Podcasts about big law

Patti Burris had two kids and an associate's degree when she started her path towards law school. Yet she made her way to the top of her class by building systems to succeed even when there wasn't a safety net. And she's reframing her biglaw path from a necessary drudge to an opportunity to build a rewarding life. Patti's law school story begins with walking into the wrong job interview, which led to a life-changing mentorship. She shares the principles she used to call her shot in law school and end up at the top of the class through relationships with peers and professors, systems for learning, and cycles of sprints and rest.  Now, as a driven biglaw funds lawyers, Patti shares the formula she uses to ensure she's investing in herself every week. Patti also shares how she stacks goals (social, academic, professional) for exponential returns.This episode is special because it's both incredibly inspirational and full of practical techniques to achieve more with limited time. Patti has challenged me to make the most out of my time to ensure I'm living in line with my values and ambitions. 

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Yesterday, Southern California Edison (SCE), the utility whose power lines may have started the devastating Eaton Fire, announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Under the program, people affected by the fire can receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, in a matter of months rather than years—but in exchange, they must give up their right to sue.It should come as no surprise that SCE, in designing the program, sought the help of Kenneth Feinberg. For more than 40 years, often in the wake of tragedy or disaster, Feinberg has helped mediate and resolve seemingly intractable crises. He's most well-known for how he and his colleague Camille Biros designed and administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. But he has worked on many other headline-making matters over the years, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust, the multidistrict litigation involving Monsanto's Roundup weed killer—and now, of course, the Eaton Fire.How did Ken develop such a fascinating and unique practice? What is the most difficult aspect of administering these giant compensation funds? Do these funds represent the wave of the future, as an alternative to (increasingly expensive) litigation? Having just turned 80, does he have any plans to retire?Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ken—the day after his 80th birthday—and we covered all these topics. The result is what I found to be one of the most moving conversations I've ever had on this podcast.Thanks to Ken Feinberg for joining me—and, of course, for his many years of service as America's go-to mediator in times of crisis.Show Notes:* Kenneth Feinberg bio, Wikipedia* Kenneth Feinberg profile, Chambers and Partners* L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice, by Jill Cowan for The New York TimesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fourth episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, October 24.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.I like to think that I've produced some good podcast episodes over the past three-plus years, but I feel that this latest one is a standout. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interview that was more emotionally affecting to me than what you're about to hear.Kenneth Feinberg is a leading figure in the world of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is most well-known for having served as special master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—and for me, as someone who was in New York City on September 11, I found his discussion of that work profoundly moving. But he has handled many major matters over the years, such as the Agent Orange product liability litigation to the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. And he's working right now on a matter that's in the headlines: the California wildfires. Ken has been hired by Southern California Edison to help design a compensation program for victims of the 2025 Eaton fire. Ken has written about his fascinating work in two books: What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 and Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Ken Feinberg.Ken, thank you so much for joining me.Ken Feinberg: Thank you very much; it's an honor to be here.DL: We are recording this shortly after your 80th birthday, so happy birthday!KF: Thank you very much.DL: Let's go back to your birth; let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Massachusetts, I believe.KF: That's right: Brockton, Massachusetts, about 20 miles south of Boston.DL: Your parents weren't lawyers. Tell us about what they did.KF: My parents were blue-collar workers from Massachusetts, second-generation immigrants. My father ran a wholesale tire distributorship, my mother was a bookkeeper, and we grew up in the 1940s and ‘50s, even the early ‘60s, in a town where there was great optimism, a very vibrant Jewish community, three different synagogues, a very optimistic time in American history—post-World War II, pre-Vietnam, and a time when communitarianism, working together to advance the collective good, was a prominent characteristic of Brockton, and most of the country, during the time that I was in elementary school and high school in Brockton.DL: Did the time in which you grow up shape or influence your decision to go into law?KF: Yes. More than law—the time growing up had a great impact on my decision to give back to the community from which I came. You've got to remember, when I was a teenager, the president of the United States was John F. Kennedy, and I'll never forget because it had a tremendous impact on me—President Kennedy reminding everybody that public service is a noble undertaking, government is not a dirty word, and especially his famous quote (or one of his many quotes), “Every individual can make a difference.” I never forgot that, and it had a personal impact on me and has had an impact on me throughout my life. [Ed. note: The quotation generally attributed to JFK is, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” Whether he actually said these exact words is unclear, but it's certainly consistent with many other sentiments he expressed throughout his life.]DL: When you went to college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, what did you study?KF: I studied history and political science. I was very interested in how individuals over the centuries change history, the theory of historians that great individuals articulate history and drive it in a certain direction—for good, like President Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, or for ill, like Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. And so it was history that I really delved into in my undergraduate years.DL: What led you then to turn to law school?KF: I always enjoyed acting on the stage—theater, comedies, musicals, dramas—and at the University of Massachusetts, I did quite a bit of that. In my senior year, I anticipated going to drama school at Yale, or some other academic master's program in theater. My father gave me very good advice. He said, “Ken, most actors end up waiting on restaurant tables in Manhattan, waiting for a big break that never comes. Why don't you turn your skills on the stage to a career in the courtroom, in litigation, talking to juries and convincing judges?” That was very sound advice from my father, and I ended up attending NYU Law School and having a career in the law.DL: Yes—and you recount that story in your book, and I just love that. It's really interesting to hear what parents think of our careers. But anyway, you did very well in law school, you were on the law review, and then your first job out of law school was something that we might expect out of someone who did well in law school.KF: Yes. I was a law clerk to the chief judge of New York State, Stanley Fuld, a very famous state jurist, and he had his chambers in New York City. For one week, every six or seven weeks, we would go to the state capitol in Albany to hear cases, and it was Judge Fuld who was my transition from law school to the practice of law.DL: I view clerking as a form of government service—and then you continued in service after that.KF: That's right. Remembering what my father had suggested, I then turned my attention to the courtroom and became an assistant United States attorney, a federal prosecutor, in New York City. I served as a prosecutor and as a trial lawyer for a little over three years. And then I had a wonderful opportunity to go to work for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington and stayed with him for about five years.DL: You talk about this also in your books—you worked on a pretty diverse range of issues for the senator, right?KF: That's right. For the first three years I worked on his staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with some excellent colleagues—soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was with me, noted litigator David Boies was in the office—and for the first three years, it was law-related issues. Then in 1978, Senator Kennedy asked me to be his chief of staff, and once I went over and became his chief of staff, the issues of course mushroomed. He was running for president, so there were issues of education, health, international relations—a wide diversity of issues, very broad-based.DL: I recall that you didn't love the chief of staff's duties.KF: No. Operations or administration was not my priority. I loved substance, issues—whatever the issues were, trying to work out legislative compromises, trying to give back something in the way of legislation to the people. And internal operations and administration, I quickly discovered, was not my forte. It was not something that excited me.DL: Although it's interesting: what you are most well-known for is overseeing and administering these large funds and compensating victims of these horrific tragedies, and there's a huge amount of administration involved in that.KF: Yes, but I'm a very good delegator. In fact, if you look at the track record of my career in designing and administering these programs—9/11 or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the Patriots' Day Marathon bombings in Boston—I was indeed fortunate in all of those matters to have at my side, for over 40 years, Camille Biros. She's not a lawyer, but she's the nation's expert on designing, administering, and operating these programs, and as you delve into what I've done and haven't done, her expertise has been invaluable.DL: I would call Camille your secret weapon, except she's not secret. She's been profiled in The New York Times, and she's a well-known figure in her own right.KF: That is correct. She was just in the last few months named one of the 50 Women Over 50 that have had such an impact in the country—that list by Forbes that comes out every year. She's prominently featured in that magazine.DL: Shifting back to your career, where did you go after your time in the Senate?KF: I opened up a Washington office for a prominent New York law firm, and for the next decade or more, that was the center of my professional activity.DL: So that was Kaye Scholer, now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. What led you to go from your career in the public sector, where you spent a number of your years right out of law school, into so-called Biglaw?KF: Practicality and financial considerations. I had worked for over a decade in public service. I now had a wife, I had three young children, and it was time to give them financial security. And “Biglaw,” as you put it—Biglaw in Washington was lucrative, and it was something that gave me a financial base from which I could try and expand my different interests professionally. And that was the reason that for about 12 years I was in private practice for a major firm, Kaye Scholer.DL: And then tell us what happened next.KF: A great lesson in not planning too far ahead. In 1984, I got a call from a former clerk of Judge Fuld whom I knew from the clerk network: Judge Jack Weinstein, a nationally recognized jurist from Brooklyn, the Eastern District, and a federal judge. He had on his docket the Vietnam veterans' Agent Orange class action.You may recall that there were about 250,000 Vietnam veterans who came home claiming illness or injury or death due to the herbicide Agent Orange, which had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam to burn the foliage and vegetation where the Viet Cong enemy might be hiding. Those Vietnam veterans came home suffering terrible diseases, including cancer and chloracne (a sort of acne on the skin), and they brought a lawsuit. Judge Weinstein had the case. Weinstein realized that if that case went to trial, it could be 10 years before there'd be a result, with appeals and all of that.So he appointed me as mediator, called the “special master,” whose job it was to try and settle the case, all as a mediator. Well, after eight weeks of trying, we were successful. There was a master settlement totaling about $250 million—at the time, one of the largest tort verdicts in history. And that one case, front-page news around the nation, set me on a different track. Instead of remaining a Washington lawyer involved in regulatory and legislative matters, I became a mediator, an individual retained by the courts or by the parties to help resolve a case. And that was the beginning. That one Agent Orange case transformed my entire professional career and moved me in a different direction completely.DL: So you knew the late Judge Weinstein through Fuld alumni circles. What background did you have in mediation already, before you handled this gigantic case?KF: None. I told Judge Weinstein, “Judge, I never took a course in mediation at law school (there wasn't one then), and I don't know anything about bringing the parties together, trying to get them to settle.” He said, “I know you. I know your background. I've followed your career. You worked for Senator Kennedy. You are the perfect person.” And until the day I die, I'm beholden to Judge Weinstein for having faith in me to take this on.DL: And over the years, you actually worked on a number of matters at the request of Judge Weinstein.KF: A dozen. I worked on tobacco cases, on asbestos cases, on drug and medical device cases. I even worked for Judge Weinstein mediating the closing of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. I handled a wide range of cases where he called on me to act as his court-appointed mediator to resolve cases on his docket.DL: You've carved out a very unique and fascinating niche within the law, and I'm guessing that most people who meet you nowadays know who you are. But say you're in a foreign country or something, and some total stranger is chatting with you and asks what you do for a living. What would you say?KF: I would say I'm a lawyer, and I specialize in dispute resolution. It might be mediation, it might be arbitration, or it might even be negotiation, where somebody asks me to negotiate on their behalf. So I just tell people there is a growing field of law in the United States called ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and that it is, as you say, David, my niche, my focus when called upon.DL: And I think it's fair to say that you're one of the founding people in this field or early pioneers—or I don't know how you would describe it.KF: I think that's right. When I began with Agent Orange, there was no mediation to speak of. It certainly wasn't institutionalized; it wasn't streamlined. Today, in 2025, the American Bar Association has a special section on alternative dispute resolution, it's taught in every law school in the United States, there are thousands of mediators and arbitrators, and it's become a major leg in law school of different disciplines and specialties.DL: One question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter you are most proud of?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the hardest matter you've ever had to deal with?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter that you're most well-known for?” And I feel in your case, the same matter is responsive to all three of those questions.KF: That's correct. The most difficult, the most challenging, the most rewarding matter, the one that's given me the most exposure, was the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, when I was appointed by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to implement, design, and administer a very unique federal law that had been enacted right after 9/11.DL: I got chills as you were just even stating that, very factually, because I was in New York on 9/11, and a lot of us remember the trauma and difficulty of that time. And you basically had to live with that and talk to hundreds, even thousands, of people—survivors, family members—for almost three years. And you did it pro bono. So let me ask you this: what were you thinking?KF: What triggered my interest was the law itself. Thirteen days after the attacks, Congress passed this law, unique in American history, setting up a no-fault administrator compensation system. Don't go to court. Those who volunteer—families of the dead, those who were physically injured at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon—you can voluntarily seek compensation from a taxpayer-funded law. Now, if you don't want it, you don't have to go. It's a voluntary program.The key will be whether the special master or the administrator will be able to convince people that it is a better avenue to pursue than a long, delayed, uncertain lawsuit. And based on my previous experience for the last 15 years, starting with Agent Orange and asbestos and these other tragedies, I volunteered. I went to Senator Kennedy and said, “What about this?” He said, “Leave it to me.” He called President Bush. He knew Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was his former colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he had great admiration for Senator Ashcroft. And so I was invited by the attorney general for an interview, and I told him I was interested. I told him I would only do it pro bono. You can't get paid for a job like this; it's patriotism. And he said, “Go for it.” And he turned out to be my biggest, strongest ally during the 33 months of the program.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.You talk about this in your books: you were recommended by a very prominent Democratic politician, and the administration at the time was Republican. George W. Bush was president, and John Ashcroft was the attorney general. Why wouldn't they have picked a Republican for this project?KF: Very good question. Senator Kennedy told both of them, “You better be careful here. This is a very, very uncertain program, with taxpayer money used to pay only certain victims. This could be a disaster. And you would be well-advised to pick someone who is not a prominent friend of yours, who is not perceived as just a Republican arm of the Justice Department or the White House. And I've got the perfect person. You couldn't pick a more opposite politician than my former chief of staff, Ken Feinberg. But look at what he's done.” And I think to Senator Kennedy's credit, and certainly to President Bush and to John Ashcroft's, they selected me.DL: As you would expect with a program of this size and complexity, there was controversy and certainly criticism over the years. But overall, looking back, I think people regard it widely as a huge success. Do you have a sense or an estimate of what percentage of people in the position to accept settlements through the program did that, rather than litigate? Because in accepting funds from the program, they did waive their right to bring all sorts of lawsuits.KF: That's correct. If you look at the statistics, if the statistics are a barometer of success, 5,300 applicants were eligible, because of death—about 2,950, somewhere in there—and the remaining claims were for physical injury. Of the 5,300, 97 percent voluntarily accepted the compensation. Only 94 people, 3 percent, opted out, and they all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial on who was responsible in the law for 9/11. So if statistics are an indication—and I think they are a good indication—the program was a stunning success in accomplishing Congress's objective, which was diverting people voluntarily out of the court system.DL: Absolutely. And that's just a striking statistic. It was really successful in getting funds to families that needed it. They had lost breadwinners; they had lost loved ones. It was hugely successful, and it did not take a decade, as some of these cases involving just thousands of victims often do.I was struck by one thing you just said. You mentioned there was really no trial. And in reading your accounts of your work on this, it seemed almost like people viewed talking to you and your colleagues, Camille and others on this—I think they almost viewed that as their opportunity to be heard, since there wasn't a trial where they would get to testify.KF: That's correct. The primary reason for the success of the 9/11 Fund, and a valuable lesson for me thereafter, was this: give victims the opportunity to be heard, not only in public town-hall meetings where collectively people can vent, but in private, with doors closed. It's just the victim and Feinberg or his designee, Camille. We were the face of the government here. You can't get a meeting with the secretary of defense or the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. What you can get is an opportunity behind closed doors to express your anger, your frustration, your disappointment, your sense of uncertainty, with the government official responsible for cutting the checks. And that had an enormous difference in assuring the success of the program.DL: What would you say was the hardest aspect of your work on the Fund?KF: The hardest part of the 9/11 Fund, which I'll never recover from, was not calculating the value of a life. Judges and juries do that every day, David, in every court, in New Jersey and 49 other states. That is not a difficult assignment. What would the victim have earned over a work life? Add something for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and there's your check.The hardest part in any of these funds, starting with 9/11—the most difficult aspect, the challenge—is empathy, and your willingness to sit for over 900 separate hearings, me alone with family members or victims, to hear what they want to tell you, and to make that meeting, from their perspective, worthwhile and constructive. That's the hard part.DL: Did you find it sometimes difficult to remain emotionally composed? Or did you, after a while, develop a sort of thick skin?KF: You remain composed. You are a professional. You have a job to do, for the president of the United States. You can't start wailing and crying in the presence of somebody who was also wailing and crying, so you have to compose yourself. But I tell people who say, “Could I do what you did?” I say, “Sure. There are plenty of people in this country that can do what I did—if you can brace yourself for the emotional trauma that comes with meeting with victim after victim after victim and hearing their stories, which are...” You can't make them up. They're so heart-wrenching and so tragic.I'll give you one example. A lady came to see me, 26 years old, sobbing—one of hundreds of people I met with. “Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, Mr. Feinberg, you've calculated and told me I'm going to receive $2.4 million, tax-free, from this 9/11 Fund. I want it in 30 days.”I said to Mrs. Jones, “This is public, taxpayer money. We have to go down to the U.S. Treasury. They've got to cut the checks; they've got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. It may be 60 days or 90 days, but you'll get your money.”