Podcasts about Bloomberg Law

Judge William Alsup has rejected the record-breaking $1.5 billion settlement Anthropic has agreed to for a piracy lawsuit filed by writers. According to Bloomberg Law, the federal judge is concerned that the class lawyers struck a deal that will be forced "down the throat of authors." Alsup reportedly felt misled by the deal and said it was "nowhere close to complete." Also, Vodafone made a commercial starring an AI avatar posing as a real lady. This is interesting because Vodafone is a major global brand and not a fly-by-night TikTok company. The company said it was “testing different styles of advertising — this time with AI." And, Bluesky has added a built-in bookmarking feature so users finally have a way to privately save posts on the platform. The update is out now on Bluesky's website and app. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A memo from law firm King & Spalding to its associates saying they need to log 2,400 "productive hours" a year surprised some in the legal world. But today's guest on our podcast, On The Merits, says it shouldn't have. It's always been the case that lawyers need to go beyond meeting their billable hours quotas and put in some non-billable hours in order to advance their careers, according to Jessica Chin Somers, a former Big Law attorney and current managing director at Kinney Recruiting. King & Spalding just wrote down what was essentially a legal industry unwritten rule, she said. Chin Somers talked to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens about why associates might need to have this policy spelled out and about how they can get ahead even when they're not working on client matters. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History: First Continental CongressOn September 5, 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, marking a critical early step toward American independence. Delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies—Georgia being the sole exception—gathered at Carpenters' Hall to coordinate a colonial response to the "Intolerable Acts," a series of punitive measures imposed by the British Parliament in the wake of the Boston Tea Party. These acts, which included the Boston Port Act and the Massachusetts Government Act, were seen by the colonists as severe violations of their rights as Englishmen.The Congress brought together influential figures such as George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Jay. Though the colonies had differing interests and levels of loyalty to the Crown, the delegates united in their desire to assert colonial rights through collective action. They adopted the Suffolk Resolves, endorsed a boycott of British goods through the Continental Association, and agreed to reconvene the following year if their grievances were not addressed.Rather than immediately pushing for independence, the First Continental Congress aimed to restore harmony with Britain while defending colonial autonomy. It drafted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, emphasizing allegiance to the Crown but rejecting parliamentary authority over the colonies in matters of internal governance.This Congress laid the groundwork for future intercolonial cooperation and demonstrated that the colonies could act in concert. Its organizational structure, with committees and formal resolutions, prefigured the eventual legislative model adopted under the U.S. Constitution. While King George III and Parliament ultimately ignored the Congress's petitions, the gathering significantly escalated the political crisis that would lead to the American Revolutionary War.Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said this week that, despite political polarization and President Trump's aggressive use of executive power, the U.S. is not experiencing a constitutional crisis. Whew! Speaking at New York's Lincoln Center while promoting her new book, Listening to the Law, Barrett emphasized that the Constitution is “alive and well,” and that American institutions—particularly the courts—are still functioning effectively. Her remarks come amid widespread concern over Trump's second-term policies, including sweeping immigration crackdowns, tariff impositions, and rollbacks of diversity programs, many of which have been challenged in court.Federal judges have repeatedly halted or delayed Trump's initiatives, leading to sharp criticism from the president. Earlier this year, Trump even called for the impeachment of a federal judge, raising alarms among legal scholars. Despite these tensions, Barrett asserted that a real constitutional crisis would require the collapse of the rule of law—something she doesn't see happening.Barrett also defended her controversial vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, arguing that Supreme Court decisions shouldn't be influenced by shifting public opinion. While support for abortion rights has grown in recent years, Barrett stood by the Court's direction, which has taken a decisively conservative turn since her appointment in 2020. Her comments signal confidence in the judiciary's resilience during politically charged times.Supreme Court's Barrett says US not in constitutional crisis | ReutersU.S. prosecutors are aggressively charging individuals in Washington, D.C. with assaulting or resisting federal officers under a new DOJ-led law enforcement push, but the initiative is drawing scrutiny due to its stark contrast with President Trump's earlier decision to dismiss or pardon many January 6-related assault charges. A Bloomberg Law review found at least 20 new federal cases that closely resemble charges from the Capitol riot—charges that Trump has largely wiped away. Critics argue that this inconsistency undermines prosecutorial credibility and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department.Some judges and grand juries have echoed that skepticism. In one case, a magistrate judge cited the Jan. 6 clemencies in deciding not to detain a man charged with threatening a National Guard member. Prosecutors have also struggled to secure felony indictments, including in a case where a former DOJ employee was accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal officer. These outcomes point to juror reluctance in cases they may view as politically selective.U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is leading the local effort and has acknowledged the difficulty of securing convictions. Some cases involve more serious allegations—kicking, hitting, or spitting on officers—while others stem from lower-level confrontations, including a disputed video involving immigration agents.Meanwhile, defendants and defense attorneys are raising claims of selective prosecution, citing the dismissal of hundreds of Jan. 6 assault cases still pending when Trump returned to office. One high-profile example involves Rep. LaMonica McIver, whose lawyers argue her case—stemming from a confrontation with immigration officers—is being pursued for political reasons. Prosecutors have already been forced to downgrade multiple cases from felonies to misdemeanors due to lack of support from grand juries.DOJ Crime Crackdown Clashes With Jan. 6 Cases Trump ForgaveA federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling that would have restricted President Trump's use of military troops for immigration enforcement and crowd control in Los Angeles. The move preserves Trump's authority to use active-duty military and National Guard personnel in support of federal agents while the case is under appeal. The original ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, found that the administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a law dating back to the 1800s that limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement.Breyer's decision, which would have barred military personnel from performing police functions in California, was scheduled to take effect on September 12 but is now on hold as the 9th Circuit reviews the appeal. The legal fight stems from Trump's June deployment of over 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles during protests over federal immigration policies. Though most of the protests have since calmed, around 300 National Guard troops remain on the ground, supporting immigration and drug enforcement operations.Critics argue that Trump's use of the military in civilian law enforcement roles marks a dangerous shift in executive power. The same day the 9th Circuit paused Breyer's ruling, Washington, D.C.'s attorney general filed a lawsuit challenging similar military deployments in the capital. Trump has also signaled interest in expanding military involvement to other cities like Chicago and New Orleans.US appeals court pauses restrictions on Trump's use of troops in Los Angeles | ReutersGoogle has been hit with a $425 million jury verdict in a major privacy class action, after a last-minute law firm switch brought Cooley LLP into the case. Originally led by Willkie Farr, the defense team—headed by partners Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci—jumped to Cooley in June, just weeks before trial. Cooley took over the multibillion-dollar case and brought in additional lawyers to assist. The abrupt law firm change followed internal dissent at Willkie over a controversial agreement with the Trump administration requiring pro bono work aligned with White House directives.The case centered on allegations that Google collected data from nearly 100 million users despite their account settings indicating they wanted to keep their information private. After a two-week trial in San Francisco, the jury sided with the plaintiffs, led by prominent attorneys from Morgan & Morgan, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Susman Godfrey. While the plaintiffs had sought $31 billion, the jury awarded just over 1% of that amount.Google said it will appeal, claiming the jury misunderstood how its privacy settings function. The plaintiffs' legal team, however, called the verdict a clear message about unauthorized data collection. The firms behind the case have brought similar lawsuits, including one over Google's Chrome “Incognito” mode, which resulted in a settlement earlier this year that forced the company to destroy billions of data records.Google trial ends with $425 million verdict after Cooley inherits privacy case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Amy Beach.This week's closing theme features the elegant and expressive piano miniatures of Beach, one of the most important American composers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A prodigy and largely self-taught composer, Beach broke barriers as the first American woman to write a symphony performed by a major orchestra and became a central figure in the Boston musical scene. Her works span symphonic, choral, chamber, and solo piano music, all marked by lyrical intensity and harmonic richness.Composed in 1892, her Four Sketches, Op. 15 for solo piano offers a vivid, compact display of her early voice as a composer. Each short piece evokes a distinct atmosphere: In Autumn captures seasonal change with swirling colors; Phantoms conjures mysterious shadows; Dreaming drifts into quiet introspection; and Fireflies sparkles with quick, darting motion. Though brief, these character pieces are finely crafted, offering emotional depth and technical elegance.As our closing music, Beach's Sketches remind us how much can be said in miniature—and how, even in the restrictive musical culture of her time, she composed with clarity, beauty, and unmistakable individuality.Without further ado, Amy Beach's Four Sketches, Op. 15 – enjoy!  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

