions,
you
cannot
defend
them
or
correct
them.
Second,
where
are
the
human
checkpoints?
Sensitive
actions
should
require
confirmation.
Full
autonomy
may
sound
efficient,
but
in
legal
workflows,
it
is
often
inappropriate.
Third,
is
there
a
reliable
way
to
stop
the
system?
A
true
kill
switch
that
halts
a
specific
agent
without
shutting
down
everything
else
is
essential.
If
the
answer
is
vague
or
unavailable,
that
is
a
red
flag.
Lawyers
have
lived
through
technological
waves
before.
Cloud
computing,
electronic
discovery,
and
cybersecurity
each
promised
efficiency
and
required
new
governance
models.
AI
agents
are
no
different,
except
that
they
can
act
without
constant
supervision
and
validation.
The
firms
that
treat
agentic
AI
as
a
strategic
tool
with
guardrails
will
gain
an
advantage.
The
firms
that
treat
it
as
a
plug-and-play
productivity
booster
may
eventually
have
to
explain
to
a
court,
a
regulator,
or
a
client
why
an
automated
system
acted
in
ways
no
one
fully
understood.
AI
agents
are
not
inherently
out
of
control.
Without
deliberate
oversight,
they
can
be.
Michael
C.
Maschke
is
the
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
Mr.
Maschke
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner
(EnCE),
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner
(ACE),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP).
He
is
a
frequent
speaker
on
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics,
and
he
has
co-authored
14
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
Sharon
D.
Nelson
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.
She
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
John
W.
Simek
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
holds
multiple
technical
certifications
and
is
a
nationally
known
digital
forensics
expert.
He
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
Confido
Legal,
an
embedded
payments
platform
built
specifically
for
law
firms
and
the
legal
technology
companies
that
serve
them,
has
raised
$9
million
in
financing
across
two
rounds,
the
company
told
LawNext
in
an
exclusive
advance
interview.
The
latest
and
larger
of
the
two
rounds
was
led
by
Aquiline
Capital
Partners,
a
global
private
investment
firm
with
approximately
$12
billion
in
assets
under
management
and
a
focus
on
financial
services
and
technology.
Additional
participants
included
The
Legaltech
Fund,
Breakwater
Ventures,
Live
Oak
Bank
and
Context
Ventures,
which
also
led
the
earlier
seed
round.
The
announcement
combines
the
current
round,
which
closed
in
November,
with
the
seed
round
from
2024,
which
Confido’s
co-founder
and
CEO
Emery
Wager
said
totaled
a
little
over
$2
million.
The
two
rounds
are
being
disclosed
together
now
because
neither
had
been
publicly
announced
previously,
Wager
said.
Aquiline’s
interest
in
the
deal
reflects
its
existing
familiarity
with
both
the
legal
technology
and
payments
sectors.
In
legal,
Aquiline
is
majority
owner
of
the
practice
management
company
SurePoint
and
is
also
an
investor
in
ABCLegal,
Consilio
and
LegalMation.
“They
really
have
a
unique
overlap
between
payments
and
legal
tech,”
Wager
said.
“They’ve
done
a
couple
big
payments
investments,
and
so
they’re
a
great
partner
in
terms
of
experience
both
in
legal
tech
and
payments.”
Confido
Legal’s
history
runs
through
Seattle-based
Gravity
Payments,
the
payments
processing
company
known
for
its
headline-making
decision
in
2015
to
institute
a
$70,000
minimum
salary
for
all
employees.
Wager,
who
earned
an
engineering
degree
from
Stanford
and
served
as
a
U.S.
Marine
Corps
infantry
officer
with
deployments
to
Afghanistan,
joined
Gravity’s
corporate
development
team
in
August
2013,
spending
nearly
a
decade
focused
on
strategic
partnerships,
product
development
and
marketing.
In
February
2019,
Gravity
launched
what
was
then
called
Gravity
Legal
as
an
internal
subdivision,
designed
to
bring
payments
processing
tailored
to
law
firm
trust
accounting
and
IOLTA
compliance
to
the
legal
market.