“No. Thirty days.”I said, “Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days?”She said, “Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg. I have terminal cancer. I have 10 weeks to live. My husband was going to survive me and take care of our two children. Now they're going to be orphans. I have got to get this money, find a guardian, make sure the money's safe, prepare for the kids' schooling. I don't have a lot of time. I need your help.”Well, we ran down to the U.S. Treasury and helped process the check in record time. We got her the money in 30 days—and eight weeks later, she died. Now when you hear story after story like this, you get some indication of the emotional pressure that builds and is debilitating, frankly. And we managed to get through it.DL: Wow. I got a little choked up just even hearing you tell that. Wow—I really don't know what to say.When you were working on the 9/11 Fund, did you have time for any other matters, or was this pretty much exclusively what you were working on for the 33 months?KF: Professionally, it was exclusive. Now what I did was, I stayed in my law firm, so I had a living. Other people in the firm were generating income for the firm; I wasn't on the dole. But it was exclusive. During the day, you are swamped with these individual requests, decisions that have to be made, checks that have to be cut. At night, I escaped: opera, orchestral concerts, chamber music, art museums—the height of civilization. During the day, in the depths of horror of civilization; at night, an escape, an opportunity to just enjoy the benefits of civilization. You better have a loving family, as I did, that stands behind you—because you never get over it, really.DL: That's such an important lesson, to actually have that time—because if you wanted to, you could have worked on this 24/7. But it is important to have some time to just clear your head or spend time with your family, especially just given what you were dealing with day-to-day.KF: That's right. And of course, during the day, we made a point of that as well. If we were holding hearings like the one I just explained, we'd take a one-hour break, go for a walk, go into Central Park or into downtown Washington, buy an ice cream cone, see the kids playing in playgrounds and laughing. You've got to let the steam out of the pressure cooker, or it'll kill you. And that was the most difficult part of the whole program. In all of these programs, that's the common denominator: emotional stress and unhappiness on the part of the victims.DL: One last question, before we turn to some other matters. There was also a very large logistical apparatus associated with this, right? For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It wasn't just you and Camille trying to deal with these thousands of survivors and claimants; you did have support.KF: That's right. Pricewaterhouse won the bid at the Justice Department. This is public: Pricewaterhouse, for something like around $100 million, put 450 people to work with us to help us process claims, appraise values, do the research. Pricewaterhouse was a tremendous ally and has gone on, since 9/11, to handle claims design and claims administration, as one of its many specialties. Emily Kent, Chuck Hacker, people like that we worked with for years, very much experts in these areas.DL: So after your work on the 9/11 Fund, you've worked on a number of these types of matters. Is there one that you would say ranks second in terms of complexity or difficulty or meaningfulness to you?KF: Yes. Deepwater Horizon in 2011, 2012—that oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico blew up and killed about, I don't know, 15 to 20 people in the explosion. But the real challenge in that program was how we received, in 16 months, about 1,250,000 claims for business interruption, business losses, property damage. We received over a million claims from 50 states. I think we got probably a dozen claims from New Jersey; I didn't know the oil had gotten to New Jersey. We received claims from 35 foreign countries. And the sheer volume of the disaster overwhelmed us. We had, at one point, something like 40,000 people—vendors—working for us. We had 35 offices throughout the Gulf of Mexico, from Galveston, Texas, all the way to Mobile Bay, Alabama. Nevertheless, in 16 months, on behalf of BP, Deepwater Horizon, we paid out all BP money, a little over $7 billion, to 550,000 eligible claimants. And that, I would say, other than 9/11, had the greatest impact and was the most satisfying.DL: You mentioned some claims coming from some pretty far-flung jurisdictions. In these programs, how much of a problem is fraud?KF: Not much. First of all, with death claims like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings or the 20 first-graders who died in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged gunmen—most of the time, in traumatic death and injury, you've got records. No one can beat the system; you have to have a death certificate. In 9/11, where are your military records, if you were at the Pentagon? Where are the airplane manifests? You've got to be on the manifest if you were flying on that plane.Now, the problem becomes more pronounced in something like BP, where you've got over a million claims, and you wonder, how many people can claim injury from this explosion? There we had an anti-fraud unit—Guidepost, Bart Schwartz's company—and they did a tremendous job of spot-checking claims. I think that out of over a million claims, there may have been 25,000 that were suspicious. And we sent those claims to the Justice Department, and they prosecuted a fair number of people. But it wasn't a huge problem. I think the fraud rate was something like 3 percent; that's nothing. So overall, we haven't found—and we have to be ever-vigilant, you're right—but we haven't found much in the way of fraud.DL: I'm glad to hear that, because it would really be very depressing to think that there were people trying to profiteer off these terrible disasters and tragedies. Speaking of continuing disasters and tragedies, turning to current events, you are now working with Southern California Edison in dealing with claims related to the Eaton Fire. And this is a pending matter, so of course you may have some limits in terms of what you can discuss, but what can you say in a general sense about this undertaking?KF: This is the Los Angeles wildfires that everybody knows about, from the last nine or ten months—the tremendous fire damage in Los Angeles. One of the fires, or one of the selected hubs of the fire, was the Eaton Fire. Southern California Edison, the utility involved in the litigation and finger-pointing, decided to set up, à la 9/11, a voluntary claims program. Not so much to deal with death—there were about 19 deaths, and a handful of physical injuries—but terrible fire damage, destroyed homes, damaged businesses, smoke and ash and soot, for miles in every direction. And the utility decided, its executive decided, “We want to do the right thing here. We may be held liable or we may not be held liable for the fire, but we think the right thing to do is nip in the bud this idea of extended litigation. Look at 9/11: only 94 people ended up suing. We want to set up a program.”They came to Camille and me. Over the last eight weeks, we've designed the program, and I think in the last week of October or the first week of November, you will see publicly, “Here is the protocol; here is the claim form. Please submit your claims, and we'll get them paid within 90 days.” And if history is an indicator, Camille and I think that the Eaton Fire Protocol will be a success, and the great bulk of the thousands of victims will voluntarily decide to come into the program. We'll see. [Ed. note: On Wednesday, a few days after Ken and I recorded this episode, Southern California Edison announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program.]DL: That raises a question that I'm curious about. How would you describe the relationship between the work that you and Camille and your colleagues do and the traditional work of the courts, in terms of in-the-trenches litigation? Because I do wonder whether the growth in your field is perhaps related to some developments in litigation, in terms of litigation becoming more expensive over the decades (in a way that far outstrips inflation), more complicated, or more protracted. How would you characterize that relationship?KF: I would say that the programs that we design and administer—like 9/11, like BP, plus the Eaton wildfires—are an exception to the rule. Nobody should think that these programs that we have worked on are the wave of the future. They are not the wave of the future; they are isolated, unique examples, where a company—or in 9/11, the U.S. government—decides, “We ought to set up a special program where the courts aren't involved, certainly not directly.” In 9/11, they were prohibited to be involved, by statute; in some of these other programs, like BP, the courts have a relationship, but they don't interfere with the day-to-day administration of the program.And I think the American people have a lot of faith in the litigation system that you correctly point out can be uncertain, very inefficient, and very costly. But the American people, since the founding of the country, think, “You pick your lawyer, I'll pick my lawyer, and we'll have a judge and jury decide.” That's the American rule of law; I don't think it's going to change. But occasionally there is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a program, or there'll be a company—like the utility, like BP—that decides to have a program.And I'll give you one other example: the Catholic Church confronted thousands of claims of sexual abuse by priests. It came to us, and we set up a program—just like 9/11, just like BP—where we invited, voluntarily, any minor—any minor from decades ago, now an adult—who had been abused by the church to come into this voluntary program. We paid out, I think, $700 million to $800 million, to victims in dioceses around the country. So there's another example—Camille did most of that—but these programs are all relatively rare. There are thousands of litigations every day, and nothing's going to change that.DL: I had a guest on a few weeks ago, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss, who does a lot of work in the mass-tort space. It's interesting: I feel that that space has evolved, and maybe in some ways it's more efficient than it used to be. They have these multi-district litigation panels, they have these bellwether trials, and then things often get settled, once people have a sense of the values. That system and your approach seem to have some similarities, in the sense that you're not individually trying each one of these cases, and you're having somebody with liability come forward and voluntarily pay out money, after some kind of negotiation.KF: Well, there's certainly negotiation in what Chris Seeger does; I'm not sure we have much negotiation. We say, “Here's the amount under the administrative scheme.” It's like in workers' compensation: here's the amount. You don't have to take it. There's nothing to really talk about, unless you have new evidence that we're not aware of. And those programs, when we do design them, seem to work very efficiently.Again, if you ask Camille Biros what was the toughest part of valuing individual claims of sexual-abuse directed at minors, she would say, “These hearings: we gave every person who wanted an opportunity to be heard.” And when they come to see Camille, they don't come to talk about money; they want validation for what they went through. “Believe me, will you? Ken, Camille, believe me.” And when Camille says, “We do believe you,” they immediately, or almost immediately, accept the compensation and sign a release: “I will not sue the Catholic diocese.”DL: So you mentioned there isn't really much negotiation, but you did talk in the book about these sort of “appeals.” You had these two tracks, “Appeals A” and “Appeals B.” Can you talk about that? Did you ever revisit what you had set as the award for a particular victim's family, after hearing from them in person?KF: Sure. Now, remember, those appeals came back to us, not to a court; there's no court involvement. But in 9/11, in BP, if somebody said, “You made a mistake—you didn't account for these profits or this revenue, or you didn't take into account this contract that my dead firefighter husband had that would've given him a lot more money”—of course, we'll revisit that. We invited that. But that's an internal appeals process. The people who calculated the value of the claim are the same people that are going to be looking at revisiting the claim. But again, that's due process, and that's something that we thought was important.DL: You and Camille have been doing this really important work for decades. Since this is, of course, shortly after your 80th birthday, I should ask: do you have future plans? You're tackling some of the most complicated matters, headline-making matters. Would you ever want to retire at some point?KF: I have no intention of retiring. I do agree that when you reach a certain pinnacle in what you've done, you do slow down. We are much more selective in what we do. I used to have maybe 15 mediations going on at once; now, we have one or two matters, like the Los Angeles wildfires. As long as I'm capable, as long as Camille's willing, we'll continue to do it, but we'll be very careful about what we select to do. We don't travel much. The Los Angeles wildfires was largely Zooms, going back and forth. And we're not going to administer that program. We had administered 9/11 and BP; we're trying to move away from that. It's very time-consuming and stressful. So we've accomplished a great deal over the last 50 years—but as long as we can do it, we'll continue to do it.DL: Do you have any junior colleagues who would take over what you and Camille have built?KF: We don't have junior colleagues. There's just the two of us and Cindy Sanzotta, our receptionist. But it's an interesting question: “Who's after Feinberg? Who's next in doing this?” I think there are thousands of people in this country who could do what we do. It is not rocket science. It really isn't. I'll tell you what's difficult: the emotion. If somebody wants to do what we do, you better brace yourself for the emotion, the anger, the frustration, the finger pointing. It goes with the territory. And if you don't have the psychological ability to handle this type of stress, stay away. But I'm sure somebody will be there, and no one's irreplaceable.DL: Well, I know I personally could not handle it. I worked when I was at a law firm on civil litigation over insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center, and that was a very draining case, and I was very glad to no longer be on it. So I could not do what you and Camille do. But let me ask you, to end this section on a positive note: what would you say is the most rewarding or meaningful or satisfying aspect of the work that you do on these programs?KF: Giving back to the community. Public service. Helping the community heal. Not so much the individuals; the individuals are part of the community. “Every individual can make a difference.” I remember that every day, what John F. Kennedy said: government service is a noble undertaking. So what's most rewarding for me is that although I'm a private practitioner—I am no longer in government service, since my days with Senator Kennedy—I'd like to think that I performed a valuable service for the community, the resilience of the community, the charity exhibited by the community. And that gives me a great sense of self-satisfaction.DL: You absolutely have. It's been amazing, and I'm so grateful for you taking the time to join me.So now, onto our speed round. These are four questions that are standardized. My first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law in a more abstract sense.KF: Uncertainty. What I don't like about the law is—and I guess maybe it's the flip side of the best way to get to a result—I don't like the uncertainty of the law. I don't like the fact that until the very end of the process, you don't know if your view and opinion will prevail. And I think losing control over your destiny in that regard is problematic.DL: My second question—and maybe we touched on this a little bit, when we talked about your father's opinions—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?KF: Probably an actor. As I say, I almost became an actor. And I still love theater and the movies and Broadway shows. If my father hadn't given me that advice, I was on the cusp of pursuing a career in the theater.DL: Have you dabbled in anything in your (probably limited) spare time—community theater, anything like that?KF: No, but I certainly have prioritized in my spare time classical music and the peace and optimism it brings to the listener. It's been an important part of my life.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?KF: Well, it varies from program to program. I'd like to get seven hours. That's what my doctors tell me: “Ken, very important—more important than pills and exercise and diet—is sleep. Your body needs a minimum of seven hours.” Well, for me, seven hours is rare—it's more like six or even five, and during 9/11 or during Eaton wildfires, it might be more like four or five. And that's not enough, and that is a problem.DL: My last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?KF: Yes, I'll give you some career and life advice. It's very simple: don't plan too far ahead. People have this view—you may think you know what you want to do with your career. You may think you know what life holds for you. You don't know. If I've learned anything over the last decades, life has a way of changing the best-laid plans. These 9/11 husbands and wives said goodbye to their children, “we'll see you for dinner,” a perfunctory wave—and they never saw them again. Dust, not even a body. And the idea I tell law students—who say, ”I'm going to be a corporate lawyer,” or “I'm going to be a litigator”—I tell them, “You have no idea what your legal career will look like. Look at Feinberg; he never planned on this. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that this would be his chosen avenue of the law.”My advice: enjoy the moment. Do what you like now. Don't worry too much about what you'll be doing two years, five years, 10 years, a lifetime ahead of you. It doesn't work that way. Everybody gets thrown curveballs, and that's advice I give to everybody.DL: Well, you did not plan out your career, but it has turned out wonderfully, and the country is better for it. Thank you, Ken, both for your work on all these matters over the years and for joining me today.KF: A privilege and an honor. Thanks, David.DL: Thanks so much to Ken for joining me—and, of course, for his decades of work resolving some of the thorniest disputes in the country, which is truly a form of public service.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 12. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