Like most schools worried about academic integrity, the University of Chicago Law School used to discourage its first-year students from using generative AI but now it has crept into that first-year curriculum. Despite its overall inevitability, William Hubbard, a professor and deputy dean, says he's surprised by how often he has to encourage AI-skeptical law students to at least try it out. Hubbard's school has seen how law firms, and especially large law firms, have embraced this new technology and it's followed suit, adding several AI-focused classes to its course offerings. Hubbard says the University of Chicago's students need to graduate with at least a basic familiarity with AI—specifically when it is and isn't appropriate to use in a legal setting. He spoke to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kamens for our podcast, On The Merits, about what the legal industry wants law students to learn about AI and how his law school is going about teaching it. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Big Four accounting firm KPMG has taken advantage of relaxed rules in Arizona to start a law firm there, but the company has broader ambitions outside of the state. KPMG says it doesn't want to compete with established players in the legal industry, but Big Law leaders are privately expressing concerns. That's according to Justin Henry, a Bloomberg Law reporter who's the guest on today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits. Henry talks about the legal work KPMG can do now and about the open question of whether it can operate outside of the Grand Canyon State. He also talks about the measures KPMG has taken to insulate its new law firm from the rest of its company, including having lawyers use separate entrances and exits at its Tempe, Ariz., office. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Professor of Law Seth Oranburg, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law, breaks down the importance of the GENIUS Act, how it takes steps to fix the cryptocurrency system, and why your average American should care that Trump made this law. Learn more about the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law: https://law.unh.edu Read his article in Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/genius-act-revives-civil-war-era-banking-problem-for-states Read his law review article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5366627

Host Lauren Clarke dives into major H-1B developments with immigration reporter Andrew Kreighbaum from Bloomberg Law. They discuss the Trump administration's proposed weighted selection rule that cleared White House review, which could fundamentally change the H-1B lottery system from random selection to wage-based allocation. The conversation also covers troubling trends of terminated H-1B workers receiving notices to appear during their grace periods, broader challenges facing foreign workers entering the US, and uncertainty surrounding F-1 student programs and OPT employment options.GUEST: Andrew Kreighbaum, Immigration Reporter, Bloomberg LawHOST: Lauren ClarkeNEWS NERD: Rob TaylorPRODUCER: Adam BelmarResource Links:Trump DHS Proposes Limiting Foreign Students to Four Years in US | Bloomberg Law, Reporter Andrew Kreighbaum, Aug. 27, 2025H-1B Worker Weighted Selection Rule Clears White House Review | Bloomberg Law, Reporter Andrew Kreighbaum, Aug. 11, 2025

