Category: News Feeds

*
Anthropic
rejects
Defense
Department
ultimatum
to
rewrite
their
contract
and
remove
guardrails
or
face
potentially
devastating
retaliation.
[Axios]

*
Bill
Clinton
due
to
testify
about
Epstein
after
Hillary’s
deposition
devolved
into
Pizzagate
and
UFOs.
[Reuters]

*
NYPD
perp
walked
suspect
from
Washington
Square
snowball
fight.
DA’s
office
rejects
assault
charge
because
the
cops
were
being
actual
snowflakes.
[NY
Times]

*
DOJ
supoosedly
investigating
why
it
just
happened
to
withhold
multiple
FBI
interview
statements
where
a
witness
talked
about
Donald
Trump
raping
a
child.
[Washington
Post]

*
Homeland
Security
prison
camp
stealing
crayons
from
children.
[Pro
Publica]

*
Kobre
&
Kim
lawyer
carried
on
business
relationship
with
Epstein
having,
“intentionally
waited
being
introduced
to
you…
until
your
sentence
was
fully
served
to
avoid
even
the
appearance
of
impropriety.”
Not
sure
how
successful
that
proved,
but
all
right.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Netflix
drops
out
of
Warner
Bros.
deal
virtually
guaranteeing
Paramount
will
acquire
the
company
and
manage
to
merge
the
two
worst
studios
into
a
giant
ball
of
dreck.
[Law360]

William
Christopher
Swett
Gets
Charged
With
A
Lot
Of
Fraud:
No
relation,
of
course.
Maurene
Comey
Makes
Partner:
The
administration’s
brain
drain
lets
Biglaw
snag
major
talent!
Tom
Goldstein
Convicted
On
12
Of
16
Counts:
Can’t
win
’em
all.
Abrego
Garcia
Still
Getting
Harassed
By
The
DOJ:
His
legal
team
want
the
charges
dismissed
for
being
vindictive.
There’s
No
Privilege
Protecting
AI
Searches:
But
should
there
be?
Carolyn
Elefant
argues
in
favor.

The
Warren
Commission
brought
together
a
number
of
prominent
lawyers–
from
Chief
Justice
Earl
Warren
to
Covington
alum
Senator
John
Sherman
Cooper
—
to
investigate
the
Kennedy
assassination,
but
who
would
be
the
only
one
enshrined
in
the
name
of
a
current
elite
Biglaw
firm?

Hint:
One
member,
Representative
Hale
Boggs,
does
not
have
a
Biglaw
firm
named
after
him
—
it
was
his
son
who
became
the
name
behind
Squire
Patton
Boggs.

See the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Confidence
is
misunderstood
in
our
profession.
Young
lawyers
often
think
confidence
is
volume.
It
is
the
booming
voice
at
a
hearing,
the
perfectly
timed
objection,
the
sharp cross-examination that
leaves
opposing
counsel
blinking.
It
is
the
partner
who
never
seems
rattled or unsure.
That
is
theater.
Real
confidence
is
much
quieter and built
long
before
anyone
is
watching.

​I
remember
my
first
assignment
as
a
lawyer.
I
had
just
passed
the
bar
and
had
been
sworn
in
by
a
notary
at
the
firm.
A
file
was
handed
to
me
with
a Post-it note
that
said, “Congratulations
on
being
our
newest
lawyer.
Please
cover
this
hearing.
Here
is
a
quarter
for
the
meter.
It
starts
in
an
hour.
Good
luck.” There was no
training
session
and
no warm-up.
That
was
not
confidence.
That
was
fear.
But
confidence
does
not
come
before
the
experience.
It
comes
after
surviving
it.

​Confidence is
competence repeated.
The
first
time
you
argue
a
motion, your
voice
may
crack.
The
first
time
you
take
a
deposition, you
may
cling
to
your
outline
like
it
is
a
life
raft.
The
first
time
you
try
a
case, you
may
not
sleep
for
days.
That
discomfort
is
tuition.
Confidence
is
not
a
personality
trait.
It is
competence repeated often
enough
that
your
mind
stops
treating
every
appearance
as a
threat.
When
you
have
handled
five
hearings,
the
sixth
feels
different.
When
you
have
taken
20
depositions,
the
next
one
feels
like
work
instead
of
a
performance.
When
you
have
tried
a
handful
of
cases,
the
courtroom
stops
feeling
foreign.

​Young
lawyers
need
their
version
of
open
mic
night.
When
my
sons
were
in
high
school,
we
took
them
to
small
venues
where
they
could
play
music
in
front
of
small,
forgiving
crowds.
They
could
struggle
and
improve
without
permanent
consequences.
Lawyers
need
the
same
runway.
Argue
the
smaller
motion.
Take
the
straightforward
deposition.
Speak
at
the
local
bar
lunch
—
volunteer to
handle
the
short
calendar
call.
Confidence
is
built
in
smaller
rooms
before
it
ever
shows
up
in
the
bigger
ones.