What do you do the day after you fall on your face in front of everyone? In this episode, Erin shares powerful stories about her daughters' moments of failure and comeback—and introduces The Goldfish Method, a three-step framework for bouncing back from setbacks. Learn why your perfectionism is killing your resilience, the neuroscience behind why trying again feels so hard, and how to separate your identity from your performance so one bad day doesn't derail your career. Chapters00:00Welcome Back and Reflections on Podcasting02:53The Goldfish Analogy: Memory and Resilience05:42Overcoming Fear of Failure08:52Lessons from My Daughter's Public Speaking Experience14:21The Goldfish Method: Reset, Reframe, Return23:08Neuroscience of Resilience and Courage29:03Identity vs. Performance: Separating Self-Worth from Outcomes38:00Actionable Steps: Try Again and Accountability41:49Closing Thoughts and Legally Blonde MomentResources Mentioned:Dr. Andrew Huberman's work on neuroplasticityDr. Kristin Neff's research on self-compassionCarol Dweck's research on growth mindsetAngela Duckworth's "Grit"Brené Brown's work on perfectionismConnect with Erin:Website: eringerner.comInstagram: @eringernerLinkedIn: Erin Gerner

And a Biglaw firm seeks help while an in-house attorney blows up her career. ----- Catching up with the slice of the conservative legal movement who have stared into the moral abyss of the Trump administration and recoiled in horror. The Society for the Rule of Law held its annual summit and while many attendees voiced clear-eyed opposition, some continued to grapple with the cognitive dissonance in recognizing that Trump might be the natural and logical consequence of their own long championed conservative projects. One attendee who has no illusions over the gravity of the threat though was Judge Michael Luttig who railed against the Supreme Court in the legal equivalent of a rousing halftime locker room speech. Also, Cadwalader seems increasingly at an existential crossroads and looking for a merger partner. And a lawyer loses her job over ballpark rant -- and what's more, her team lost.

In this episode, I tackle a  critical question for many partners - how to tell when your firm no longer values you and what steps you should take next. I've seen too many strong, capable partners blindsided by subtle shifts that signal declining influence, reduced credit, and a fading role in firm strategy. Drawing from my own experience as a BigLaw partner mentoring and managing other partners, as well as serving on executive and other firm leadership committees, I walk through six clear warning signs, from being left out of key decisions to watching your client relationships being reassigned without input. I also share practical ways to assess your standing, gather data, and take deliberate steps, either to reassert your value internally or to plan a confident move elsewhere. At a Glance: 00:00 Introduction and why this topic is difficult for many partners to face 02:14 Sign #1: You're no longer invited to key meetings or included in major firm decisions 03:00 Real-world example of a partner sidelined after years of practice growth 03:46 How to reassert your relevance and get back in the room 04:05 Sign #2: Your clients are being shared or reassigned without your consent 05:41 How to document your client contributions and credit 06:27 Sign #3: Declining origination credit or compensation without clear explanation 07:37 What early questions to ask to prevent surprises at comp time 08:54 How to use firm metrics to track and present your value 09:15 Sign #4: Your practice isn't being supported with people, budget, or visibility 10:12 How to connect your requests to firm goals and growth priorities 11:24 Sign #5: Your internal visibility and influence are fading 11:50 How to rebuild influence through mentoring and collaboration 12:14 Sign #6: You're doing heavy administrative work with little reward 13:34 Setting boundaries around internal service work and when to pull back 15:12 How to assess your data objectively and start reclaiming or rebuilding value 16:29 Preparing to have candid conversations with leadership 17:21 Knowing when it's time to test the market and plan your exit 18:09 The bottom line: clarity is not failure, it's power Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select "Write a Review." Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

And a Biglaw firm seeks help while an in-house attorney blows up her career. ----- Catching up with the slice of the conservative legal movement who have stared into the moral abyss of the Trump administration and recoiled in horror. The Society for the Rule of Law held its annual summit and while many attendees voiced clear-eyed opposition, some continued to grapple with the cognitive dissonance in recognizing that Trump might be the natural and logical consequence of their own long championed conservative projects. One attendee who has no illusions over the gravity of the threat though was Judge Michael Luttig who railed against the Supreme Court in the legal equivalent of a rousing halftime locker room speech. Also, Cadwalader seems increasingly at an existential crossroads and looking for a merger partner. And a lawyer loses her job over ballpark rant -- and what's more, her team lost. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most law firms say they're “exploring AI.”At Linklaters, they're living it.Resistance is real, but so is the momentum.Because the lawyers who embrace change won't just survive the AI era, they'll define it.In this episode, I'm joined by Sonia Cisse, Partner and Head of AI & Technology at Paris office, Linklaters, one of the world's leading international law firms.Sonia is helping shape how one of the biggest names in law integrates artificial intelligence, from internal adoption to culture, governance, and innovation.We talk about how AI is transforming the culture of law and what it takes to lead that change inside a global firm.Sonia shares candid insights on:Why lawyers resist and what finally gets them excited about AI.How Linklaters builds AI literacy across thousands of lawyers worldwide.Balancing innovation with confidentiality and client trust.Why the future of junior lawyers isn't disappearing, it's evolving.And how tomorrow's lawyers will blend legal expertise with AI fluency.This conversation goes beyond hype.It's a look inside how one of the world's top law firms is actually implementing generative AI, responsibly, strategically, and with a sense of curiosity that's changing what it means to be a lawyer. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Whether you're a law student gearing up for your first summer or an associate thinking about your next move, this episode is packed with career advice every lawyer needs to know. Albert Tawil, Founder and CEO of Lateral Hub and Summer Associate Hub, joins us to talk about navigating your legal career with clarity and confidence.A former BigLaw associate at Cleary Gottlieb and Fenwick, Albert shares what inspired him to launch the Lateral Hub Job Board, and how he's helping make the lateral process more transparent for lawyers everywhere. We dive into how to know when it's the right time to make a move, what firms really value in lateral candidates, and the biggest mistakes lawyers make when changing jobs. Albert also offers practical insights for law students on how to stand out as a summer associate, how the recruiting process is evolving, and what resources can make all the difference in building a successful and sustainable legal career.Albert Tawil is the Founder & CEO of the Lateral Hub, the popular job board platform for lateral openings at top firms, and Summer Associate Hub, and content and resource hub for law students embarking on the BigLaw recruiting process.  After graduating from NYU Law in 2017, Albert worked as an IP/Tech Transactions Associate at Cleary Gottlieb and Fenwick in NYC, and launched Lateral Hub to make the lateral process easier and more transparent, based on his own experience as a junior associate navigating the lateral process.  Albert also writes often on LinkedIn with thoughts on life as a BigLaw associate and legal recruiting — with some reels poking fun at life as a lawyer sprinkled in too.Mentioned on the episode:Visit the Lateral Hub Job Board here: https://lateralhub.comVisit Summer Associate Hub here:  https://summerassociatehub.comFollow Albert on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/albert-tawil/Follow @mannatplease on TikTok and Instagram!Disclaimer: The information shared on this podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. While I am a licensed attorney, I am not providing legal advice in this podcast, and no attorney-client relationship is formed. Additionally, I am not a licensed therapist, medical professional, or financial advisor. Nothing discussed should be considered professional, legal, medical, or financial advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions related to your health, finances, or legal matters. The views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of any organizations I may be affiliated with.