The Friday Five for August 29, 2025: Ritter Summits Takeaways & Shoutouts What I'm Watching Right Now Apple “Awe Dropping” Event Announced Spotify Slips Into the DMs Judge Grants Stay on Many 2025 ACA Final Rule Provisions   Get Connected:

Benjamin Klubes is a Big Law expat who just founded his own litigation-focused boutique firm—and he's not alone. Other former partners at larger law firms are now either moving to smaller litigation-only firms or, like Klubes, starting their own. In this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Klubes talks with Bloomberg Law reporter Tatyana Monnay about why he thinks these boutique firms are better suited to taking on the Trump administration than firms like Skadden, where he was a partner in the 2000s. "The issues that seemed to be driving a lot of Big Law capitulation were the transactional practices and the clients in those practices that believed that they were going to suffer as a result of retaliation by the Trump administration," he says. "That of course just isn't part of my practice or many boutique litigation practices." Klubes also says new technology, particularly AI, can mitigate some of the disadvantages of starting a small firm. "Document reviews are much more subject to technological innovation and reducing the need for a mass number of lawyers to be thrown at a case," he says. "AI can do it faster and typically, frankly, more efficiently." Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

If it wasn't already clear, it is now: well-capitalized investors want a piece of the US legal industry. The latest example of this trend came this week when the litigation funder Burford Capital announced that now, in addition to financing individual lawsuits, it also wants to buy minority stakes in entire law firms. This comes after the consulting giant KPMG won a license earlier this year to start its own legal practice in Arizona after the state loosened its rules on who can own firms. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Emily R. Siegel and Justin Henry talk about the ethical risks that may be involved here and about why companies like Burford and KPMG think investing in law firms could be so lucrative for them. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History: Salem Witchcraft ExecutionsOn August 19, 1692, five individuals—George Burroughs, John Proctor, George Jacobs Sr., John Willard, and Martha Carrier—were executed by hanging in Salem, Massachusetts, after being convicted of witchcraft. These executions occurred during the height of the infamous Salem witch trials, a dark episode in colonial American history fueled by religious fervor, mass hysteria, and deeply flawed legal proceedings. George Burroughs, a former minister, recited the Lord's Prayer on the gallows—a feat believed to be impossible for a witch—which unsettled some spectators but did not halt the execution. John Proctor, a well-respected farmer, had been openly critical of the trials and was likely targeted for his outspoken skepticism.Martha Carrier was labeled “the Queen of Hell” by her accusers, a title steeped in misogyny and fear. The trials heavily relied on spectral evidence—claims of visions and dreams—which would later be deemed inadmissible in more rational courts. Governor William Phips halted the trials just two months later, in part because of growing public backlash and the implausibility of the accusations.These executions mark one of the final mass hangings of the Salem witch trials, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 people and the imprisonment of many more. Legal scholars have since examined the trials as a case study in the dangers of due process violations, mass panic, and unchecked judicial power. In the centuries that followed, the state of Massachusetts gradually acknowledged the injustice, with the last of the condemned officially exonerated only in 2001. The Salem trials remain a cautionary tale in American legal history, illustrating how fear and ideology can warp legal institutions.The White House has been sending social media teams to accompany FBI agents during arrests in Washington, D.C., as part of President Donald Trump's recent federal takeover of the city's policing efforts. According to sources briefed on the situation, the teams are capturing footage to promote the administration's crackdown on crime, raising serious concerns among legal experts. The move is considered highly unusual and potentially problematic, as it blurs the lines between law enforcement and political messaging, potentially violating Justice Department norms meant to prevent political interference in criminal investigations.One recent example involved a professionally produced video of FBI agents arresting Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ employee, which was posted to the White House's social media and has garnered millions of views. Legal experts warn that filming arrests—especially in non-public spaces—could infringe on suspects' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and complicate the legal proceedings by generating prejudicial pre-trial publicity.The White House has also reportedly embedded personnel within the FBI command post and is tracking arrest statistics, suggesting an unusually direct involvement in federal law enforcement operations. While the administration claims this is part of its transparency initiative, critics see it as political theater designed to favorably shape public perception. Experts argue that such tactics risk undermining public confidence in the FBI's independence and could erode the bureau's credibility.White House sending social media teams with FBI on some arrests in D.C., sources say | ReutersThe Trump administration appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director of the FBI, sharing the post with conservative media personality Dan Bongino. This newly created position signals a shift in leadership at the Bureau, with FBI Director Kash Patel calling Bailey an essential addition to the agency. Bailey, a war veteran and Missouri's attorney general since 2023, will resign his current role effective September 8.Bailey expressed gratitude for the appointment, emphasizing his commitment to supporting President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi's law enforcement agenda. Bondi, who welcomed Bailey's appointment, praised his legal and military background. Bailey had previously been mentioned as a potential pick for U.S. attorney general under Trump's second term but was not ultimately chosen.Bongino, now Bailey's co-deputy, recently made headlines for clashing with Bondi over the DOJ's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and had reportedly considered resigning. The appointment, first reported by Fox News Digital, has raised eyebrows given Bongino's media background and the political nature of the move.Missouri attorney general named as co-deputy director of FBI | ReutersThe American Bar Association (ABA) is attempting to revise and soften a controversial proposal that would double the number of required hands-on learning credits for law students, following strong pushback from many law school deans. The updated plan, released August 15, would raise the experiential learning requirement from six to twelve credits but introduces greater flexibility and delays implementation to at least 2032.Key changes include allowing students to earn three of those credits in their first year—previously prohibited—and permitting partial credit for traditional courses that incorporate practical elements like simulated client work or drafting exercises. These adjustments aim to address concerns about feasibility, especially for part-time students or programs with limited resources.Despite these revisions, critics remain skeptical. Many deans argue that the ABA has not shown sufficient evidence that increased experiential credits would improve legal education outcomes, and they warn the rule could increase costs and overburden students and schools. Supporters, including clinical faculty, argue that more hands-on training is essential for preparing practice-ready attorneys and believe the financial concerns are overstated.Some, like Cornell's Gautam Hans, expressed cautious optimism about the changes, while others, like Northwestern's Daniel Rodriguez, say the revisions don't go far enough to address core issues, particularly the lack of data supporting the proposed changes.ABA seeks to salvage law school hands-on learning proposal amid pushback from deans | ReutersIn an exclusive at Bloomberg Law, an SEC whistleblower alleges Paul Weiss and Reed Smith helped conceal $500 million in biotech risk. Two top law firms are accused in a whistleblower complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of hiding a legal dispute that could have jeopardized a $500 million biotech merger. The complaint, obtained exclusively by Bloomberg Law, was filed by Joel Cohen—best known for co-writing Toy Story—who claims he and his wife were defrauded out of at least $38 million by Sofie Biosciences Inc.Cohen alleges Sofie and its lawyers concealed his legal threats from disclosures during the company's majority-stake sale to private equity firm Trilantic North America. Central to the dispute is Sofie's use of a $2.5 million appraisal from Kroll LLC to value a cancer-imaging facility acquired in 2019—an amount Cohen claims was intentionally low in order to reduce his and other noteholders' payout in Series B preferred shares.The whistleblower complaint accuses Paul Weiss partner Jeffrey Marell and Reed Smith partner Michael Sanders of knowingly excluding Cohen's legal demands from merger documents, possibly violating federal securities laws. Internal emails cited in the complaint show Sofie executives feared the deal would fall apart if Cohen's claims became public.Sofie and its legal team argue Cohen waived his rights through broad releases signed during the merger and that the appraisal complied with contractual terms. However, Cohen and his wife had assigned their claims to a separate LLC, which the whistleblower says was not covered by those waivers.Two related lawsuits filed in California claim that Reed Smith represented conflicting interests and helped structure the asset financing in a way that disadvantaged noteholders. The firm denies any wrongdoing and says it never represented Cohen or the other lenders. A court ruling is expected soon on whether Cohen can access documents related to the Kroll valuation.Paul Weiss, Reed Smith Accused of Coverup by SEC WhistleblowerIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about state sales tax kickback schemes. Louisiana's 2012 “procurement processing program” was originally promoted as a way to support research and development, but instead has funneled the vast majority of collected sales tax—over 90% in some years—back to consultants and out-of-state companies. The scheme works by enticing payment processing subsidiaries to reroute sales through Louisiana, allowing the state to collect taxes on transactions that didn't actually occur within its borders. These taxes were meant to support research institutions, but in practice, virtually none of the funds have reached them. In 2023 alone, $67 million of the $73 million collected was rebated, and 2022 figures were worse.This program reflects a broader issue across many states: public incentive deals are being handed out with little to no accountability. Unlike private contracts, where each party protects its own interests and can demand repayment when promises aren't kept, public deals often lack enforceable clawback provisions. Louisiana does include a limited recapture clause in its statute—but it only ensures proper paperwork, not fulfillment of public benefits.Other states like California have taken modest steps, such as requiring disclosure of such deals, but few have adopted strong clawback mechanisms. Until public incentive agreements require concrete, verifiable results to justify tax rebates—and include provisions to recover funds when promises fall through—they risk becoming little more than tax shelters for private interests.​​Louisiana's Tax-Share Problems Prove Clawbacks Must Be Standard 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