​Confidence
is
also
preparation.
I
knew
a
seasoned
trial
lawyer
who
described
himself
as
a
mercenary
dropped
into
the
jungle.
It
was
not
personal.
It
was
tactical.
Fulfill
the
mission
and
leave.
He
was
not
loud, and
he
did
not
pound
the
table.
He
prepared.
He
knew
his
file cold.
He
knew
the
weaknesses
in
his
case
before
anyone
else
did.
He
knew
the
judge
and
the
venue.
He
was
rarely
surprised
because
he
had
thought
through
the
angles
in
advance.
That
is
confidence.
Arrogance
is
insecurity
dressed
up
in
a
suit.
Confidence
is
calm
because
the
work
has
been
done.
When
you
have
studied
the
documents,
anticipated
the
questions,
and
mapped
out
your
themes,
you
do
not
need
to
perform a
confidence
check.
You
execute.

​Confidence
also
comes
from
ownership.
One
of
my
first
bosses
told
me
that
my
cases
were
mine.
They
were
not
my assistant’s and
not
my paralegal’s.
I
could
delegate
tasks,
but
the
responsibility
was
mine.
That
mindset
changes
how
you
show
up.
When
you
know
every
deadline,
when
you
have
read
every
key
document,
when
you
have
spoken
to
the
client
and
understand
the
stakes,
you
stand
differently
in
court.
Ownership
forces
growth,
and
growth
breeds
confidence.
If
you
treat
your
cases
as
someone
else’s
problem,
you
will
always
feel
slightly
unsteady.
If
you
treat
them
as
your
professional
responsibility,
your
footing
becomes
firmer.

​You
will
doubt
yourself.
You
will
walk
out
of the hearings
replaying
every
sentence.
You
will
read
an
opposing
motion
and
wonder
if
you
are
outmatched.
You
will
compare
yourself
to
lawyers
with
decades
more
experience
and
feel
behind.
That
feeling
does
not
mean
you
are
not
capable.
It
means
you
care.
You
graduated from college.
You
graduated from law
school.
You
passed
the
bar.
You
show
up
every
day
and
put
in
the
work.
Those
are
facts.
Confidence
is
remembering
your
receipts
when
doubt
tries
to
erase
them.

​Growing
up
in inner-city Chicago,
nothing
was
handed
to
us.
My
parents
were
working
class, and
the
message
was
simple.
Work
hard.
Be
disciplined.
Do
your
best
every
single
day.
There
was
no
talk
of
quick
success.
There
was
no
shortcut.
There
was an effort
over
time.
That
lesson
translates
directly
to
law
practice.
Confidence
is
not
a
lightning
strike.
It
is
a
byproduct
of
sustained
effort.

​Confidence
is
not
the
absence
of
fear.
I
have
tried
cases
where
I
felt
nervous
walking
into
the
courtroom.
I
have
given
presentations
where
I
would
have
welcomed
a
technical
failure
to buy
time.
I
have
handled
matters
with
enormous
stakes
and
felt
the
weight
of
responsibility.
The
nerves
do
not
disappear, and
they
should
not.
A
little
fear
sharpens
you.
It
keeps
you
from
being
careless.
The
goal
is
not
to
eliminate
fear.
The
goal
is
to
function
despite
it.

​Emotional
control
is
another
form
of
confidence.
Early
in
my
career, I
encountered
lawyers
who
tried
to
provoke
reactions.
They
would
raise
their
voices,
make
personal
comments,
or
attempt
to
bait
you
into
overreacting.
The
temptation
is
to
respond
in
kind.
That
is
not a strength.
Real
confidence
is
lowering
the
temperature.
It
is
picking
up
the
phone rather
than
sending
an angry
email.
It
is
giving
the
other
side
a
way
to
resolve
a
dispute
without
humiliation.
Judges
and
clients
notice
composure.
Stability
builds
credibility, and
credibility
builds
confidence.

​Confidence
accumulates
over
time
—
every deposition
taken.
Every
client
call is handled
well
—
every mistake is owned
and
corrected.
Every
tough
conversation is navigated
without
losing
your
balance.
You
stack
those
experiences
like
bricks.
There
will
be
losses.
There
will
be
rulings
that
do
not
go
your
way.
There
will
be
moments
you
wish
you
could
redo.
The
key
is to
extract
the
lesson
and
move forward.

​One
day, you
will
look
up
and
realize
you
are
the calm
one
in
the
room.
A
younger
lawyer
will
be
watching
you
the
way
you
once
watched
others.
You
will
understand
that
confidence
was
never
something
you
found.
It
was
something
you
built
quietly
through
preparation,
repetition,
discipline,
and
resilience.
If
you
are
a
young
lawyer
waiting
to
feel
ready,
you
may
be
waiting
a
long
time.
Step
forward
anyway.
Volunteer
anyway.
Speak
anyway.
The
confidence
will
follow
the
effort.