You don't have to love your job—but you can't hate it.Rabbi Yehuda Halpert (shul rabbi, Big Law attorney, author) joins Shtark Tank to talk straight about Torah life inside a 90-hour week, setting real standards, and why reassessing is different than slipping.What You'll HearHow a Ben Torah can thrive in Big Law without losing the plot“Slipping vs. reassessing” — setting honest standards after yeshivaThe Mincha hack that anchors your day (and your network)Peer pressure at the office: values, money, and role modelsBalancing a Shabbos-only pulpit with a full-time firm roleLessons from COVID that helped after Oct 7Career calling vs. community calling: picking your tafkidGuest BioRabbi Yehuda Halpert — shul rabbi in Teaneck, Big Law lawyer, and author of Speaking to an Empty Shul: Timeless Lessons from Unprecedented Times.Quick TakeawaysBuild a system that works with your scheduleGuard your company — work with good peopleUse Mincha as a daily reset and natural networking momentReview your standards every 6–12 months; adjust with intentYou can be excellent at your craft and strong in your valuesDid you enjoy this episode?Follow Shtark Tank on Spotify and rate the show (it really helps).Share this episode with a friendJoin the Shtark Tank WhatsApp group for episode drops and Q&A (link in show notes).

In this episode of The Free Lawyer podcast, host Gary interviews Jessie Brown, a former attorney turned career and executive coach. Jessie shares her journey from big law to coaching, discussing her experiences with burnout and how she found balance by aligning her work with her values. The conversation explores redefining success, managing stress, and practical strategies like energy audits, mindfulness, and setting boundaries. Jesse offers insights on overcoming financial fears, reconnecting with authenticity, and prioritizing well-being, providing valuable guidance for lawyers seeking fulfillment and sustainable careers without burnout.Jessie Brown practiced law for 15 years, primarily in Big Law, before becoming a career and executive coach for lawyers. She specializes in helping attorneys navigate career decisions and transitions and learn how to succeed on their own terms without burnout. Before becoming a coach, Jessie navigated balancing a demanding career as a litigator while raising young kids. She created the balance she sought as a Senior Counsel in Big Law, while working a reduced billable hour schedule, before deciding to resign from the law to focus exclusively on coaching. Jessie also leads transformational women's retreats and is a certified meditation teacher and forest bathing guide and has a deep love for nature, reading, and spirituality. Jessie's Legal Background & Strengths Assessment (00:01:11) Transitioning Legal Practice Areas (00:04:27)Hospice Work & Mentoring Associates (00:06:25) Becoming a Career Coach (00:07:56) Recognizing and Experiencing Burnout (00:08:47) Finding Balance & Reducing Hours (00:09:53) JFinancial Fears & Career Transition Fund (00:10:50) Aligning Work with Values (00:12:28) Energy Audit & Burnout Prevention (00:13:43) Impact of Early Loss & Mortality Perspective (00:15:20) Mortality in Coaching & Future Visualization (00:16:51) Defining Success Beyond External Metrics (00:18:18) Rediscovering Authenticity (00:22:23) Mindfulness & Forest Bathing Explained (00:24:28) Practical Self-Care for Burned-Out Lawyers (00:28:04) Work-Life Balance & Boundaries (00:30:10) Creating Personal Freedom & Focus (00:32:57) Advice to Her Younger Self (00:35:15) Would you like to learn what it looks like to become a truly Free Lawyer? You can schedule a courtesy call here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-callWould you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free

Is artificial intelligence custom-made for legal tasks better than general AI tools like Google Gemini and ChatGPT? That is the topic of this episode featuring Legalbenchmarks.ai Founder Anna Guo. Anna is a former BigLaw lawyer who left the practice to become an entrepreneur and now focuses her energies on quantifying the utility of AI in the legal industry. Anna's initial anecdotal research for colleagues quickly revealed a strong community interest in a systematic approach to evaluating legal AI tools. This led to the creation of Legalbenchmarks.AI, dedicated to finding out where the promise of humans plus AI is truly better than humans alone or AI alone. The core of the research involves measuring the "delta," or the extent to which AI can elevate human performance. To date, Legalbenchmarks.ai conducted two major studies: one on information extraction from legal sources and a second on contract review and redlining. Key Findings from the Studies: Accuracy vs. Qualitative Usefulness: The highest-performing general-purpose AI tools (like Gemini) were often found to be more accurate and consistent. However, the legal-specific AI tools often received higher marks in qualitative usefulness and helpfulness, as they align more closely with existing legal workflows. Methodology: The testing goes beyond simple accuracy. It includes a three-part assessment: Reliability (objective accuracy and legal adequacy), Usability (qualitative metrics like helpfulness and coherence for tasks such as brainstorming), and Platform Workflow Support (integration, citation checks, and other features). Human-AI Performance: In the contract analysis study, AI tools matched or exceeded the human baseline for reliability in producing first drafts. Crucially, the data demonstrated that the common belief that "human plus AI will always outperform AI alone" was false; the top-performing AI tool alone still had a higher accuracy rate than the human-plus-AI combo. Risk Analysis: A significant finding was that legal AI tools were better at flagging material risks, such as compliance or unenforceability issues in high-risk scenarios, that human lawyers missed entirely. This suggests AI can act as a crucial safety net. Strengths Comparison: AI excels at brainstorming, challenging human bias, and performing mass-scale routine tasks (e.g., mass contract review for simple terms). Humans retain a significant edge in ingesting nuanced context and making commercially reasonable decisions that AI's instruction-following can sometimes lack. Discussion Highlights: [0:00] – Introduction and background of Anna Guo and Legal Benchmarks AI. [4:30] – The impetus for starting systematic AI benchmarking. [6:00] – Explaining the concept of measuring the "delta" in performance. [9:00] – Detailed breakdown of the three-part AI assessment methodology. [15:00] – Discussion of the contrasting results: general LLM accuracy vs. legal AI qualitative value. [19:00] – Results on AI performance matching human reliability in contract drafting. [21:00] – Debunking the myth about Human + AI always outperforming AI alone. [23:00] – The finding that legal AI excels at surface material risks that lawyers miss. [27:00] – A SWOT analysis of when to use humans and when to use AI. [30:00] – Future roadmap for Legal Benchmarks AI research.  

Most lawyers can recite their firm's PEP number, but few truly understand what it measures, how their day-to-day actions affect it, or how it affects them (even if they are a non-eequity partner). In this episode, I explain why PEP is often misunderstood, the hidden levers that drive it, and what partners need to know about how it can broadly impact all attorneys across the firm. From billing and collections to leverage ratios, capital contributions, and distribution timing, I break down what really impacts profitability and what that means for both equity and non-equity partners. I also share practical steps to become financially savvy inside your firm, strengthen your influence, and plan ahead for the realities of partner cash flow and tax obligations. At a Glance: 00:00 Introduction and overview of why PEP matters for partners 02:17 What PEP actually measures and how it's calculated 03:31 Why new partners misunderstand PEP as guaranteed income 04:26 The misconception that billing more always leads to earning more 05:19 How margin and leverage, not volume, drive profitability 06:18 How accounting rules and firm policies affect profit definitions 07:14 Why realization and collections are critical to firm profitability 08:06 How capital contributions and working capital impact partner cash flow 09:26 What delayed distributions mean for tax and personal finance planning 11:09 Example showing how rising revenue can still reduce PEP 12:38 The ripple effect of declining PEP on both equity and non-equity partners 13:27 More metrics each partner should track: RPL, leverage, realization, and contribution margin 15:36 How to apply financial knowledge to strengthen your position 16:23 The importance of understanding your firm's leverage and margin model 17:15 Managing your own cash flow, reserves, and quarterly taxes 17:38 Why mastering firm economics builds long-term influence and stability 18:07 The bottom line: understanding the business of law is essential for partner success Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life? Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law. For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select "Write a Review." Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here! For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com laura@lauraterrell.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/ Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

Law firms everywhere are debating private equity. Sir Nigel Knowles has already lived the full arc, from global expansion to IPO to take-private. Joining hosts Chris Batz and Howard Rosenberg, the former global managing partner of DLA Piper and former CEO of DWF unpacks a career built on bold growth and tough calls. He shares how a 90-person practice in Sheffield became DLA Piper through disciplined strategy, relentless execution, and a shift from territorial “country barons” to one global firm. He walks through the three-way merger that hit at exactly the right moment, the lessons he carried from mentors like Senator George Mitchell, and why real leadership means setting direction and sustaining momentum long after the headlines fade. Sir Nigel also pulls back the curtain on DWF's public listing and why the market ultimately couldn't support a professional services model. Taking the firm private with Inflexion unlocked capital, agility, and focus — a path he believes more firms will follow as technology, talent costs, and scale demands collide. His message to law firm leaders: build a coalition, define where you're going, and act. Consensus can come later. The firms that act with clarity and conviction will own the future of the profession.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 From Sheffield Practice to Global Expansion at DLA Piper   05:01 Taking DWF Public: Why the IPO Model Fell Short   08:07 Private Equity vs. Public Markets in Law Firms   15:17 Leadership Lessons from Senator George Mitchell and Other Mentors   15:10 Strategy, Culture, and Conviction in Firm Growth   22:08 The Future of Law Firm Consolidation and Capital Models   28:30 Sir Nigel's Advice to Managing Partners, Act Before Consensus   Connect with Sir Nigel Knowles: Connect with Sir Nigel on LinkedIn Sir Nigel's Website Bio Connect with Howard Rosenberg: Connect with Howard on LinkedIn Howard's Company Web Profile   Connect with Chris Batz: Connect with Chris on LinkedIn  Follow Columbus Street on LinkedIn Columbus Street Website  Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm

The legal industry is undergoing a profound transformation as artificial intelligence moves from an experimental concept to an essential tool. Advanced systems like Agentic RAG are revolutionizing workflows, enabling tasks that once took weeks, such as complex M&A due diligence, to yield key obligations and renewal dates in minutes, dramatically reducing contract review time by up to 80%. However, this power demands unprecedented ethical responsibility and human oversight. Attorneys must vigilantly confront the risk of AI "hallucinations," the generation of fake legal citations that has already led to professional sanctions in court proceedings, ensuring meticulous verification and adherence to the duties of competence and diligence. Furthermore, firms must establish robust governance frameworks to keep sensitive client data private and secure, preventing potential breaches of attorney-client privilege and non-compliance with regulations like the UK GDPR. This shift toward technology-driven efficiency is compelling law firms to rethink old business models, as AI adoption places significant financial pressure on the traditional billable hour, necessitating a focus on clean data and hybrid AI-human workflows to define the future of practice.How Agentic RAG Is Transforming Legal Workflows And Redefining Attorney Efficiency2025-10-21 | Forbes.comStartup law firm wants to ‘live and breathe technology'2025-10-21 | Computer WeeklyInside $5bn Harvey: Chief business officer John Haddock on scaling a legal AI powerhouse2025-10-21 | NonBillable.co.ukLaw Firm Metrics: Why Law Firms Struggle with Data Chaos (and What to Do About It)2025-10-21 | Articles, Tips and Tech for Law Firms and LawyersLawyerist Podcast How to Stay Human in the Age of AI-Driven Law Firm Marketing, with Conroy Creative2025-10-21 | Legal Talk NetworkWhere AI and Legality Collide2025-10-21 | Prevue Meetings & IncentivesLegalOn Buys Fides, Expands Beyond Contract AI2025-10-21 | Artificial LawyerHarvey: Inside the $5bn legal AI startup taking over Big Law with chief business officer John Haddock2025-10-21 | NonBillable.co.ukWestminster launches new Centre for Legal Education and the Legal Profession to shape next generation of lawyers2025-10-21 | University of WestminsterFunding Success: Syntracts Secures $5.3M for Legal AI Growth2025-10-21 | InvestorsHangout.comJuro Goes Direct to ChatGPT For Contract AI2025-10-21 | Artificial LawyerWaymo's driverless taxi UK rollout puts legal system to the test2025-10-21 | City A.M.Exclusive: James Grandage joins Alt-V Law as legal transformation advisor2025-10-21 | Legal IT InsiderHearing People Out: AI and Access to Justice Case Studies from Australia2025-10-21 | Legaltech on MediumAI Accountability and Governance in Focus: Complaint Filed in DC District Court for AI Transparency in Federal Government, and Senate NDAA's Strategic Vision for AI — AI: The Washington Report2025-10-21 | Mintz LevinA nearly 100-year-old Swiss magazine builds a powerful ecosystem on top of legal services and AI2025-10-20 | INMA.orgData Debt, Diversity, and the Business of Law: A Conversation with BigHand's Catherine Krow2025-10-20 | 3 Geeks and a Law BlogAgentic AI: From statistical patterns to strategic partners2025-10-20 | Legal.ThomsonReuters.comThe Most Innovative Law Schools of 2025: Leading the Future of Legal Education2025-10-20 | JDJournalWhy State AI Laws Are Hurting Innovation and Your Bottom Line2025-10-20 | BlawgITAwards Restore Faith In The Profession — At Least For One Night2025-10-20 | Above The LawPreparing for the Legal AI Era with Ed Walters | ClioCon 20252025-10-20 | On the Road Podcast - Legal Talk NetworkHow It Works: A Demo of Eve Legal's Call Intake for Law Firms2025-10-20 | LawSitesLexisNexis Announces Commercial Availability of Protg General AI in Lexis+ AI2025-10-20 | WebWire | Recent HeadlinesVals Legal AI Research Eval – The Aftermath2025-10-20 | Artificial Lawyer

Here, the head of arbitration at a BigLaw firm reflects on the proliferation of digital infrastructure projects globally, together with treaty considerations and protections for Australian investors, and how the combination of a “massive” expansion of data needs in the age of AI and elevated national security concerns makes this area one of the most consequential in the coming 10 years. In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy welcomes back Corrs Chambers Westgarth head of arbitration Nastasja Suhadolnik to discuss why she's so stimulated by arbitration work, why there is such a proliferation of projects regarding digital infrastructure at present, the myriad challenges arising from such developments, why Australian investors need protections for investments in such projects, and how lawyers can and should look to navigate the regulatory and legislative hurdles to ensure optimal outcomes for clients. Suhadolnik also delves into the three overarching rules she advises clients to consider in such matters, how best to stay on top of voluminous change in the space, her approach to successful collaboration, why digital infrastructure will be such a defining feature in years to come, why arbitration teams may grow in stature in Australian law firms, and what excites her about ongoing developments in this space. If you like this episode, show your support by rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, X and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au

In this episode, Erin Gerner returns to the Powerhouse Lawyers podcast after a four-month hiatus, sharing her journey of self-reflection and the importance of taking breaks. She discusses the challenges of feeling obligated to produce content and the need for clarity in one's path. Erin emphasizes that taking a break is not a sign of failure but a necessary recalibration. She explores the difference between pushing through and pushing forward, the fear of judgment from others, and the importance of defining success on one's own terms. The episode concludes with a renewed vision for the podcast, focusing on empowerment and support for women in law.00:00 Reconnecting with the Audience02:56 The Importance of Taking Breaks05:44 Pushing Through vs. Pushing Forward08:52 Overcoming the Fear of Judgment11:47 Defining Success on Your Own Terms14:43 The Power of Evolution and Growth17:33 A New Vision for the PodcastStay connected with Erin GernerWebsite https://www.eringerner.com/   LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/erin-gerner/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/erin.w.gernerInstagram https://www.instagram.com/eringerner/?hl=en

Arivee Vargas is a first-generation Latina lawyer who went from Big Law litigation to in-house corporate leadership, all before pivoting to become an author, executive coach, and speaker. She shares the raw story of her identity crisis after having her first child and how that led her to develop the framework for her book, Your Time to Rise, focusing on aligning your career with your deepest values. This conversation is essential for any high-achieving lawyer ready to stop checking boxes and start building a life of true purpose.LAWYER SIDE HUSTLESArivee Vargas has successfully layered multiple non-traditional ventures alongside her demanding corporate career, demonstrating how a side hustle can evolve into a full-time business. While working full-time in high-level corporate roles, she became a certified coach and simultaneously cultivated her writing and speaking business. Her specific "hustle" involved writing her book, Your Time to Rise, which was written while she was still fully employed. She also established The Humble Rising podcast in 2021 as a platform to test and experiment with her ideas and voice before making the full-time jump.“I started to realize, oh, I love coaching. I love, you know, doing this type of work,” Arivee Vargas shares in Episode 214 of You Are a Lawyer.Her current full-time business is built around executive coaching, speaking, and authoring, all centered on the theme of alignment, the process of ensuring what clients truly believe inside matches what they pursue on the outside. Arivee's focus with her clients is on "transformation from the inside out," working primarily with high-achieving lawyers and leaders who are looking for executive-level life coaching to navigate a career pivot and better align their professional achievements with their personal happiness.LISTEN TO LEARNHow to separate your self-worth from your professional titlesWhy focusing on the next right step eliminates career anxietyHow to apply law school grit to internal transformationWE ALSO DISCUSSWhy lawyers struggle with compartmentalization in personal lifeDeconstructing cultural beliefs about sacrifice and hustleChoosing "Work-Life Harmony" over the balance trapPartnership: Did you know that children as young as 10 can be prosecuted as adults in Pennsylvania? You Are A Lawyer has partnered with YSRP, the Youth Sentencing and Re-Entry Project, to bring awareness to their fight to keep young people out of adult prisons and to advocate for youth lifers. Visit YSRP.org to support this cause. Thank you. 

Today's guest on our podcast, On The Merits, is a general counsel who is looking for more from the law firms trying to win his business. Specifically, he wants to hear more about how and why they're using AI. Eric Dodson Greenberg is the top lawyer at Cox Media Group, which owns dozens of TV and radio stations across the country. He recently wrote a series of articles for Bloomberg Law about how generative AI will change the relationship between law firms and their corporate clients—and not necessarily in the firms' favor. Greenberg told Bloomberg Law editors Jessie Kokrda Kamens and Daniel Xu that he wants to hear not just how firms can save him money with AI, but how they're using the technology to fundamentally change how they're working. "Firms are very wary of making the wrong technology bet, and for good reason," he said. "But not making a bet at all? I don't think that's a choice. Waiting to sort of see how it shakes out—which is a tried and true Big Law strategy—I think that's going to be too late." Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Who's the Biglaw partner with the most star-studded client roster? Orin Snyder, co-chair of the Trials Practice Group at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, has to be up there. Consider this: at least a half-dozen of his clients have performed at the Super Bowl halftime show, in Times Square on New Year's Eve, or both. (In case you're wondering, they are Marc Anthony, Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lopez, The Rolling Stones, and Bruce Springsteen.)Most lawyers would be thrilled to have just one famous client. But Orin Snyder isn't most lawyers. A former federal prosecutor, he has been recognized as one of the nation's leading litigators—not just by Chambers and Partners and Forbes, but by entertainment-industry publications like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.In our conversation, we covered Orin's family history in the entertainment industry; his service as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York; why celebrity clients are often a joy to represent, not annoying or aggravating (which was my guess); and his forthcoming memoir.As a longtime Biglaw partner and member of Gibson's executive committee, Orin is an expert on the business of law. So we discussed the virtues of boutique practice (he had his own boutique before joining Gibson), why so many Biglaw firms are shifting away from litigation, and why he thinks that's a mistake. Finally, Orin told me how he came to represent the family of the late Professor Dan Markel, pro bono—for which I am, as a friend of Dan, especially grateful.Show Notes:* Orin Snyder bio, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP* Orin Snyder profile, Chambers and Partners* Meet Orin Snyder, the Deadliest Trial Lawyer in Tech, by Greg Sandoval for The VergePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

When you've spent years building trust with a partner who once championed your career, it can be deeply unsettling when they suddenly stop giving you work, exclude you from client calls, or even fail to support your partnership candidacy. I've seen this happen often in BigLaw. It's painful, hard to understand, and often tough to find a way to move forward without that support. In this episode, I explain the structural, economic, and political reasons that drive this kind of behavior, and the concrete steps you can take to protect your career, your client relationships, and your reputation within your BigLaw firm. I also share how to recognize early warning signs, document your value, and rebuild momentum through new mentors, visibility, and business development efforts. At a Glance: 00:00 Introduction and the reality of losing a mentor partner's support 02:12 The first signs of a deliberate cutoff and how to recognize the shift 03:40 Structural reasons behind the change, including billable pressure and firm economics 05:26 How your mentor may fear losing client credit or control as you become more visible 06:45 Why mentors can begin to see protégés as competitors rather than allies 08:24 The emotional impact of losing your mentor, and how to separate feelings from facts 09:54 Protecting your hours and finding alternate work streams 11:03 Documenting every contribution and communicating it effectively 12:52 How to prepare for a difficult conversation with your mentor partner 14:35 Turning insights into a strategy for next steps 15:48 Expanding mentorship, sponsorship, and visibility 16:23 When and how to escalate the issue if needed 19:52 Steps to rebuild relationships and regain career stability 23:25 Why losing a mentor can become a turning point for independence Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

I spent two days on the ground at Legal Tech Talk London, speaking to the people shaping the future of law, from AI innovators to legal ops leaders.And what I heard? Surprising. Honest. Game-changing.In this episode, I'm talking with:Richard Macklin, ex-Global Vice Chair for Dentons and now, world-class coach for leaders at the Alexander Partnership and on the training committee for the City of London Law Society.Lorraine Lee, fractional Chief Privacy Officer, General Counsel and Executive Coach.Mahwash Ali, Procurement expert for law firms.She helps law firms stop overpaying suppliers and start saving on supplier spend.Thomas Bueler-Faudree, founder of August, the first AI legal assistant that can research, draft and revise autonomously.Robert Hanna, host of The Legally Speaking Podcast.Dharshi Harindra, Fractional General Counsel, Executive Coach to Legal Leaders, and host of Unbiased Podcast.Jono Randell-Nash, ex-lawyer turned independent financial advisor specializing in the legal profession.Charlene Gisele, former BigLaw litigator turned high-performance coach for lawyers, law firms and executives.Caleb Harris, Founder, CEO at &AI • AI for Patent LitigationMerlin Beyts, Content Director at Legal Tech Talk London.---Aircounsel has been kind enough to sponsor this episode.And I'm excited to spread the word. It's the most sophisticated contract drafting software I've used.To get your free 7-day trial, go to the description of this episode.Give it a go and let me know how it changes your workflow.TRY Aircounsel here:https://lawyers.aircounsel.com/morethanalawyerDisclaimer: This is an affiliate link that will track podcast sign-ups. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, the road to partnership involves more than billing hours and producing great work. It's also now about more than business development, firm economics, and client relationships. A new factor also driving advancement is artificial intelligence. AI is already reshaping research, diligence, drafting, and reporting. In addition, it compresses tasks that once justified entire teams of associates. That means the old BigLaw pyramid model is under pressure, and the skills firms now look for in future partners are shifting rapidly.  In this episode, I walk through what partnership track lawyers need to know about AI's impact on the profession, how to use it strategically in your practice, and how to position yourself as indispensable to both clients and your firm. At a Glance: 00:00 Introduction and why AI is changing the partnership track 01:20 How AI is replacing work once handled by junior associates and large diligence teams 02:45 The decline of the BigLaw pyramid in the age of AI and the new calculus for partnership success 03:12 Why firms prioritize high-value, complex matters that AI cannot commoditize 04:18 How associates can leverage their need to expand expertise in AI to seek early exposure to client calls, strategy meetings, and negotiations 04:44 Using AI tools on low-risk tasks and showing measurable client outcomes 05:10 Leading multidisciplinary teams that now include data scientists and technologists 06:30 Demonstrating client judgment in AI-assisted work by asking “Would I trust this outcome if I were the client?” 07:25 Joining firm AI committees and pilots to gain visibility and credibility 08:17 Shifts in client expectations: efficiency, cost transparency, and outcome-based fees 09:45 The lawyer's edge: spotting risks that AI misses and proving strategic value 11:01 Rewriting your career narrative for the AI era: from hard worker to AI-enabled strategist 12:05 Freeing time for business development by leveraging AI efficiencies 12:50 Tracking and sharing metrics on time saved, cost savings, and improved margins 13:54 How AI enables more volume, fewer write-offs, and stronger profitability 14:42 Why AI should be seen as an accelerator, not a competitor 15:21 What firms will value most over the next decade: legal judgment, client impact, and tech fluency Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

Join me for an insightful conversation with Emily Logan Stedman, lawyer well-being advocate and Big Law partner. Inside of today's interview, Emily shares candid insights on lawyer mental health, the challenges of becoming (and transitioning to) partner, and how to build a sustainable law practice without burning out. Listen now for a realistic, transparent, and supportive perspective on how to succeed in both law and life. The post #209: Beyond Work-Life Balance (Navigating Big Law Realities & Partnership with Emily Logan Stedman) appeared first on Life & Law Podcast.