By
2023,
with
the
legal-specific
business
having
developed
its
own
distinct
identity
and
customer
base,
the
decision
was
made
to
spin
it
out
as
an
independent
company.
With
a
small
founding
team
and
limited
capital,
the
independent
company
found
its
footing
quickly,
Wager
told
me.
“The
business
just
took
off,”
he
said.
“It
was
half
as
many
people
working
on
it,
but
those
people
were
foot
to
the
fire,
really
motivated.”
In
December
2023,
the
company
officially
rebranded
as
Confido
Legal,
taking
its
name
from
the
Latin
word
for
“trust,”
a
reference
to
the
trust
account
management
that
is
one
of
the
core
capabilities
of
the
platform.
Confido
positions
itself
as
infrastructure
rather
than
a
standalone
product
for
end
users.
Its
platform
is
built
around
a
single
GraphQL
API
that
allows
legal
technology
companies
to
embed
payment
acceptance,
trust
account
management,
and
–
more
recently
–
digital
disbursements
directly
into
their
own
applications,
without
having
to
build
compliance,
fraud
prevention
and
underwriting
capabilities
from
scratch.
The
compliance
angle
is
not
incidental.
Law
firms
are
required
under
state
bar
rules
to
maintain
strict
separation
between
client
trust
funds
and
their
own
operating
accounts,
and
IOLTA
regulations
govern
how
interest
on
those
accounts
is
handled.
Generic
payment
processors
were
not
built
with
these
requirements
in
mind,
and
Wager
argues
that
retrofitting
a
general-purpose
platform
like
Stripe
for
legal
use
is
both
time-consuming
and
costly
for
legal
tech
developers.
“Our
pitch
to
the
developers
is,
‘Hey,
we
have
this
legal-specific
toolbox
that
they
can
integrate
with,
and
they
don’t
have
to
worry
about
chaining
multiple
accounts
together.”
As
of
2026,
the
company
reports
serving
more
than
1,500
law
firms
across
the
United
States
and
Canada,
primarily
through
its
legal
tech
partners
rather
than
through
direct
law
firm
relationships.
Its
integration
partners
include
practice
management
platforms
such
as
Clio
Manage,
Lawmatics,
Lawcus,
SmartAdvocate,
and
Prima.Law,
as
well
as
financial
and
accounting
tools
including
QuickBooks
Online
and
NetSuite.
A
significant
portion
of
the
new
capital
is
directed
at
expanding
Confido’s
disbursements
product,
which
the
company
launched
using
funds
from
its
2024
round.
Where
the
payments
acceptance
side
of
the
business
focuses
on
law
firms
collecting
fees
from
clients,
disbursements
addresses
the
outbound
flow
of
money
–
sending
settlement
funds,
unused
retainer
balances
or
award
payments
to
clients
and
other
parties
after
a
case
resolves.
Wager
said
the
target
market
here
is
plaintiff-side
firms
–
personal
injury,
workers’
compensation
and
mass
tort
practices
–
where
the
current
standard
is
still
largely
paper
checks.
Part
of
his
company’s
challenge,
he
said,
has
been
simply
convincing
law
firms
that
sending
settlement
funds
digitally
is
ethically
permissible
under
bar
rules.
“We’ve
had
to
teach
that
side
of
the
industry
that
it
is
ethical
to
digitally
disburse
money
from
your
IOLTA
account,”
he
said.
The
company
has
signed
a
deal
with
the
litigation
management
platform
Litify
to
power
a
branded
disbursements
offering
and
is
working
with
additional
case
management
platforms
on
the
plaintiff
side
that
it
expects
to
announce
in
the
near
future.
While
the
current
disbursements
product
handles
the
client-facing
side
of
payouts
well,
Wager
said
the
company
will
be
further
developing
its
capabilities
around
making
payments
to
medical
providers,
lienholders
and
other
third
parties
involved
in
case
resolution.
Confido’s
most
direct
competitor
in
the
legal
payments
space
is
8am’s
LawPay
product,
which
holds
significant
market
share
and
strong
brand
recognition.
But
Wager
frames
the
competitive
landscape
somewhat
differently,
pointing
to
Stripe
as
the
company
he
thinks
about
most,
given
Confido’s
developer-focused
approach.