---

Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.

Given
the
recent
gyrations
in
the
markets,
it’s
no
wonder
that
people
are
jittery
about
the
effects
(past,
present,
and
future)
of
AI
in
our
profession.
True,
we
are
not
the
only
profession
that
is
nervous
about
AI’s
potential
to
completely
reset
our
landscape.
Jobs
once
stable
and
secure
may
not
be
any
more.
It’s
no
fun
looking
at
something
that
doesn’t
blink
back. 

Panicking
about
our
demise
is
premature.
Lawyers
are
not
just
lawyers;
we
are
counselors
too.
How
often
have
we
sat
with
a
client
who
is
anxious,
fearful,
uncertain
as
to
how
to
proceed?
Sometimes
clients
need
to
vent,
to
feel
that
someone
is
truly
listening
to
them,
an
art
in
itself
that
many
lawyers
do
not
have.
Often,
it’s
not
legal
advice
that
is
needed
(sorry
billable
hours)
but
more
for
the
client
to
be
heard.
That’s
a
skill
that
we
don’t
do
often
enough:
to
listen
and
not
talk,
to
not
interrupt,
to
tell
the
client
and
show
that
nothing
is
more
important
than
the
here
and
now,
or
should
I
say
the
“the
hear
and
now.”

We’ve
all
chatted
about
emotional
intelligence
for
decades,
that
EQ
is
a
necessary component
of
lawyering,
but
it
seems
that
it’s
even
more
important
now
and
going
forward
for
lawyers
to
have
emotional
intelligence.
That
is
one
thing
that
large
language
models
and
other
forms
of
AI
just
don’t
have.
How
do
you
schmooze
with
a
robot?
Go
out
for
coffee?
Go
out
for
lunch?
Entertain
clients?
The
only
advantage
is
that
the
robot
doesn’t
have
to
run
home
to
take
care
of
the
family
or
any
personal
matters;
it
doesn’t
have
to
be
human.
The
robot
can
and
does
work
24/7.
Dreary,
but
the
robot
doesn’t
know
that,
at
least
not
yet.

One
tech
company
that
is
trying
to
install
a
moral
code
in
AI
is
Anthropic,
which
has
a

resident
philosopher
whose
job
is
to
teach
Claude
about
morality.
(And
I
am
not
making
this up.)
We
can
debate
the
morals
of
lawyers
but
that’s
for
another
time.
We
do
have
rules
of
professional
conduct.
I
wonder
if
AI
ever
will.
 

What
does
a
resident
philosopher
at
a
tech
company
do?
Amanda
Askell’s
job
is
to
interact
with
Claude
in
an
effort
to
learn
its
reasoning
patterns
and
build
its
personality.
What?
An
AI
model
with 
personality?
Is
that
a
good
thing?
It’s
Askell’s
belief
that
eventually
the
models
will
create
“senses
of
self.”
She
is
teaching
Claude
to
learn
right
from
wrong.
Humans
are
taught
right
from
wrong,
at
least
they
should
have
been,
but
sometimes
that
learning
goes
awry.
That
morality
instruction
can’t
come
too
soon,
as
there
have
been

deaths
in
which
it
is
claimed
that
chatbots
have
somehow
and
in
some
manner
have
been
responsible. 

However,
before
delving
into
whether
LLMs
should
have
a
soul
or
at
least
a
moral
compass,
we
still
need
to
stop
the
hallucinations
that
seem
to
hover
over
the
shoulders
of
some
firms.
Hallucinations
are
the
epitome
of
laziness.
And

they
seem
to
be
without
end.

Right
now,
it’s
not
AI
that
needs
a
soul,
although
perhaps
that
would
be
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
But
first,
lawyers
need
to
have
a
soul
or,
at
least
a
conscience,
so
that
when
they
sign
a
pleading,
they
understand
the
consequences.
Ever
wondered
how
you
benchslap
AI?

Meanwhile,
a
report
by

Citrini
Research
is
sobering,
even
frightening,
saying
that
there
may
be
a
“race
to
the
bottom”
for
white-collar
workers,
(i.e.,
us).
The
report
wonders
whether
future
predictions
for
AI
are
not
bullish,
but
bearish. It
used
to
be
that
human
intelligence
was
a
scarce
commodity.
Not
any
more.
Not
with
AI
being
able
to
perform
many
tasks
that
we
used
to
think
only
humans
could
do.
“While
machine
intelligence
will
continue
to
accelerate,
the
premium
on
human
intelligence
will
narrow.”
Swell.

However,
a
New
York
Times
article
says
“not
so
fast.”
It
points
out
that
while
some
fret
about
displacement,
others
think
that
AI
will
be
just
a
tool,
and
not
the
kiss
of
death
for
white
collar
workers.
So,
for
some,
reports
of
AI
taking
over
the
world
may
be
greatly
exaggerated,
at
least
right
now.