President Donald Trump's attacks on law firms have hand their intended impact, even as courts shoot down executive orders against some as unconstitutional and the details of White House deals with others remain unclear, according to Yale Law School professor John Morley. "The point here is to extract a demonstrative form of obedience," Morely said. He said he's already seen a "chilling effect" with firms less willing to take on matters pushing back against the administration than in Trump's first term. Morley, who has studied law firm collapses, does not blame the leaders of firms that struck deals with the White House to avoid punitive executive orders. Court wins for the four firms who have challenged orders targeting them so far show that those firms made the right, albeit risky, choice to fight. "I am absolutely certain that, if one of these executive orders survived a temporary injunction proceeding, that would be the death of the firm," Morley said. "Or at least I think the probability is very high." Morley spoke to Bloomberg Law reporter Roy Strom on this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, about what has become of Trump's attacks on Big Law and what would happen if the President resumed them. He also discussed how they've changed the attitudes of his students at Yale about which firms they may want to work at in the future. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Too many professionals pursue prestige and big paydays, only to feel trapped in exhausting, unfulfilling careers. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Big Law, where young attorneys trade passion for paychecks—often at the cost of burnout, depression, and a life they never wanted.Bill Reid broke that mold. As a nationally recognized trial lawyer and co-founder of Reid Collins, he's spent decades taking on corporate giants—banks, accounting firms, and institutions most people thought were untouchable. In his new book, Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law, he reveals the truth behind Big Law's broken model and shows why pursuing passion and purpose leads not only to success, but to freedom.What makes Bill's story resonate far beyond the legal world is the life he's designed along the way—one of wealth, health, impact, and experiences that his peers envy. His journey is proof that you don't have to sacrifice your freedom to build real prosperity.In this episode, you'll learn: 1.) Why Big Law traps so many young attorneys—and how to avoid falling into the same paycheck-driven path.2.) How AI is disrupting industries like law—automating tasks like document review and contracts, and forcing efficiency over billable hours.3.) Bill's blueprint for an “epic life”—balancing high-stakes work, entrepreneurship, health, and unforgettable experiences with friends and family.Show Notes: LifestyleInvestor.com/258Tax Strategy MasterclassIf you're interested in learning more about Tax Strategy and how YOU can apply 28 of the best, most effective strategies right away, check out our BRAND NEW Tax Strategy Masterclass: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/taxStrategy Session For a limited time, my team is hosting free, personalized consultation calls to learn more about your goals and determine which of our courses or masterminds will get you to the next level. To book your free session, visit LifestyleInvestor.com/consultationThe Lifestyle Investor InsiderJoin The Lifestyle Investor Insider, our brand new AI - curated newsletter - FREE for all podcast listeners for a limited time: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/insiderRate & ReviewIf you enjoyed today's episode of The Lifestyle Investor, hit the subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so future episodes are automatically downloaded directly to your device. You can also help by providing an honest rating & review.Connect with Justin DonaldFacebookYouTubeInstagramLinkedInTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Biglaw capitulators face new challenge and James Comey gets indicted. ----- Perennially embattled Cooley Law School once again called out by the ABA over sagging bar passage rates. The school has been out of compliance with ABA standards since 2020, and now finds itself on probation with its accreditor. The last time something like this happened, Cooley sued the ABA into relenting. History is a flat circle. After learning that Paul Weiss and Kirkland were providing free legal services to the Commerce Department, presumably in an effort to satisfy their pro bono payola obligations, we wondered how this could possibly be legal in light of 31 U.S.C. 1342. Apparently, lawmakers wondered the same thing. And James Comey finds himself indicted after a whirlwind that involved removing the existing top federal prosecutor for refusing to file a sham case and replacing him with an in-over-her-head Florida insurance lawyer.

Jeannie Rhee is one of the nation's leading litigators, with the awards and accolades to prove it—including, most recently, recognition last month from Forbes as one of America's Top 250 Lawyers. But her legal career is not only impressive; it's also very interesting.The past few years have been extremely eventful for Jeannie. From 2017 until 2019, she worked on a matter you might have heard of: special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. She then became a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Weiss—her professional home until May 2025, when she and several other partners left (itself a newsworthy event).Together with top trial lawyers Karen Dunn (a past podcast guest) and Bill Isaacson, Jeannie co-founded Dunn Isaacson Rhee—in my opinion, the most exciting new firm to launch in 2025 to date. And since starting DIR, Jeannie continues to handle headline-making cases—most notably, the federal government's antitrust case against Google.Why did Jeannie and her partners leave Paul Weiss? What is their vision for DIR as a firm? Looking back in light of recent events, what does she think about her work on the Mueller investigation? We covered all this and more, including Jeannie's service as a D.C. federal prosecutor and at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in the latest Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Jeannie S. Rhee bio, Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP* Jeannie Rhee profile, Chambers and Partners* Ex-Paul Weiss Stars Balance Big Law Ties, Autonomy at Firm, by Tatyana Monnay for Bloomberg LawPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

If you have built your BigLaw career around a thriving regulatory or enforcement practice, you know how difficult it can be for you and your practice when that work suddenly isn't there. One month you are buried in nvestigations motivated by government inquiries or merger reviews, and the next your phone goes quiet because enforcement priorities shifted, agency budgets got cut, or a new administration has redirected resources. It is unsettling, especially when your brand, reputation and and client base are tied to that flow of work. In this episode, I walk through the reality of what it can feel like and what to do when your once-busy enforcement and regulatory practice slows. I share how to distinguish between cyclical downturns and structural changes that reshape a practice like this long term, and share some specific examples across areas such as FCPA, antitrust, and privacy to illustrate how BigLaw attorneys can pivot effectively. I also outline practical steps to stay visible with clients as well as inside your firm so that even when the billable work is not there, your value and future opportunities are. At a Glance: 00:00 Introduction need to navigate BigLaw downturns in regulatory and enforcement work 01:20 When busy practices suddenly dry up: regulatory shifts and enforcement changes 02:14 How external forces such as politics, budgets, and agency leadership reshape your practice overnight 03:03 Early warning signs that your work is slowing down in these areas 03:37 The emotional impact: anxiety, uncertainty, and fear of career derailment 04:08 Diagnosing cyclical vs. structural downturns with concrete indicators 05:16 Why this distinction matters for your long-term career strategy 05:39 Examples of temporary pivots that kept practices alive (FCPA, antitrust, GDPR, privacy) 07:04 How lawyers can broaden their practices to adapt to structural changes 08:08 The importance of proactive client communication, including with “good news” updates 09:37 What to do when billable hours stall: seeking work across departments and staying visible 10:41 Positioning yourself as a thought leader through articles, CLEs, and conferences 11:29 Documenting outreach, cross-practice contributions, and client loyalty for firm leadership 12:21 Demonstrating cross-practice value: aligning with busier groups inside your firm 13:30 How client loyalty and referrals strengthen your standing even in slow periods 13:58 Reframing your practice to be less narrowly defined by one enforcement area 14:27 How one partner survived cuts by documenting value and broadening expertise 15:16 Long-game mindset: showing your firm that you are indispensable beyond billable hours Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

Biglaw capitulators face new challenge and James Comey gets indicted. ----- Perennially embattled Cooley Law School once again called out by the ABA over sagging bar passage rates. The school has been out of compliance with ABA standards since 2020, and now finds itself on probation with its accreditor. The last time something like this happened, Cooley sued the ABA into relenting. History is a flat circle. After learning that Paul Weiss and Kirkland were providing free legal services to the Commerce Department, presumably in an effort to satisfy their pro bono payola obligations, we wondered how this could possibly be legal in light of 31 U.S.C. 1342. Apparently, lawmakers wondered the same thing. And James Comey finds himself indicted after a whirlwind that involved removing the existing top federal prosecutor for refusing to file a sham case and replacing him with an in-over-her-head Florida insurance lawyer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, host Kathryn Rubino chats with Marc Brown, a dynamic attorney and Big Dave's Cheesesteaks franchise owner. Marc opens up about his non-linear career path from Biglaw to founding his own successful firm, sharing insights on the fulfilling shift to plaintiff's work and the challenges of running a business. Aspiring lawyers and entrepreneurs alike will find inspiration in Marc's journey of pursuing passion over convention and learning to balance career and life. Tune in for a mix of legal wisdom and the secret to a perfect cheesesteak!.   Episode Highlights Childhood dream of becoming a lawyer Reality vs. TV portrayal of law work Unplanned career path: Starting a law firm Shift from Biglaw to plaintiff's work Dealing with emotionally challenging cases Transition to owning a law firm Lessons from running a personal injury firm Challenges of starting a new practice Importance of experience before starting a firm Franchise opportunity with Big Dave's Balancing multiple business ventures Career highlight: Marc Brown Legal Minute Learning from career lows and losses   Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus   Links and Resources https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcusjbrown/  https://www.marcbrownlawfirm.com/  https://www.bigdavesway.com/    Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts  

The proliferation of head injuries and concussions in women's sport globally is shaping up to be significant for insurers and litigators. Here, a BigLaw partner unpacks the landscape, and what it all means for lawyers moving forward. Host Jerome Doraisamy speaks with Clyde & Co partner Janine Clark about her work as a catastrophic injury practitioner and why it's of such interest to her, being “the balance” between injured persons and insurance premiums, how and why concussion in women's sport has become such a talking point, and what's happening in ongoing class actions in this space. Clark also delves into why this will be a growing area of litigation moving forward, whether such litigation could be akin to the proliferation of asbestos-related claims in a previous era, the implications for lawyers like herself, what constitutes best practice for lawyers like herself, and how to ensure optimal client service delivery in the future. If you like this episode, show your support by rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, X and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au

Law firm fires lawyer over Kirk comments and law school announces new scholarships. ----- Perkins Coie cut ties with an attorney over Charlie Kirk comments on social media. The remarks were measured and reasonable, but the firm is still fighting the Trump administration in court and -- seemingly -- does not want any distractions or mere appearance of bias. But is that a worthy excuse? A Pillsbury partner received a benchslapping over what the judge considered unchecked entitlement. A Biglaw partner? Entitled? No! Also, a law school responds to the new federal loan caps with guaranteed scholarships to cover the gap. Is this the start of a trend?