“I
wake
up
every
day
and
think,
how
can
we
be
so
valuable
in
our
vertical
that
it
just
doesn’t
make
sense
to
integrate
with
something
like
Stripe,”
he
said.
The
appeal
to
legal
tech
developers
is
that
Confido
offers
a
single
API
and
a
single
underwriting
process
to
cover
the
full
range
of
payments
and
financial
workflows
their
law
firm
customers
need
–
avoiding
the
need
to
connect
multiple
financial
services
with
different
compliance
requirements.
The
company
also
uses
machine
learning
to
assess
the
risk
profile
of
individual
transactions
and
detect
fraud
–
an
unsexy
but
important
function,
given
that,
as
Wager
noted,
bad
actors
periodically
attempt
to
establish
fraudulent
law
firm
accounts
to
exploit
the
payment
infrastructure.
Beyond
payments
and
disbursements,
Wager
has
his
eye
on
a
wider
range
of
embedded
financial
services
for
law
firms,
including
lending,
treasury
management
and
banking
services,
though
he
declined
to
offer
specifics
on
what
products
might
come
next.
“I’m
very
personally
excited
about
the
roadmap,”
he
said.
“There’s
so
much
in
finance,
and
it
seems
every
time
we
turn
around
there’s
new
money
moving
in
law
in
a
regulated
way.”
Zach
Posner,
managing
partner
of
The
Legaltech
Fund,
which
participated
in
both
rounds,
described
the
company’s
approach
as
a
response
to
a
longstanding
problem.
“The
Confido
team
continues
to
deliver
purpose-built,
compliant
infrastructure
that
allows
money
to
move
the
way
law
firms
and
legal
technology
companies
need,”
he
said
in
a
statement.
Dante
La
Ruffa,
the
Aquiline
partner
who
led
the
investment,
said
the
firm
sees
Confido
as
building
toward
becoming
the
central
financial
platform
for
the
legal
market.
“Confido
makes
it
easier
for
law
firms
and
LegalTech
platforms
to
get
paid
and
pay
out
funds
by
building
compliant,
modern
payments
and
payouts
directly
into
the
systems
they
already
use,”
he
said.
For
Wager,
who
has
seen
his
business
grow
significantly
since
spinning
off
three
years
ago,
his
longer-term
goal
is
not
about
a
quick
exit,
he
told
me,
but
about
building
something
durable
in
a
market
he
sees
as
having
a
long
runway.
“I
would
love
for
Confido
to
reach
new
heights
in
the
next
20,
30,
40
years,”
he
said.
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.
The
trend
is
clearly:
firms
are
becoming
much
more
careful
[about
expanding
in
their
equity
tier.]
— Blane
Prescott,
a
law
firm
consultant
on
compensation
issues
and
managing
shareholder
at
MesaFive,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
concerning
equity
partner
ranks
remaining
stagnant
or
decreasing
in
size
among
Am
Laaw
200
firms.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
this
means
more
take-home
cash
for
the
equity
partners
who
remain.
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.
Imposition
of
sanctions
is
not
to
be
undertaken
lightly.
It
is
particularly
difficult
to
do
so
when
attorneys
of
unblemished
reputation
and
a
distinguished
law
firm
are
among
the
sanctioned
parties.
But
reluctance
to
enter
sanctions
cannot
excuse
a
failure
to
impose
them
when
they
are
warranted.
If
the
filing
of
duplicative,
vexatious
litigation
were
allowed
to
escape
sanction,
the
costs
would
exceed
those
imposed
on
the
defendants
here.
Courts
and
other
parties
may
be
encouraged
to
undertake
burdensome
and
duplicative
litigation.
The
administration
of
justice
would
suffer.
—
Judge
Denise
L.
Cote
Everyone
knows
that
if
mom
tells
you
no,
it’s
not
acceptable
—
even
if
tempting
—
to
try
to
get
approval
from
dad.