The allure of making partner doesn't hold the same appeal that it used to for many Big Law associates. Some of them are swallowing a pay cut to jump to a smaller firm. That's according to Major, Lindsey & Africa partner and recruiter Kate Reder Sheikh, who wrote about the trend for Bloomberg Law. She spoke to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens for our podcast, On The Merits, about why some associates are forgoing the riches of partnership and exit the Big Law universe. "The pay is going to be half of Big Law," she said, "but it's very appealing to a lot of people to stay at a firm but be doing work that they're genuinely excited to get out of bed and do in the morning." Reder Sheikh also shared her thoughts on the shifting power balance at Big Law firms, the rise of nonequity partnerships, and whether junior lawyers should expect their firms to match Milbank LLP's summer bonuses. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The law firm Norton Rose Fullbright thought it was taking a great leap forward when it brought on two partners and acquired the legal tech startup they co-founded, NMBL Technologies. Now, the firm and the startup are mired in a messy litigation battle against one another. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Alex Ebert and Evan Ochsner get into the unusual agreement these two parties made with each other and why it ended so poorly. They also talk about the myriad challenges in the race to get into the the legal tech space. "Law firms aren't afraid to get creative in this space, especially with AI," Ochsner says. "They're worried about getting left behind." Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A wave of associate lawyers resigned in protest from their Big Law jobs earlier this year after their firms struck controversial pro bono deals with the Trump administration. Do they have any regrets? According to Bloomberg Law reporters Justin Henry and Elleiana Green, not really. They spoke with several former associates who say they stand by their decisions to, as one legal recruiter put it, "loudly quit." But that doesn't mean the road ahead will be easy. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, the two reporters talk about where these lawyers may land and whether they risk being blackballed from Big Law. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Fenwick & West's decision to seek equity in one of its tech startup clients is now, with the benefit of hindsight, looking like a stroke of genius. Figma Inc. last week had a blockbuster IPO and Fenwick made money not only advising its client on going public, but also through the firm's ownership of almost 900,000 shares in the design and collaboration software company, according to Bloomberg Law reporter Brian Baxter. The value of those shares more than tripled on July 31, Figma's first day of public trading. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Baxter talks about why this type of non-traditional compensation model can make some law firms outside Silicon Valley a bit squeamish. He also talks about how, despite the huge potential upsides, there are financial and ethical risks when a firm owns a stake in its own clients. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Susman Godfrey has shown it's willing to take on high-risk, high-reward lawsuits with unconventional fee structures. Its leaders say this risk appetite is ingrained in the firm's culture. "When we vote to take a case, it is a case of the firm," Kalpana Srinivasan, a managing partner at the firm, said on our podcast, On The Merits. "You hear sometimes there may be other places where there are a couple of partners who are trying to do contingent work or doing something that may be different from the traditional financial model of that firm, and then the success or failure of that matter can be very much tied to that partner. We want to take on risk as a firm." Srinivasan and her co-managing partner, Vineet Bhatia, spoke to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens about their firm's unique culture that shies away from lateral hires, and also about why they bristle at being described as a "litigation boutique." This conversation is a part of our Leading Law Firms project, in which we score law firms using more than just traditional metrics like a firm's bottom line. Throughout this month, we've been sharing interviews with the leaders of other firms like McDermott Will & Emery, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, and DLA Piper. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Neal Katyal and Gurbir Grewal, lawyers who command well over $2,000 an hour for their services, are slashing their rates to defend two New Jersey municipalities against a Justice Department lawsuit over their "sancutary city" policies. This on its own would be noteworthy, but what makes it even more interesting is that their law firm—Manhattan-based Milbank LLP—reached a deal with the White House earlier this year, pledging $100 million in free legal services on shared focus areas to avoid getting hit with a punitive executive order. On this episode of On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporter Alex Ebert talks about why the Justice Department is suing these cities, just how big of a discount they're getting from Milbank, and whether the work could prompt the White House to rip up its the deal with the firm. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Junior lawyers can climb the ranks faster than ever before, according to DLA Piper leader Frank Ryan, but they also should think about checking their politics at the door. Associates "need to be mindful of over rotating into politics," Ryan, the firm's global co-chair, said in the latest edition of Bloomberg Law's On The Merits podcast. "We live in an overly partisan world. Yes, you have strongly held beliefs—and, yes, those are very important—but your job is to serve others. Whether you like that or don't like that, that is the nature of the profession." Ryan talked with Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens about why he thinks younger lawyers can stymie their career advancement by opining publicly on hot button issues. He also explained how his firm is looking to expand “in a much more thoughtful way" after growing to one of the largest in the world. This conversation is a part of our ⁠Leading Law Firms project⁠, in which we score law firms using more than just traditional metrics like a firm's bottom line. Throughout this month, we've been sharing interviews with the leaders of other firms like McDermott Will & Emery and Cahill Gordon & Reindel. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Welcome back to the Fintech Takes podcast. I'm Alex Johnson, joined by Evan Weinberger, Bloomberg Law reporter and bank regulation whisperer (and the rare guest who can quote both Caddyshack and Empire Strikes Back in a single episode, enjoy). This week's show unpacks the JP Morgan Chase open banking fee bombshell (they're now charging for access to their open banking APIs) — the story Evan himself and Bloomberg colleague Paige Smith broke — and the ripple effect it's having across fintech, data aggregators, and regulators who seem genuinely unprepared for how fast it's all moving. If there's a central theme, it's this: When the banks move first, everyone else scrambles. We dig into Chase's strategy, the pricing breakdowns, and what the “value capture” narrative says about the future of open finance. But that's just the start. Highlights include: -Why the CFPB is simultaneously gutting its rulebook and losing most of its staff -Why regulators are quietly abandoning disparate impact and what it means for fair lending -Why the Trump administration is targeting CDFIs (even though they serve many rural Southern areas aligned with the GOP) -How a data fight might unite crypto VCs and big box merchants (yes, really) This episode has it all: open banking drama, more regulatory whiplash, and fintech caught in the middle wondering what the hell just happened. Sign up for Alex's Fintech Takes newsletter for the latest insightful analysis on fintech trends, along with a heaping pile of pop culture references and copious footnotes. Every Monday and Thursday: https://workweek.com/brand/fintech-takes/ And for more exclusive insider content, don't forget to check out my YouTube page. Follow Evan Weinberger: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evan-weinberger-3746aa4/ X: https://x.com/reporterev  Follow Alex Johnson:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgfH47QEwbQmkQlz1V9rQA/videos LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhjohnson X: https://www.twitter.com/AlexH_Johnson