Collaboration can feel like a buzzword that doesn't align with how law firms actually reward people. Hours and origination credit often outweigh teamwork, and silos, competition, and fee pressures make working together seem like an uphill battle. But here's the truth: collaboration isn't optional if you want to grow in BigLaw. Clients expect seamless service across firms and practices, and internally within your firm, collaboration expands your visibility, strengthens trust, and opens doors to opportunities might never get on your own. In this episode, I break down the real obstacles that make collaboration so difficult and share practical strategies for overcoming them. I cover traps like silos, credit battles, and disorganized matter management, and I explain how clarifying roles, overcommunicating, and sharing credit generously can transform how you're perceived by clients and colleagues. I also share real stories, both successes and failures, that show exactly what's at stake when collaboration works and when it doesn't. At a Glance: 00:00 Why collaboration is rarely rewarded in BigLaw but is still essential to success 01:20 How client expectations drive the need for cross-practice teamwork 03:17 Why silos, competition, and fee pressure derail collaboration 04:52 Common traps: “eat what you kill,” clashing work styles, and version chaos 06:32 Practical strategies: clarify roles, align early, and use firm tools effectively 07:26 How overcommunication early prevents wasted time and turf wars later 08:11 Adapting to partner preferences and sharing credit generously 09:34 Soft skills that make collaboration work: listening, empathy, and conflict resolution 11:04 Case study: how a global deal team aligned as “one voice” and won repeat business 12:17 Late-night collaboration between associates that built goodwill with a client 13:15 A cautionary tale of poor version control that damaged client trust and associate morale 14:26 Why collaboration is not optional, it's critical to reputation, client service, and career growth Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast

Law firm fires lawyer over Kirk comments and law school announces new scholarships. ----- Perkins Coie cut ties with an attorney over Charlie Kirk comments on social media. The remarks were measured and reasonable, but the firm is still fighting the Trump administration in court and -- seemingly -- does not want any distractions or mere appearance of bias. But is that a worthy excuse? A Pillsbury partner received a benchslapping over what the judge considered unchecked entitlement. A Biglaw partner? Entitled? No! Also, a law school responds to the new federal loan caps with guaranteed scholarships to cover the gap. Is this the start of a trend? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode of On The Merits we hear from three lawyers working in the white hot world of data center projects. Mike Rechtin and Justin Stolte are, respectively, real estate and energy partners with Latham & Watkins, and Michelle Kallen is an appellate and advocacy partner at Steptoe. "The latest number that I've seen is a $50 billion annual investment in the data center construction area by 2030," Stolte tells Roy Strom. Stolte talks about how his firm has organized to address the explosion of generative AI and the infrastructure that supports it. Latham real estate partner Rechtin talks about the unique skill set that made him the perfect fit for the niche pursuit, and Steptoe's Kallen tells Jessie Kokrda Kamens about the rapidly evolving regulatory challenges that a robust infrastructure practice faces. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff's Law.  They discuss Bill's view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs' work.The impetus for Bill's book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths.  The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students' first year—rather than the fall of the students' second year.  This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights.  The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction.Bill's book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs' practice.  He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation.  This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work.  He argues that plaintiffs' lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act.  While not every case—or plaintiff's lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law.Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid.  These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Elise Holtzman left Big Law to raise her children, without a clear roadmap for what came next. Now she's a leadership coach and founder of The Lawyer's Edge, helping lawyers build confidence, develop business skills, and grow professionally. In this episode, Elise shares the mindset shifts that led her from practicing law to coaching those still in the field.LAWYER SIDE HUSTLESWhat began as a curiosity became a calling. Elise explored executive coaching and soon realized she could use her background in law to serve other lawyers. That side interest eventually became The Lawyer's Edge, which she now runs full-time, offering coaching programs, firm-wide trainings, and a popular podcast.“I didn't set out to start a business. I set out to help people,” Elise Holtzman shares in Episode 210 of You Are a Lawyer.Elise's story shows how side projects can evolve into full-fledged careers. By paying attention to what energized her, and what drained her, she built a business that supports both her clients and her life. She encourages other lawyers to give themselves permission to try something new, even if it starts small.LISTEN TO LEARNHow to overcome the fear of leaving traditional law practiceWhat lawyers actually need when it comes to leadership and business developmentHow to build a coaching business tailored to legal professionalsWE ALSO DISCUSSThe identity crisis many lawyers face when stepping away from the professionWhy law school doesn't prepare you to be a leader or entrepreneurHow to balance motherhood and career reinventionJoin the FREE mailing list!Get behind-the-scenes content from You Are A Lawyer. 1) Visit www.youarealawyer.com2) Add your email address to the Subscribe pop-up box OR3) Enter your email address on the right side of the screen4) Get emails from me (I won't fill your inbox with junk)!Interact with You Are A LawyerKyla Denanyoh hosts the You Are A Lawyer podcast. Follow the podcast:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@youarealawyerWebsite: https://www.youarealawyer.com

As Omar Little of The Wire famously quipped, “When you come at the king, you best not miss.” It's a very true saying—and an apt title for the third book by prosecutor turned bestselling author Elie Honig, When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, from Nixon to Trump.Special counsel Jack Smith investigated and prosecuted Donald Trump. But before either of Smith's two cases could go to trial, Trump was reelected. Now Jack Smith finds himself under investigation—by the administration of a president who declared that Smith should be “considered mentally deranged” and “thrown out of the country.”In the meantime, what will happen to the institution of the special counsel, during the administration of a president who is clearly not a fan? That's one of many topics I tackled in my conversation with Elie Honig. We also discussed his journey for prosecution to punditry, highlights from his time as an assistant U.S. attorney, and how today's Supreme Court might rule if asked to review the constitutionality of the Justice Department regulations that made Jack Smith's investigation possible.Thanks to Elie for joining me—and congratulations to him on his latest book.Show Notes:* Elie Honig bio, Wikipedia* When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, from Nixon to Trump, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

One of the toughest parts of BigLaw life is dealing with unclear or contradictory instructions. Partners often send cryptic emails, clients can be vague, and deadlines shift without explanation. You can waste hours second-guessing what a partner really wants. Or you can get smart about how to deal with ambiguity and recognize that mastering it is part of the job in BigLaw.  In this episode, I share the practical strategies you can use to navigate those moments, from clarifying vague assignments without pestering, to using timeboxing and judgment calls when no direction is available. I also explain how to read a partner's “ambiguity profile” so you can adapt to their style and avoid unnecessary frustration. At a Glance: 00:00 Why ambiguity is built into BigLaw and why clear instructions are the exception rather than the rule 01:20 How partner communication shortcuts and client vagueness create trickle-down uncertainty 02:39 Common scenarios such as three-sentence emails, vague quick overviews, and missing context 03:51 Four practical tools to navigate unclear assignments: clarify, timebox, skeleton outlines, and judgment 05:07 Examples of clarifying questions that suggest options and avoid over delivering 06:11 Why timeboxing prevents wasted hours and misaligned deep dives 06:38 Using a one pager or outline to confirm direction before investing too much time 07:30 When judgment is the only option and how to demonstrate initiative with uncertain asks 08:53 Reframing ambiguity as an opportunity to show judgment rather than a test of failure 10:19 Why forward progress matters more than perfection in firm culture 11:19 Understanding a partner's ambiguity profile and adapting to different supervision styles 12:40 Practical tactics for working with partners who do not respond, do not realize they are vague, or want independence 13:22 Why ambiguity is normal in BigLaw and how associates who thrive are those who navigate it 14:05 Final advice: treat ambiguity like a puzzle, not a problem Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg Laws EnactedOn this day in legal history, September 15, 1935, Nazi Germany enacted the Nuremberg Laws, codifying one of the most infamous legal frameworks of racial discrimination and hate in modern history. Announced at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, these laws included the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, the Reich Citizenship Law, and later, the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People. Together, they stripped Jews of German citizenship, prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans,” and laid the groundwork for systematic persecution.The Reich Citizenship Law divided citizens into two classes: full citizens, who were of "German or related blood," and subjects, who were denied full political rights. Jews were relegated to the latter category. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor banned intermarriage and extramarital relations between Jews and Germans, criminalizing personal relationships based on ancestry. Violators could be imprisoned or sent to concentration camps.To enforce these laws, the Nazi regime devised elaborate charts and pseudoscientific metrics to assess Jewish ancestry, culminating in a 1936 chart issued by the Reich Health Office. This visual aid defined citizens by the number of Jewish grandparents they had, assigning labels like Mischling (mixed race) to those with partial Jewish heritage. Even one Jewish grandparent could strip a person of civil rights.The Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People added a eugenic dimension, requiring couples to undergo genetic testing before marriage and barring those deemed "genetically unfit" from reproducing. These legal measures normalized state-sponsored racism and laid a legal foundation for the Holocaust.Big Law firm Perkins Coie terminated an attorney over a social media post that appeared to criticize conservative figure Charlie Kirk following his shooting death. The firm stated the post did not align with its values and that the lawyer's conduct fell significantly below professional expectations. The firing was made effective immediately. Kirk, 31, served as executive director of Turning Point USA and was a prominent supporter of Donald Trump. He was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. Perkins Coie has a history of political entanglements, notably becoming one of the first law firms to sue Trump after his executive orders targeted firms representing political adversaries. These orders reportedly restricted access to federal facilities, revoked security clearances, and jeopardized client contracts. The firm was a particular focus for Trump due to its work during Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, including hiring Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier, which alleged ties between Trump's campaign and the Russian government.Perkins Coie Fires Attorney Over Social Media Post on Kirk ShootingU.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly extended a temporary block on the deportation of unaccompanied Guatemalan children with active immigration cases. The move halts a Trump-era effort that attempted to deport 76 minors without proper notice or legal process, including waking children in the early hours of August 31 to board planes. The judge's ruling followed a contentious September 10 hearing, where he criticized a Justice Department attorney for falsely claiming that all the children's parents had requested their return. A report from the Guatemalan Attorney General's Office later revealed that most parents couldn't be located, and many of those found did not want their children repatriated.The children in question mostly come from Guatemala's Indigenous, rural regions—Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quiché, and Alta Verapaz—areas known for high poverty and malnutrition. Guatemalan officials emphasized that such a large-scale repatriation request was unprecedented. Some families reportedly mortgaged their homes to finance the children's migration, indicating the high stakes involved.US judge extends block on deportations of unaccompanied Guatemalan migrant children | ReutersU.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully directed the mass firing of around 25,000 federal probationary employees earlier this year. These workers, many of whom had served in their roles for less than a year, were dismissed under a directive from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in February. The mass terminations sparked lawsuits from unions, nonprofits, and the state of Washington, arguing the firings lacked legal justification.Judge Alsup found that the OPM's directive was unlawful and "pretextual," noting the terminations were falsely framed as performance-related. While he acknowledged that the workers had been harmed, he declined to order their reinstatement, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings limiting judicial power over executive branch hiring and firing decisions. Specifically, the Supreme Court had previously paused a preliminary injunction in April that would have reinstated 17,000 employees.Despite not ordering reinstatement, Alsup mandated that 19 federal agencies, including Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Treasury, correct the employment records of affected workers by November 14. He also prohibited agencies from continuing to follow OPM's original directive. Union leaders praised the decision for confirming the firings were baseless and for requiring agencies to acknowledge the false rationale behind the terminations.Trump administration unlawfully directed mass US worker terminations, judge rules | ReutersThe University of California, Berkeley confirmed it had shared information on 160 students, faculty, and staff with the Trump administration, in response to a federal investigation into alleged antisemitism. The data was provided to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights as part of an ongoing probe linked to pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The university stated that it acted under legal obligation while striving to protect individual privacy and notified those affected.This move comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to penalize universities accused of allowing antisemitic behavior, particularly during recent demonstrations opposing Israel's actions in Gaza. Critics argue that the administration is conflating political protest and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, raising serious concerns about free speech, academic freedom, and due process.Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to institutions involved in such protests and attempted to deport foreign student demonstrators, though those efforts have faced legal challenges. The administration has already reached high-profile settlements with Columbia and Brown universities and is in ongoing talks with Harvard. A proposed $1 billion settlement with UCLA was publicly rejected by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called it extortion.UC Berkeley shares information on dozens of students, staff with Trump administration | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Tune in to the latest Jabot episode as host Kathryn Rubino chats with Margot Hoppin, co-founder of Hoppin Grinsell. Discover the challenges and victories of starting a law firm post- COVID, the impact of AI in law, and the real deal on work-life balance.   Highlights Transition from Biglaw to founding a boutique firm. Trend of starting new firms post-COVID. Time-tracking challenges of running a law firm. Growth milestone: hiring and team development. Balancing work demands with personal time-off goals. Importance of cash flow management in a small firm. Key learnings: experience in running a law firm. Impact of AI on traditional law firm structures. Maintaining firm culture during growth. Benefits of transparency in a smaller law firm. Valuing open communication and addressing knowledge gaps.   Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus   Links and Resources https://www.hoppingrinsell.com/team/margot-hoppin    Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