Lastly,
remember
the

Magic
8
Ball?
It
answered
questions
in
the
affirmative,
the
neutral
noncommittal,
and
the
flat-out
negative.
Will
AI
replace
lawyers?
The
Magic
8
Ball
is
not
ready
to
answer
that
question
yet.

---

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].

Judge
James
Dennis
was
a
member
of
the
original
panel,
concurring
in
part
and
dissenting
in
part
from
the
panel
opinion.
See
Woodlands
Pride,
Inc.
v.
Paxton,
157
F.4th
775,
789–803
(5th
Cir.
2025)
(Dennis,
J.,
concurring
in
part
and
dissenting
in
part).
Judge
Dennis
took
inactive
status
from
the
Court
on
February
23,
2026,
and
therefore
did
not
participate
in
this
decision
to
withdraw
and
substitute
the
panel
opinion.
This
case
is
decided
by
a
quorum
under
28
U.S.C.
§
46(d).

—
Judge
Kurt
D.
Engelhardt,
joined
by
Judge
Leslie
Southwick,
writing
for
a…
unanimous?…
2-0
panel
of
the
Fifth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.

This
opinion
was
issued
in
November,
with
the
judges
ruling
that
Texas
could
enforce
its
ban
on
drag
performances
while
litigation
continued.
But
it
included
a
partial
dissent
from
Judge
James
Dennis
that
called
out
the
majority’s
sloppy
reasoning,
misapprehending
applicable
law
and
disregarding
“unrebutted
testimony
and
record
evidence.”
So,
with
Judge
Dennis
taking
inactive
status
—
the
following
February
—
they
just
purged
his
opinion.
Gabriel
Malor

caught
the
new
edit,
noting
that
the
result
was
unchanged
and
“the
only
things
they
added
were
a
footnote
on
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
claims
and
a
paragraph
expanding
on
facial
challenges.”

CoCounsel,
which
launched

almost
exactly
three
years
ago,
on
March
1,
2023,
as
the
first
AI
legal
assistant
built
on
GPT-4,
today
marked
a
notable
milestone,
reaching
1
million
customers
across
107
countries
and
territories.

Developed
by
legal
research
startup
Casetext,

Thomson
Reuters
acquired
CoCounsel
(and
Casetext)
just
four
months
after
its
release,
for
a
whopping
$650
million
in
cash.
Since
then,
TR
has
expanded
CoCounsel
across
its
product
lines
and
across
professional
verticals,
from
legal
to
risk,
compliance,
tax,
accounting,
audit
and
trade.

Thomson
Reuters
(TSX/Nasdaq:
TRI)
announced
the
milestone
at
an
event
in
San
Francisco
Monday,
framing
it
not
just
as
a
measure
of
growth
but
as
a
signal
of
a
broader
shift
in
how
regulated
industries
are
approaching
artificial
intelligence
—
from
cautious
pilots
and
experiments
to
embedded
production
systems.

“Professionals
are
not
deciding
whether
to
use
AI
anymore,”
said
Steve
Hasker,
TR’s
president
and
chief
executive
officer.
“They
are
deciding
which
AI
they
trust
when
their
reputation
and
their
clients’
data
are
on
the
line.”

The
milestone
comes
as
AI
adoption
among
legal
and
other
regulated
professionals
has
moved
decisively
past
the
experimentation
phase,
TR
says.
Firms
and
corporations
are
no
longer
asking
whether
AI
belongs
in
high-stakes
workflows
—
they
are
choosing
which
systems
can
actually
meet
the
standards
those
workflows
demand.

AI
for
Regulated
Work

While
CoCounsel
started
as
a
standalone
chat
interface,
TRThe
company
has
emphasized
that
general-purpose
AI,
however
capable,
falls
short
in
professional
environments
where
outputs
must
withstand
courtroom
scrutiny,
regulatory
review
or
audit
proceedings.
CoCounsel
is
designed
specifically
for
those
contexts,
TR
says,
grounding
its
outputs
in
editorially
refined
legal
and
tax
content
developed
over
175
years
and
validated
by
more
than
4,500
TR
subject-matter
experts
across
legal,
tax
and
compliance
domains.

While
CoCounsel
started
as
a
standalone
chat
interface,
TR
has
integrated
it
across
its
major
product
lines,
including
Westlaw
and
Practical
Law
on
the
legal
side
and
Checkpoint
on
the
tax
side,
as
well
as
Microsoft
365.
It
draws
on
a
multi-model
AI
architecture
—
working
with
frontier
models
from
Anthropic,
OpenAI
and
Google,
alongside
TR’s
own
proprietary
AI
technology
—
and
produces
structured,
citation-backed
outputs
rather
than
freestanding
text
generation.