Former Davis Polk associate Ryan Powers started writing op-eds for local newspapers earlier this year criticizing the Trump administration's agenda. A few months later, the Wall Street firm he worked for fired him. Powers' story is one example of how some Big Law lawyers have had to make tough career choices since the president retook office. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Powers speaks with Bloomberg Law reporter Tatyana Monnay about what happened and the purposefully ambiguous reason Davis Polk cited for his dismissal. The firm declined to comment for this podcast. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Herbert Washer pushed Wall Street's Cahill Gordon & Reindel to expand its business after taking the helm, but he doesn't see the century-old firm joining the ranks of Big Law's largest players. "For us, the key has been to pick areas where we can be top of the market," said Washer, who took over from as Cahill's sole leader last year. "You don't want to enter a market space where you're going to be the tenth most successful law firm." On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Washer spoke to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens about what spurred the firm to start playing in the lateral recruiting market, look beyond its leveraged finance roots, and target new types of clients—particularly those with cryptocurrency interests. "Our loyalty has been and always will be, to a large degree, to the banks," Washer said. But a dip in bank activity in the leveraged finance space in 2023 took a bite out of Cahill's bottom line. "It caused us to sort of rethink the overall strategy that had worked so well for so long," he said. The firm bounced back last year, bringing in nearly $464 million in gross revenue and boosting profits per equity partner to $5.3 million. It also added partners in private credit, restructuring, and litigation, among other key practices. Washer would rather excel in the firm's core focus areas than try to be everything to every client. He's wary of expanding too quickly from a headcount of under 300 lawyers, both for business reasons and to preserve the firm's culture. "When a firm gets to 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 lawyers, no one person—no matter how successful they are—is really critical to the operation of the place," he said. This conversation is a part of our Leading Law Firms project, in which we score law firms using more than just traditional metrics like a firm's bottom line. Throughout the rest of this month, we'll be sharing more interviews with the leaders of other firms like DLA Piper and Susman Godfrey. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This is the daily Tech and Business Report. Today, KCBS Radio anchor Holly Quan spoke with Bloomberg Law's Jennifer Kay. The day after trail started in a lawsuit filed by Meta investors against the company, the two sides have reached a settlement.