5 Reasons to Use a Big Law Firm.

Profitability is a word that makes many lawyers cringe. We know firms measure it, but the methods and metrics often feel murky—or worse, toxic to firm culture. Still, ignoring profitability is not an option if you want to succeed and thrive in BigLaw. In this episode, I break down what profitability really means inside large firms, why it's far more than just gross billings, and how to take control of the numbers that impact your compensation, partnership prospects, and long-term career.  From cost structures and volume to realization and collections, I share how firms evaluate lawyers and practices, and the concrete steps you can take to ensure you're seen as a profitable and valuable member of your firm. At a Glance: 00:00 Why profitability is uncomfortable for many lawyers but unavoidable in firm evaluations 01:20 Why profitability metrics can feel toxic and how firms define them in different ways 02:39 Revenue versus profitability—why $5 million billed doesn't mean $5 million in profit 03:59 Partner cost per revenue dollar and how staffing models impact profitability 05:10 High-volume, lower-margin practices versus high-margin, resource-intensive matters 07:11 Comparing a $15 million practice with 15% margin to an $8 million practice with 30% margin 08:12 Why collections matter more than billings if the firm isn't getting paid 08:41 Understanding your standard rate, average billed rate, and why the gap matters 10:06 Realization rate explained with examples and what your firm expects from you 12:38 Collections as the true test of profitability and what firms conclude about lawyers who can't collect 14:18 The risks of unreliable clients, poor billing practices, or weak client control 15:28 How cost allocations and overhead factor into your profitability picture 16:22 Using dashboards, financial analysts, and legal operations pros to understand your data 17:13 Asking the right questions of CFOs and practice leaders to align with benchmarks 17:36 Why profitability is multi-dimensional and how to shift the conversation from toxic to strategic Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike Spivey hosts Trey Cox, co-chair of Gibson Dunn's global litigation practice group, on his legal career (4:18, 31:27), law school selection (9:20), hiring philosophies (16:42), and advice for aspiring law students and lawyers.Trey and Mike both recommend the book Brain Rules by John Medina, which you can learn more about here.You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode (with timestamps) here.

Ever feel like stress has become your default setting? Charlene Gisele shares how hustle culture fuels burnout and how clinical hypnotherapy can reset your nervous system, restore energy, and help you reclaim balance. Meet our guest Charlène Gisèle is a former Big Law litigator turned High-Performance Coach & founder of the Charlène Gisèle® Coaching method. She helps high-achieving professionals prevent & recover from burnout without sacrificing their careers. Her recovery-focused approach has been featured in major publications & sought after by leading organizations worldwide. Thank you to our partners Outliyr Biohacker's Peak Performance Shop: get exclusive discounts on cutting-edge health, wellness, & performance gear Ultimate Health Optimization Deals: a database of of all the current best biohacking deals on technology, supplements, systems and more Latest Summits, Conferences, Masterclasses, and Health Optimization Events: join me at the top events around the world FREE Outliyr Nootropics Mini-Course: gain mental clarity, energy, motivation, and focus Key takeaways Being busy or stressed is not the same as being successful or healthy Society often mixes these up Burnout usually sneaks up slowly Small repeated trades in self care for work lead to long term problems We get hooked on stress & adrenaline, similar to an addiction, especially when we link it to our identity Ignoring recovery leads to lower creativity & productivity Recovery is as important as hard work for true performance Chronic stress causes changes in the brain like thinning of the prefrontal cortex & shrinking hippocampus which harms memory & decision making Changes like more coffee, poor eating, snapping at loved ones, & losing motivation are early symptoms of burnout Our work, stresses, & environment lead to misdiagnosed issues like depression when the real issue is burnout Work is as addictive as drugs, causing harmful behavior patterns & hurting relationships if left unchecked The subconscious mind carries stories & beliefs from childhood that shape our habits—even sabotaging sleep & health Clinical hypnotherapy helps access & change subconscious patterns, enabling lasting recovery from burnout & related issues Episode highlights 1:20 Why busyness & stress are not successes 6:40 How stress turns into burnout 7:19 Signs you're trading health for work 9:31 What burnout does to your brain & body 33:10 How to recover & reprogram your mind 1:02:45 Lasting recovery & setting boundaries Links Watch it on YouTube: https://youtu.be/qpR66b05KDw  Full episode show notes: outliyr.com/225 Connect with Nick on social media Instagram Twitter (X) YouTube LinkedIn Easy ways to support Subscribe Leave an Apple Podcast review Suggest a guest Do you have questions, thoughts, or feedback for us? Let me know in the show notes above and one of us will get back to you! Be an Outliyr, Nick

Mass-tort and multidistrict litigation is one of the most interesting and important practice areas in American law today. But even though these cases represent more than 70 percent of the federal civil docket, involving thousands of plaintiffs and billions of dollars, they don't get as much coverage as you might expect—including, I must admit, in the pages of this newsletter.To address this gap, I interviewed one of mass-tort litigation's most prominent practitioners, Christopher Seeger. A founding partner of Seeger Weiss, which he co-founded with Stephen Weiss in 1999, Chris has handled some of the biggest and most famous mass-tort litigations in history, over everything from the painkiller Vioxx to combat earplugs to concussions suffered by NFL players.In addition, Chris and his firm have been in the news because of their involvement in an issue of critical importance to lawyers and the legal profession, namely, judicial independence and the rule of law. Earlier this year, Seeger Weiss made a donation of $500,000 to the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School, to establish The Seeger Weiss/Daniel Anderl Memorial Fund. The Fund will support the Institute's mission of protecting the rule of law and defending the judiciary from attacks that threaten judicial independence and diminish public faith in the judicial system.Thanks to Chris for shedding light on a fascinating field—and thanks to him and his partners at Seeger Weiss for doing their part to stand up for an independent judiciary.Show Notes:* Christopher A. Seeger bio, Seeger Weiss LLP* Christopher A. Seeger profile, Chambers and Partners* Seeger Weiss LLP Gift Establishes the Daniel Anderl Memorial Fund, New Jersey Business MagazinePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Strategic planning often feels like corporate jargon that doesn't belong in law firms. Yet without a clear plan, too many lawyers end up chasing random opportunities, wasting time, and missing the clients and matters best suited to help them succeed with building their practice and their business.  In this episode, I talk with Sheri Palomaki, Director of Practice Operations at K&L Gates [Energy, Infrastructure, Resources] about why strategic planning is a critical skill for lawyers today, what makes it so difficult in our environment, and how attorneys in BigLaw can use practical tools like SWOT analysis, SMART goals, and accountability partners to align priorities with results. If you've ever wondered how to turn priorities like “bring in more clients” into real progress, this conversation will give you a concrete path forward. At a Glance: 00:00 Why strategy feels elusive for lawyers but is essential to your practice 01:20 Framing why strategic planning matters for lawyers and practice leaders 03:29 Sheri's career path from practicing at Skadden to law firm operations and strategic planning, and how that shaped her perspective 05:21 Why law firms resist planning: cash-basis financials, partnership politics, and individual achievement culture 08:17 The dartboard and football analogies: why random wins aren't a strategy 10:04 The trap of setting too many priorities and why 2-3 is the sweet spot 12:15 Using SWOT analysis effectively and avoiding the problem of one partner speaking for everyone 14:04 Turning priorities into SMART goals and why specificity matters 16:27 How to avoid chasing the wrong kinds of clients by segmenting your long tail 18:29 Fitness and sports analogies: daily actions, not lofty goals, drive results 21:12 Guarding against shiny object syndrome and staying intentional about shifts 23:10 How recurring accountability meetings and role assignments keep execution on track 25:02 The “accelerator program” model for training rising partners in business development 26:12 First steps: finding an accountability partner and communicating priorities Rate, Review, & Follow on Apple Podcasts & Spotify Do you enjoy listening to Big Law Life?  Please consider rating and reviewing the show! This helps support and reach more people like you who want to grow a career in Big Law.  For Apple Podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let me know what you loved most about the episode! Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast here!  For Spotify, tap here on your mobile phone, follow the podcast, listen to the show, then find the rating icon below the description, and tap to rate with five stars. Learn more about Sheri Palomaki and Legal Value Network LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheripalomaki/ https://www.legalvaluenetwork.com/ Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? Here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

Charlie Jimerson is the founder and CEO of Jimerson Birr, a Florida-based business law firm with a national reputation for litigation, regulatory, and transactional work. He's also a U.S. Air Force veteran, a board-certified construction law attorney, and a widely recognized leader in the legal and business communities. Under his leadership, the firm has been repeatedly honored for its workplace culture, growth, and client service while representing various businesses of all sizes and scales as their go-to counsel for legal matters and comprehensive legal expertise, both inside and outside the courtroom.  From drafting and enforcing contracts, providing grounded executive-level advice, and collecting money owed, Charlie's extensive experience spans all phases of litigation, including alternative dispute resolution, settlement negotiations, and complex commercial cases. His career is distinguished by a rich tapestry of accomplishments that mirror his unwavering commitment to securing favorable outcomes for his clients and reflect a focus on service, quality, and results. Prior to founding Jimerson Birr, Charlie honed his skills and expertise at prominent  Jacksonville-based commercial litigation and construction law boutique law firms. He currently resides in Ortega with his wife, Ashley, their two children, and their Italian Greyhound dog, Olive. WHAT'S COVERED IN THIS EPISODE ABOUT LAW FIRM GROWTH  As a young lawyer, Charlie Jimerson had his pick of opportunities and began his career at a traditional Biglaw firm. But it didn't take long for him to feel disenchanted with what he saw—an industry clinging to outdated models that didn't truly serve clients. Not even four years into practice, Charlie founded Jimerson Birr as a values-driven law firm committed to doing things differently. He believed law firms could grow by focusing on service, quality, and results instead of billable hours and burnout. That conviction shaped his approach to building a practice centered on client needs, predictable pricing, and strong culture. By replacing outdated habits with clear processes and accountability, Charlie set out to prove that sustainable growth is possible without sacrificing relationships or outcomes. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge podcast, Elise talks with Charlie about how rethinking the billable hour can fuel law firm growth. He shares how subscription pricing and disciplined processes create more value for clients, how AI can enhance efficiency without replacing human judgment, and why culture and leadership are essential to long-term success. Charlie also explains why he sees pressure as a privilege and why “the way it's always been done” is the most dangerous mindset holding firms back. 2:06 - The inspiration for Jimerson Birr's founding and identity 5:21 - Problems with the billable hours model of many legal organizations 9:12 - What's necessary for the legal industry to start retreating from the billable hour crutch 14:37 – Value-based and subscription pricing around four core areas and three package tiers 21:15 – Why there should still be room made for the billable hour when necessary 24:56 - Three biggest things learned from client surveys that impacted changes within the firm  27:43 - How Charlie uses AI to enhance his organization's practice  32:20 - Hiring principles and cultural philosophy of Jimerson Birr 34:45 – Why Charlie views pressure as a privilege and its impact on his choices 37:28 - Essentials to focus on and the mentality law firm leaders need to reject so the industry can evolve MENTIONED IN RETHINKING THE BILLABLE HOUR FOR SUSTAINABLE LAW FIRM GROWTH Jimerson Birr | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | Youtube Follow Charlie B. Jimerson on LinkedIn Process! How Discipline and Consistency Will Set You and Your Business Free by Mike Paton and Lisa González Books by Gino Wickman Get connected with the coaching team: hello@thelawyersedge.com The Lawyer's Edge SPONSOR FOR THIS EPISODE... Today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a 9-month business development program created BY women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers AND supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession. If you are interested in either participating in the program or sponsoring a woman in your firm to enroll, learn more about Ignite and sign up for our registration alerts by visiting www.thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

William Cohan, co-founder of Puck News and author of many books, including Power Failure: The Rise and Fall of an American Icon (Penguin Random House, 2022) , talks about the many ways President Trump is interfering in big U.S. businesses, and why Wall Street is worried he'll come after big banks the way he did big law firms and elite universities.

Texas Republicans are busy gerrymandering their already gerrymandered congressional map, and other red states are looking to do the same—all aimed at blocking the Dems from winning back the House and shielding Donald Trump at all costs. Meanwhile, the DOJ is trying to get state voter rolls and is laying the groundwork for interfering in the midterms. Democrats need to fight fire with fire in blue states. Plus, the cowardice of Big Law, the power politics behind the Emil Bove confirmation, and the pathetic deference Republicans are showing to convicted sex crimes monster Ghislaine Maxwell. Marc Elias joins Tim Miller. show notes Elias's Democracy Docket  F*%k your khakis and get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code BULWARK15 at theperfectjean.nyc/BULWARK15