On
data
privacy,
TR
has
stressed
that
customer
inputs
are
never
used
to
train
third-party
models
or
generate
outputs
for
other
users.

“One
million
professionals
have
chosen
CoCounsel,”
David
Wong,
TR’s
chief
product
officer,
wrote
in
a
related
blog
post.
“Not
for
pilots.
Not
for
experiments.
As
core
infrastructure
for
how
they
work.”

The
Road
to
a
Million

CoCounsel’s
path
from
launch
to
a
million
users
involved
considerable
iteration.
In
a
separate
blog
post,
Joel
Hron,
chief
technology
officer
at
TR,
described
the
early
months
after
Thomson
Reuters
introduced
AI
Assisted
Research
—
the
first
generative
AI
feature
in
Westlaw
—
as
challenging
and
formative.

“What
felt
strong
in
our
research
loops
needed
refinement
when
put
to
the
test
with
real
human
feedback,”
Hron
wrote.
Over
time,
he
acknowledged,
an
intense
focus
on
accuracy
created
its
own
trade-off,
in
that
the
system
became
highly
reliable
but
less
fluid.
“We
optimized
for
never
being
wrong.
Our
users
wanted
us
to
also
optimize
for
being
genuinely
helpful.”

That
tension,
Hron
wrote,
drove
CoCounsel’s
evolution
into
something
more
ambitious
—
including
the
development
of
Westlaw
Deep
Research,
which
the
company
describes
as
the
most
advanced
AI-powered
legal
research
system
available,
capable
of
analyzing
thousands
of
documents,
synthesizing
findings
across
jurisdictions,
and
delivering
court-ready
analysis
with
citations
and
reasoning.

What
Comes
Next

TR
used
the
million-user
announcement
to
tease
what
it
said
will
be
the
next
generation
of
CoCounsel
Legal,
which
is
entering
beta
soon.

The
new
version
is
designed
around
conversational
task
execution
—
allowing
a
lawyer
or
legal
professional
to
describe
an
objective
much
as
they
would
brief
a
colleague,
and
then
have
CoCounsel
build
a
plan,
retrieve
authoritative
sources
from
Westlaw
and
Practical
Law,
search
relevant
documents
and
precedent,
verify
citations,
and
deliver
structured
work
product
within
a
single
system.

Additional
next-generation
capabilities
within
CoCounsel
Tax
and
ONESOURCE+
are
planned
for
later
in
2026.

The
company
has
also
disclosed
it
is
developing
a
proprietary
large
language
model
designed
specifically
for
legal,
tax
and
compliance
use
cases
—
a
move
that
would
reduce
dependence
on
external
model
providers
for
its
most
sensitive
professional
applications.

Hron,
in
his
blog
post,
acknowledged
the
ambition
of
what
lies
ahead
while
expressing
confidence
in
the
team
that
got
CoCounsel
to
this
point.
“One
million
users
proves
we
are
trusted.
What
we’ll
prove
when
we
10x
that
number
this
year
is
that
we’ve
built
the
AI
professionals
genuinely
can’t
live
without.”

Thomson
Reuters
invested
more
than
$200
million
annually
in
productized
AI,
the
company
has
said,
and
has
indicated
it
has
approximately
$11
billion
in
capital
capacity
through
2028
for
continued
investment
and
acquisitions.

The
DOJ
has
been
using
the
“throw
spaghetti
until
something
sticks”
method
against
Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
for
ages
now.
With
too
much
egg
on
their
face
to
just
leave
him
alone
after
it
came
to
light
that
he
was
wrongly
deported
to
an
El
Salvadoran
slave
camp
and

forced
back
here
by
SCOTUS,
the
administration
is
desperate
for
anything
it
can
find
to
charge
him
with
something.
They’ve
recently
landed
on
human
smuggling
charges,
but
his
legal
team
is
trying
to
get
the
charges
thrown
out
as
harassment.

NBC
News
has
coverage:

[Abrego
Garcia]
was
eventually
returned
to
the
U.S.
only
to
face
criminal
charges
of
human
smuggling
based
on
a
2022
traffic
stop
in
Tennessee.
He
has
pleaded
not
guilty.

Body
camera
footage
from
a
Tennessee
Highway
Patrol
officer
shows
a
calm
exchange
with
Abrego
after
he
was
pulled
over
for
speeding.
There
were
nine
passengers
in
the
car,
and
the
officers
discussed
among
themselves
their
suspicions
of
smuggling.
However,
Abrego
was
eventually
allowed
to
continue
driving
with
only
a
warning.
…
U.S.
District
Judge
Waverly
Crenshaw
previously
found
some
evidence
that
the
prosecution
against
Abrego
“may
be
vindictive.”
The
judge
said
many
statements
by
Trump
administration
officials
“raise
cause
for
concern.”
He
cited
a
statement
by
Deputy
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche
that
seemed
to
suggest
the
Department
of
Justice
charged
Abrego
because
he
won
his
wrongful-deportation
case.