Activist shareholders can make things difficult for the companies they target. But they represent a significant source of revenue for the law firms that represent those companies—and their shareholders. Bloomberg Law reporters Drew Hutchinson and Andrew Ramonas recently dug through the data on which firms did the most work on shareholder fights in the first half of this year. And Hutchinson talks about what they learned on this episode of our podcast, On The Merits. She said this spring's stock market dip is likely contributing to more activity in this space because it allowed activist investors to purchase more of their target companies at discounted prices. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Latham & Watkins took the perch as Big Law's leading M&A dealmaker in the first half of the year, surging past rival Kirkland & Ellis as things started to look up for firms whose fortunes are closely tied to corporate transactions. Many law firms were expecting a spike in M&A deals in the first quarter of this year, but that largely failed to materialize. Now, with 2025 half over, we're starting to see a lot more activity on this front and firms are reaping the financial benefits. Global deal volume for the first half of the year is up nearly 20% compared to the same time last year, and that includes Meta Platforms' $14 billion investment in Scale AI. In fact, deals involving AI, either directly or indirectly, have been driving a lot of the activity of the past few months, according to reporter Mahira Dayal, who crunched the numbers for Bloomberg Law's quarterly league tables. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Mahira speaks to host Mike Leonard about this and other reasons why the deals market is rebounding after a slow start to the year why it's probably a little too early to start betting against Kirkland. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The bar exam is in a state of flux. A new "NexGen" test is about to debut, while several states now offer licenses to attorneys who haven't taken the exam at all. These bar exam alternatives, many of which originated as emergency pandemic measures, are proving successful in smaller states, like South Dakota and New Hampshire, and even some larger ones, like Arizona and Oregon. But a nationwide bar exam alternative is not on the horizon, and large corporate firms have shown little willingness to hire attorneys licensed through these alternative programs, according to Bloomberg Law reporter Maia Spoto. Maia spoke to Jessie Kamens, the host of our On The Merits podcast, about how these programs work and why some advocates say we need to finally ditch the grueling, multi-day test. Maia also gets into what's happening in California, where the development of a new exam went disastrously wrong. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In this inaugural “Legal Tuesday” edition of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love introduces a new series focused specifically on legal professionals, offering expert insight for lawyers navigating complex transitions. Scott speaks with Hilary Gerzhoy, a seasoned ethics lawyer and thought leader on professional responsibility, who shares valuable guidance on avoiding ethical pitfalls during lateral partner moves. She outlines real-world examples of landmines, such as premature client contact, improper solicitation of team members, and breach of fiduciary duty—each of which can derail a move or trigger legal retaliation. The conversation covers essential considerations for departing lawyers, including how to handle sensitive communications, what firms can legally withhold, and how to protect client relationships ethically. The episode is especially timely for law firm partners considering a move, and serves as a cautionary guide to avoid becoming tomorrow's legal headline. This Tuesday edition of the podcast delivers focused legal guidance, while Thursday episodes will continue serving broader professional services audiences. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/LAtWIzixoeY ----------------------------------------

Don't call it "flyover country." The firm Foley & Lardner has seen success opening offices in mid-tier cities such as Nashville, Raleigh, N.C., and Salt Lake City over the past four years. On today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law's Roy Strom speaks with Foley's chairman and CEO, Daljit Doogal, about why he's taken his firm beyond the traditional Big Law power centers of California, New York, and D.C. He also talks about the challenges of convincing the attorneys you want to hire that your national law firm is committed to their hometown. "When the people are looking to move, they really want to understand the firm that you are," Doogal said. "And sometimes there's a fear that, if a big law firm is coming into town, is it going to be more bureaucratic, is it going to be more centralized, is our culture going to change?" Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