It
doesn’t
get
any
smarter
if
you
replace
mom
and
dad
with
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
and
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
Last
February,
Skadden
client
and
mobile
gaming
outfit
Papaya
Gaming’s
counterclaims
against
Skillz
Platform
were
dismissed
in
the
Southern
District.
At
that
point,
Papaya
moved
to
amend
those
claims
and
filed
an
“essentially
identical”
suit
in
Virginia.
The
Virginia
action
found
its
way
back
to
New
York
and
an
understandably
peeved
Judge
Cote.
Papaya
Gaming
operates
in
the
“real-money
skill-based”
mobile
gaming
market
—
which
is
apparently
a
term
of
art
—
running
multiplayer
tournaments
where
players
compete
for
cash
prizes.
Theoretically,
users
compete
against
people,
but
Papaya
was
deploying
bots
in
some
of
these
tournaments
without
telling
anyone.
On
occasion,
a
single
human
player
would
be
competing
against
an
entire
field
of
bots.
Skillz,
one
of
Papaya’s
competitors,
sued
in
March
2024,
asserting
a
false
advertising
claim
under
the
Lanham
Act.
Papaya
eventually
admitted
it
had
been
using
bots
until
2024
—
but
not
before
first
trying
to
resist
discovery
by
claiming
Israeli
law
prevented
it
from
producing
records.
(That
gambit
also
failed.)
Papaya
fired
back
with
counterclaims
alleging
Skillz
had
created
a
“false
front”
organization
called
4FairPlay,
which
maintained
a
website
encouraging
consumers
to
file
complaints
about
Papaya
with
state
attorneys
general.
Judge
Cote
dismissed
Papaya’s
counterclaims
about
the
4FairPlay
website
in
February
2025.
Papaya
attempted
to
amend,
and
that
earned
a
dismissal
a
month
later.
BUT,
after
filing
its
motion
to
amend
—
though
before
the
denial
—
Papaya
filed
a
new
lawsuit
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
against
4FairPlay,
its
operators,
and
related
entities
as
defendants,
asserting
claims
under
Virginia
law.
Papaya’s
counsel
then
“scrubbed”
the
Virginia
complaint
to
remove
references
to
Skillz’s
direct
involvement
and
delete
allegations
about
bots
—
in
what
Judge
Cote
described
as
“an
apparent
attempt
to
circumvent
the
preclusion
doctrines
that
its
adversaries
had
identified
in
correspondence
threatening
sanctions.”
Judge
Nachmanoff
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
didn’t
mince
words
when
he
transferred
the
case
to
New
York,
stating
that
Papaya
“blatantly
attempted
to
get
a
second
bite
at
the
apple
by
pursuing
different
but
clearly
related
defendants
in
a
different
forum
after
Judge
Cote
conclusively
rejected
Papaya’s
counterclaim
and
motion
for
leave
to
file
a
second
amended
counterclaim
on
virtually
identical
claims.”
Once
the
case
came
back
to
Judge
Cote,
the
strategy
of
playing
the
parents
against
each
other
was
already,
inevitably
cooked.
Judge
Cote
found
that
Papaya
and
Skadden
“operated
in
bad
faith
in
filing
the
Virginia
Action.”
The
evidence
of
bad
faith
included
the
“ineffective
scrubbing”
of
the
Virginia
complaint
to
make
it
appear
less
duplicative
and
the
“strained
arguments”
attempting
to
distinguish
the
two
litigations.
The
court
explicitly
identified
the
strategy
at
work:
Papaya
was
pursuing
claims
against
Skillz
affiliates
“to
place
pressure
on
Skillz
and
thereby
unreasonably
increased
the
cost
of
litigation.”
Because
the
underlying
Lanham
Act
case
is
still
ongoing,
with
Skillz
seeking
over
$700
million
in
damages.
While
that’s
a
significant
chunk
of
change,
as
the
court
noted,
“large
potential
damages
figures
cannot
excuse
litigation
tactics
that
improperly
and
unfairly
increase
the
burden
of
litigation.”
Trial
is
slated
to
begin
in
April.
This
is
a
rough
outcome
for
Skadden.
The
court’s
finding
of
bad
faith
—
not
“oopsie”
level
negligence
—
is
about
as
bad
as
a
sanctions
opinion
gets.