Rob
McGuire,
First
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
Middle
District
of
Tennessee,

admits
that
the
timing
of
the
charge
is
strange,
but
holds
that
he
wasn’t
aware
of
the
police
footage
back
in
2022.
McGuire
pointed
to
the
number
of
people
Garcia
was
driving,
that
they
didn’t
have
bags,
and
the
owner
of
the
car
as
reasons
for
suspicion
—
but
those
aren’t
enough
to
calm
everyone
else’s
suspicions
that
this
has
more
to
do
with
politics
than
justice.
If
this
wasn’t
about
vengeance,
he’d
have
been
in
Costa
Rica
months
ago:

Hard
to
think
of
a
story
more
pundits
misunderstand.

Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
*agreed
to
be
deported*—months
ago—to
Costa
Rica,
which
accepted.
The
admin
refuses
&
is
insisting
on
sending
him
to
various
African
countries,
which
declined.

He’s
still
here
because
of
the
government.

https://t.co/Zo5KgoK99f

—
Billy
Binion
(@billybinion)

February
17,
2026

Kilmar
Abrego
Garcia
Asks
U.S.
Judge
In
Tennessee
To
Dismiss
His
Criminal
Case,
Saying
It’s
Vindictive
[NBC
News]

Earlier:

Trump
Administration
Learns
To
Its
Dismay
It
‘Cannot
Alter
Substantive
Rights’

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

For
all
of
the
administration’s
big
talk
of
meritocracy
coming
back
to
put
the
people
who
actually
deserve
the
jobs
in
power,
there’s
been
a
lot
of
incompetency
at
the
helm.
Planes
falling
out
the
sky,
repeated
failures
to
indict
pedophiles
—

let
alone
a
sandwich
—
the
list
goes
on.
An
explanatory
thread
that
runs
through
the
Kakistocracy
is
absolute
fealty
to
Trump.
And,
given
his
self-declared
love
for
the
“poorly
educated,”
he
has
done
a
great
job
of
empowering
people
that
are
quicker
to
chant
“USA!
USA!”
than
to
ask
if

they’re
being
told
to
act
in
ways
that
are
un-American.
That
comes
at
a
great
cost,
namely
the
brain
drain
that
comes
from
nixing
competent
people
that
put
concepts
like
“justice”
or
“the
Constitution”
above
Trump’s
orange,
bloated
ego.
Maurene
Comey
was
one
of
the
competent
prosecutors
hit,
but
she’s
already
pivoted
successfully.

Reuters
has
coverage:

Maurene
Comey,
who
brought
criminal
cases
against
Jeffrey
Epstein
associate
Ghislaine
Maxwell
and
music
mogul
Sean
“Diddy”
Combs
before
she
was
fired
as
a
Manhattan
federal
prosecutor
last
year,
has
moved
into
private
practice
at
Patterson
Belknap
Webb
&
Tyler,
the
law
firm
said
on
Wednesday.

Comey
was
among
several
federal
prosecutors
fired
by
the
U.S.
Justice
Department
since
President
Donald
Trump
returned
to
office
last
year.
In
September,
she
sued
the
DOJ
and
the
Executive
Office
of
the
President,
alleging
she
was
not
provided
any
cause
for
her
removal.
…
Comey
will
be
a
partner
at
New
York-based,
200-lawyer
Patterson
Belknap.
She
noted
on
Wednesday
that
the
law
firm
was
among
those
that
signed
onto
briefs
denouncing
U.S.
President
Donald
Trump’s
targeting
of
law
firms
through
punishing
executive
orders
last
year.

There’s
a
reasonable
suspicion
that
she
was
singled
out
because
she
is
the
daughter
of
James
Comey,
a
man
whose

sea-shell-on-sand
art
project
was
taken
so
seriously
that
Kash
Patel
launched
an
FBI
investigation
over
it.
Or
maybe
it
had
something
to
do
with
her
successful
prosecution
of
very
big
names
involved
in
sex
crimes.
Just
shooting
in
the
dark
here
because,
again,

she
wasn’t
given
any
cause
for
her
removal.

This
is
a
high
profile
example
of
the
brain
drain,
but
trust
that
this
won’t
be
the
last
time
it
happens.
Not
too
long
ago
the
Pentagon
flagged

most
of
the
T14
and
other
top
ranked
institutions
(go
WashU!)
as
ineligible
for
DoD
tuition
assistance
programs
because
the
schools
were
deemed
‘too
woke.”
As
much
as
I’d
like
to
think
no
angels
will
have
to
cry
over
a
law
student
getting
into
Yale
only
to
be
forced
out
because
the
money
evaporated,
these
funding
cuts
will
keep
minds
from
flourishing
to
the
degree
they
would
if
they
could
afford
getting
in
to
NYU,
Harvard,
or
Princeton’s
non-existent
law
school.
Check
the
list
—
they
actually
banned
Princeton
and
Brown’s
non-existent
law
schools
from
eligibility.
That’s
what
happens
when
you
have
the
“poorly
educated”
determining
America’s
future.