We don't know who is running ads on podcasts advocating for anti-litigation finance legislation. But, given how many enemies the practice has among conservatives and big business, the list of potential culprits is huge. Bloomberg Law reporter Emily R. Siegel wrote a story about these podcast ads, which call for restrictions on third parties who fund lawsuits in exchange for a cut of any awards they generate. The ads failed to disclose who was behind them as required by law and were quickly pulled after Siegel started asking questions about them. Siegel joins our podcast, On The Merits, to talk about the stakes of this anti-litigation finance legislation and the beef these groups have with litigation finance. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It's never a good look for a law firm to lose partners in bunches, and that's what's been happening at Paul Weiss in the past few weeks. Some of the firm's high-profile litigators have announced their departures, following the deal it struck with the Trump administration to avoid a punitive executive order. Ironically, the firm negotiated the White House agreement—which includes a pledge to provide $40 million in free legal services on shared priority causes—in part to avoid a run on partners. On today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Roy Strom and Justin Henry explain why this is a setback for Paul Weiss, but not a catastrophic one. They note that, thus far, only trial lawyers have departed the firm, leaving intact its ability to operate in the lucrative deals space. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Brad Bondi, a lawyer at Paul Hastings and brother of the current Attorney General, failed yesterday in his bid to become president of the DC bar association. But criticisms and attacks from conservatives on these legal groups, at both the state and national level, will likely continue. That's one of the takeaways from this week's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, in which Bloomberg Law reporter Tatyana Monnay talks about why Bondi tried to seize control of the DC bar and why his campaign drew so much attention. Also, her fellow reporter Sam Skolnik talks about how conservative attacks on the American Bar Association are hurting the century-old institution in serious and potentially existential way. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Labor Department's small office tasked with ensuring contractors meet their affirmative action obligations has been dismantled by the Trump Administration, but like many other downsizing actions, this one has been temporarily halted by a federal judge. Here with more on what this means for the people who work there and the contractors who have to report, Bloomberg Law's Rebecca Klar.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

One would think that the Trump administration's pullback on enforcement across the federal government would mean fewer clients for attorneys to defend. But that would be overlooking another important law enforcer in our system: state attorneys general. Karl Racine and Jason Downs, both partners at the firm Hogan Lovells, are bolstering their practice specializing in helping clients under scrutiny by state AGs, many of whom are actively trying to fill enforcement gaps left by the federal government. It's an area the two know well, with Racine serving as attorney general in the District of Columbia during Donald Trump's first term and Downs serving as his chief deputy. They spoke to Bloomberg Law reporter Roy Strom on the latest episode of our podcast, On The Merits, about a few of the enforcement areas they've seen state AGs prioritizing: crypto, the environment, consumer financial protection, and especially AI. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Being a summer associate at a law firm can be tricky. On the one hand, you want to be remembered; on the other hand, you don't want to be remembered for the wrong reasons. On today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, we hear from Kate Reder Sheikh, a partner in the associate practice group at Major, Lindsey & Africa, about the pitfalls that summer associates can fall into—from over-imbibing at company functions to trying too hard to get face time with a partner. She says, in the legal world, "there probably are such things as stupid questions," especially when they're being asked of a busy partner with a high billing rate. Reder Sheikh told Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens that those most likely to fall into these traps are students who are so-called "K-through-J.D.," or who went straight from undergrad to law school. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Dozens of law firms have sought to de-emphasize, or outright kill, their diversity initiatives since the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action decision—and especially since Donald Trump retook office this year and started issuing punitive executive orders that mention them. However, one firm is now doing the opposite. Susman Godfrey announced last week it would expand its annual prize awarded to law students of color, even though this program was specifically called out by Trump in his executive order targeting the firm. Bloomberg Law reporter Tatyana Monnay wrote about the firm's move and why it was taking this step now. She joins our podcast, On The Merits, to talk about what Susman Godfrey did and why its confidence may have been boosted by a federal judge's chilly reaction to Justice Department arguments against the firm. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

We're starting to see the impact of a string of deals reached over the last two months between President Donald Trump and top law firms. Some firms appear to be moving on—and even thriving—after pledging hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services on causes backed by the White House to avoid punitive executive orders like those Trump has lobbed at others. At least three firms that made deals are primed to cash in on Saudi Arabia's plan to invest $1 trillion in the US, thanks to their ties to a leading sovereign wealth fund: Latham & Watkins, A&O Sherman, and Kirkland & Ellis. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, meanwhile, is seeing the downside of doing a deal with Trump. A string of partners have headed for the exit since the firm's agreement with Trump was announced, including some who left because of their opposition to the deal. Justin Henry joins fellow Bloomberg Law reporter Roy Strom on this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, to talk about these two developments and about why it's still too soon to say whether law firms that acquiesced to the president made the right move. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Glen connects with Paylume's Andrew Gomez to unpack the burgeoning pay by bank model, explore lessons learned from other countries' rollouts, and consider the pros and cons facing banks and credit unions. Also- a possible open banking do-over, more stadium naming rights, and resisting the urge to spike the ball before the goal line.    Links related to this episode:   Andrew Gomez/Paylume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/r-andrew-gomez/    Nacha's Remote Connect, June 6-9: https://payments.nacha.org/remote-connect    Part One of our Nacha Payments conference coverage: https://www.big-fintech.com/getting-direct-about-ach/    CU Daily's coverage of a positive sign for CUs' tax exemption: https://thecudaily.com/in-victory-for-credit-unions-cu-tax-exemption-not-targeted-in-committees-bill    The recent CU Town Hall on which we debated implications of the tax exemption: https://www.cutownhall.com/    Bloomberg Law's coverage of potential Open Banking (Section 1033) reconsideration: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/cfpb-plans-to-revisit-open-banking-rule-despite-workforce-cuts    BECU's partnership with the WNBA's Seattle Storm, one of several recent naming rights deals: https://storm.wnba.com/news/storm-announce-becu-as-partner-for-performance-center   Join us for our next CU Town Hall- Wednesday May 21 at 3pm ET/Noon PT- for a live and lively interactive conversation tackling the major issues facing credit unions today. This session will feature a round robin on the countless recent regulatory twists and turns. The Town Hall is free to attend, but advance registration is required:  https://www.cutownhall.com/   Join us on Bluesky!  @bigfintech.bsky.social;  @154advisors.bsky.social (Glen); @jbfintech.bsky.social (John) And connect on LinkedIn for insights like the Friday Fintech Five: https://www.linkedin.com/company/best-innovation-group/  https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbfintech/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/glensarvady/