The
only
way
this
week
could
get
any
worse
for
Skadden
is
if
they
found
out
they
spinelessly
gave
away
$100
million
for
no
good
reason.
Oh.
Well,
maybe
the
DOJ
will
be
able
to
convince
a
court
to
allow
it
to
reverse
its
own
position
from
24
hours
before.
Failing
that…
maybe
the
government
can
try
filling
essentially
identical
claims
in
another
court?
I
wonder
if
they
could
find
a
firm
to
help
them
do
that
pro
bono?
(Check
out
the
full
opinion
and
order
on
the
next
page…)
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.
Legalweek
kicks
off
next
week
in
New
York,
which
means
it’s
time
for
the
annual
deluge
of
legal
tech
announcements
timed
to
coincide
with
the
event.
Among
the
pre-show
announcements,
Relativity
unveiled
its
fifth
annual
AI
Visionaries
list,
honoring
20
individuals
the
company
recognizes
as
shaping
how
AI
gets
understood,
applied,
and
integrated
across
the
legal
ecosystem.
This
year’s
class
of
20
honorees
draws
from
global
law
firms,
Fortune
500
companies,
academia,
media,
and
the
public
sector.
The
roster
includes
folks
from
Quinn
Emanuel,
Cleary
Gottlieb,
Morgan
Lewis,
Arnold
&
Porter,
Clifford
Chance,
Google,
Walmart,
Bayer,
and
GE
Vernova,
among
others.
Legal
media
even
gets
a
nod
with
the
inclusion
of
Richard
Tromans
of
Artificial
Lawyer.
What’s
notable
about
this
year’s
list
is
less
the
names
and
more
the
tenor
of
what
the
honorees
are
saying.
Scan
the
quotes
on
the
Relativity
page
and
you’ll
notice
a
theme.
Almost
nobody
is
talking
about
AI
in
the
breathless,
revolutionary
terms
that
dominated
legal
tech
marketing
circa
2023.
The
vibe
has
shifted
from
“AI
will
transform
everything!”
to
“AI
is
already
here,
and
the
real
work
is
making
it
reliable.”
“Humans
have
a
tendency
to
associate
fluency
with
authority,
often
to
our
detriment,”
Adrian
Agius
of
Gilbert
+
Tobin
said.
“In
law,
where
language
is
the
medium
of
advocacy,
that
bias
can
become
dangerous
if
left
unchecked.”
Dave
Fronapfel,
working
in
the
public
sector,
emphasized
that
“Change
for
the
sake
of
change
is
not
a
good
policy
for
institutions
that
rely
on
public
trust.”
And
Ankur
Malik
of
Clifford
Chance
stressed
the
cardinal
rule
that
this
stuff
“not
take
action
without
explicit
human
approval
and
a
clear
line
of
accountability.”
That’s
a
far
cry
from
the
“fire
all
the
associates”
fantasies
that
dominates
the
venture
capitalist
discourse.
Which
tracks
with
what
we’ve
been
writing
about
Relativity
for
a
while
now.
The
company
has
consistently
positioned
itself
in
the
“AI
should
help
lawyers
do
their
jobs
better”
camp
rather
than
the
“AI
should
replace
lawyers”
camp.
The
AI
Visionaries
selection
reflects
that
philosophy
because
these
aren’t
people
pitching
moonshots,
but
people
dealing
with
the
day-to-day
successes
and
frustrations.
“[T]he
implementation
and
impact
of
AI
in
the
industries
we
support
function
as
a
great
equalizer,”
said
Deric
Yoakley
of
Walmart.
“We
are
all
learning
about
it
at
the
same
time.”
The
honorees
will
be
celebrated
at
a
recognition
dinner
on
March
9,
featuring
Chris
Wiggins,
a
Columbia
applied
math
professor
who
doubles
as
Chief
Data
Scientist
at
the
New
York
Times.
Those
attending
Legalweek
can
find
Relativity
at
RelHQ
at
Convene
30
Hudson
Yards
or
at
booth
#501
in
the
North
Javits
Center
—
the
conference’s
new
home
this
year.
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.