Congrats
to
Comey
on
her
new
role
at
Patterson
Belknap!

Fired
US
Prosecutor
Maurene
Comey
Joins
New
York
Law
Firm 
[Reuters]

Earlier:

Maureen
Comey
Tries
To
86
47’s
Firing
Her

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

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

I’m
a
practicing
attorney,
and
I
want
my
clients
to
use
AI.

That
might
sound
counterintuitive
coming
from
someone
who
earns
her
keep
selling
legal
advice.
Plus,
many
attorneys
express
frustration
when
clients
show
up
with
contracts
full
of
unlawful
provisions
drafted
by
ChatGPT
or
implausible
case
strategies
concocted
by
Gemini 
and
then
have
to
spend
time
explaining
why
those
won’t
work.

But
after
more
than
three
decades
of
small
law
practice
where
I
frequently
harness
my
clients’
sweat
equity
to
fight
Big
Energy,
I
see
things
differently. 
My
clients
who
use
AI
to
research
their
legal
situation
are
better
clients.
They
arrive
well-organized.
They
understand
the
documents
I’ve
sent
so
we
don’t
waste
precious
billable
hours
on
the
basics. 
They’re
fully
engaged
in
the
case
without
monopolizing
my
time. 
For
clients
on
a
budget
especially,
AI
can
be
transformational.

A
recent
federal
court
opinion
threatens
to
change
all
of
that. 

In
a

memorandum
opinion
dated
February
17,
2026,
Judge
Jed
Rakoff
of
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
ruled
in

United
States
v.
Heppner
that
documents
a
defendant
generated
using
Claude
were
not
protected
by
attorney-client
privilege
or
the
work-product
doctrine.
The
defendant,
Bradley
Heppner,
charged
with
securities
fraud,
had
used
Claude
to
research
his
case
and
generate
detailed
legal
analyses.
When
the
FBI
seized
his
devices,
prosecutors
claimed
those
documents
were
fair
game.

The
court
agreed,
finding
that
(1)
Claude
is
not
an
attorney,
(2)
that
the
communications
were
not
confidential
given
Anthropic’s
privacy
policy
allowing
disclosure
to
third
parties,
and
(3)
that
even
assuming
the
documents
were
prepared
in
anticipation
of
litigation,
they
were
not
protected
by
work-product
privilege
because
they
were
not
prepared
by
or
at
the
behest
of
counsel.

The
ruling
may
be
defensible
under
existing
doctrine. 
But
it
is
a
disaster
for
the
21st-century
justice
system.

To
understand
why,
consider
the
crisis
the
American
legal
system
already
faces.
According
to
the
Legal
Services
Corporation,

roughly
92
percent
of
low-income
Americans
receive
inadequate
or
no
legal
help
for
civil
legal
problems.
In
most
civil
cases
like
evictions,
debt
collections,
and
custody
disputes,
at
least
one
party
is
unrepresented.
For
these
people,
AI
is
a
lifeline
that

Heppner
turns
into
a
liability.

The
court
treated
Heppner’s
AI
conversations
as
no
different
than
a
Google
search,
which
we
all
know
from
Court
TV
is
not
protected
(think
of
all
the
convictions
that
have
flowed
from
queries
like
“how
do
I
clean
blood
stains
from
my
carpet?”). 
But
that
equivalence
isn’t
quite
right. 
When
you
Google
“elements
of
securities
fraud,”
you
generate
links
to
public
web
pages
and
factual
materials.
No
new
information
is
created.
AI
is
an
entirely
different
animal. 
To
get
anything
useful
from
an
AI
model,
users
must
feed
it
specifics
like
a
timeline
and
perceived
vulnerabilities.
What
comes
back
is
a
custom
analysis
reflecting
a
user’s
mental
impressions
and
developing
legal
strategy. 
Produced
in
discovery,
it
hands
your
adversary
your
strategic
calculations
and
your
assessment
of
where
a
case
is
weakest.

By
declaring
AI
research
discoverable,
Judge
Rakoff
allowed
the
government
to
rely
on
“wits
borrowed
from
its
adversary.”
This
is
exactly
what
the
Supreme
Court
sought
to
prevent
in
the
foundational
1947
case

Hickman
v.
Taylor,
which
established
the
work
product
doctrine.
The

Hickman
court
recognized
that
for
the
adversary
system
to
work,
a
party
must
have
a
“zone
of
privacy”
to
prepare
their
case.
Without
that
privacy,
the
court
warned,
“much
of
what
is
now
put
down
in
writing
would
remain
unwritten,”
and
“the
cause
of
justice
would
be
poorly
served.”

The

Heppner
decision
also
rests
on
a
legal
fiction
about
user
expectations. 
The
court
found
Heppner
had
no
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy
because
the
terms
of
service
for
Claude
stated
that
data
may
be
disclosed. 
But
the
design
of
AI
tools
suggests
otherwise.
The
conversational
interface,
the
personalized
one-on-one
format,
and
the
way
the
AI
chatbots
invite
users
to
share
their
situation
cultivates
the
sense
of
a
confidential
consultation.
The

Heppner
ruling
expects
ordinary
people,
often
at
their
darkest
hour,
to
parse
complex
terms
of
service
that
most
lawyers
skip,
while
the
product
itself
beckons
with
a
siren’s
song
to
“tell
me
everything.”

And
the
more
these
tools
absorb
your
facts
to
sharpen
their
analysis,
the
more
damaging
the
trail
they
leave
behind. 
To
follow
the
Heppner
logic
to
its
conclusion
rewards
ignorance
and
disempowerment.
Do
no
research,
and
you
have
no
trail. 
Try
to
be
a
diligent,
informed
participant
in
your
own
legal
matter,
and
you
hand
your
opponent
a
gift.

What
is
most
aggravating
about
the
Rakoff
ruling
is
how
tone-deaf
it
is
to
the
high
cost
of
legal
services
and
to
AI’s
potential
to
reduce
those
costs. 
Heppner’s

Quinn
Emanuel
lawyers

bill
upwards
of
$3000/hr,
so
why
wouldn’t
Heppner
try
using
AI
to
save
a
few
bucks?
The
opinion
also
acknowledges
AI’s
novelty
–
but
instead
of
crafting
an
approach
to
encourage
use
of
AI
to
level
the
playing
field,
it
defaults
to
relying
on
an

article
penned
by
Ira
Robbins,
an
ivory
tower
academic
who
arrives
at
the
mean
and
utterly
unimaginative
conclusion
that
privilege
for
AI
communications
is
“neither
doctrinally
justified
nor
normatively
sound.”

Privilege
isn’t
some
type
of
inherent
protection. 
Some
privileges
like
attorney-client
privilege
are
created
by
legislatures
while
others
like
work
product
doctrine
have
been
crafted
by
courts
or
even
ethics
regulators.
For
example,

ABA
Opinion
477
says
that
unencrypted
email
carries
with
it
a
sufficient
expectation
of
privacy
to
confer
confidentiality
–
even
though
we
all
know
that’s
a
fiction.
So
why
can’t
we
just
say
that
an
expectation
of
privacy
applies
to
generative
AI
and
speak
a
privilege
into
existence?

Under
Rakoff’s
opinion,
work-product
protection
arguably
survives
if
a
client
undertakes
AI
research
at
the
direction
of
an
attorney.
But
that
only
makes
life
more
complicated,
requiring
lawyers
like
me
to
micromanage
our
clients’
work
and
remind
them
like
a
nagging
parent
to
include
the
magic
words
“prepared
under
lawyer’s
direction”
every
time
they
enter
an
AI
chatbox.
And
that
narrow
exception
doesn’t
protect
pro
se
litigants
or
clients
who
want
to
do
their
homework
before
ever
stepping
foot
into
an
attorney’s
office.

Judge
Rakoff’s
ruling
mechanically
applied
old
rules
to
a
new
world. 
Today,
millions
of
Americans
are
turning
to
interactive
AI
to
survive
a
legal
system
that
has
become
too
expensive
and
too
complex
for
ordinary
people
to
navigate.
As
a
lawyer,
I
want
my
clients
and
my
potential
clients
to
keep
using
AI
tools.
The
law
should
encourage
them
to
do
so,
not
punish
them
for
it.

---

Carolyn
Elefant
is
one
of
the
country’s
most
recognized
advocates
for
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers.
She
founded
MyShingle.com
in
2002,
the
longest-running
blog
for
solo
practitioners,
where
she
has
published
thousands
of
articles,
resources,
and
guides
on
starting,
running,
and
growing
independent
law
practices.
She
is
the
author
of
Solo
by
Choice,
widely
regarded
as
the
definitive
handbook
for
launching
and
sustaining
a
law
practice,
and
has
spoken
at
countless
bar
events
and
legal
conferences
on
technology,
innovation,
and
regulatory
reform
that
impacts
solos
and
smalls.
Elefant
also
develops
practical
tools
like
the AI
Teach-In to
help
small
firms
adopt
AI
and
she
consistently
champions
reforms
to
level
the
playing
field
for
independent
lawyers.
Alongside
this
work,
she
runs
the
Law
Offices
of
Carolyn
Elefant,
a
national
energy
and
regulatory
practice
that
handles
selective
complex,
high-stakes
matters.