The Trump administration's attacks on law firms are having ripple effects on the general counsel whose companies employ those firms. Top attorneys at many large companies may be considering whether to switch the firms they use as outside counsel, according to Bloomberg Law reporter Brian Baxter. In some cases, GCs don't want to work with a firm that's under attack from President Donald Trump; in other cases, they may feel uncomfortable that the firm struck a deal with the White House. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens speaks with Baxter about what GCs are telling him and why they may be ready for a change. Kamens also speaks with Sara Kropf, partner at the firm Kropf Moseley Schmitt, about which types of companies are most likely to want to switch firms and why actually doing this is much harder than it seems. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In this heart-to-heart conversation, I sat down with Heidi Freeman, successful attorney and author of "Love Lessons: 104 Dates and the Stories That Led Me to True Love." Heidi shares how turning 40 sparked her quest to understand what true love looks like by interviewing couples in strong relationships. What began as research turned into 11 core themes about authentic connection. With refreshing honesty, Heidi opens up about her 104-date journey, complete with hilarious mishaps, surprising insights, and the beautiful moment when she finally met her husband Will.This episode cuts through the anxiety about modern dating to remind us that love requires resilience - and is worth 100 disappointing dates.Key MomentsTurning 40: Heidi realized she didn't know what true love looked like or felt like and decided to interview couples in solid partnershipsResearch: Heidi interviewed 50+ couples separately to find themesMutual reciprocity: The most impactful insight was how partners take turns supporting each other through life's wavesThe myth of love at first sight: No one Heidi interviewed mentioned this - instead they talked about initial connection and safetyD04 dates: Heidi shares both hilarious dating disasters and meaningful lessons learnedFinding Will: How she met her husband through yoga connections and recognized the difference in how she feltDating in the wild vs. apps: The benefits of meeting people through activities vs. onlineQuotes"I had to put on my big girl underwear and go back out there." - Heidi on persevering after dating disappointments"I think it's not us. This is the way we are socialized...to value relationships, which is awesome. But then we're also socialized to put our own personal value in relationships, and that's what's harmful." - Sade Curry"Mutual reciprocity and safety... even if you didn't have all the other sprinkles in a relationship, but you had these, you could make a good relationship out of that." - Sade Curry"What if the next date is him? I would constantly say that to myself when I didn't want to go." - Heidi on staying hopefulAbout Heidi:Heidi Freeman (formerly Goldstein, born Eisman) is a successful attorney and partner at a large law firm specializing in environmental law and social and environmental governance-based counseling. She's written her first book, "Love Lessons," chronicling her dating journey and the relationship insights she gained. Heidi has previously written for Bloomberg Law, 360, and other professional publications. She lives in Cleveland Heights, Ohio with her husband Will and their blended family - two children of her own and two bonus children with Will.Connect With Heidihttps://heidifriedman.comhttp://www.instagram.com/lovelessons104Podcast: "I Love You More" with her 22-year-old son Zach (available on Spotify and Apple Podcasts)Book: "Love Lessons: 104 Dates and the Stories That Led Me to True Love" (Available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Goodreads)Ready to Transform Your Dating Life?If this episode resonated with you, I'd love to help you apply these insights to your own dating journey. Book a complimentary dating consultation call with me at sadecurry.com/info and discover how you can build the confidence, clarity, and connection skills to find your perfect match.

Shortly after law firms started striking deals for free legal services with the White House, Bloomberg Law reporter Meghan Tribe appeared on our podcast, On The Merits, to talk about how much ambiguity there was around what the firms were agreeing to and how these agreements would be enforced. Now, Tribe and her colleague Brian Baxter have seen a copy of one of these deals but many unanswered questions remain. However, we do have more concrete insight into the separate deals firms struck with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tribe rejoins the On The Merits podcast to talk about what she uncovered and about the details of the EEOC deals. She also discusses whether the firms that struck deals may have made a mistake, or whether it's too soon to say. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Many students at elite law schools end up working in Big Law for at least a spell. The Trump administration's attacks on the industry, and deals with some of its top players, are making the choice of where to start their careers much more complicated. Students are stuck between two very uncertain options: go to a firm that struck a deal with the White House, despite concerns about a lack of principles; or, go to a firm that's fighting Trump in court, despite concerns about the firm remaining financial stable. Bloomberg News reporter Claire Ballentine wrote about how students are making these tough choices and she speaks with Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens on this episode of our podcast, On The Merits. Ballentine talks about how some law students are organizing to help each other make a decision and how the massive debt loads many of them shoulder are factoring in. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Like a run on a bank, law firms can quickly collapse if a few rainmakers pick up and take their books of business elsewhere—a vicious cycle that's hard to stop once it gets going. That's the takeaway from a law review article by Yale professor John Morley. He says a partner exodus can happen quickly because there's a huge financial incentive not to be one of the last partners remaining at a firm. That dynamic is on many partners' minds right now as they debate whether to fight the White House's punitive executive orders. For this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Morley spoke with Bloomberg Law reporter Roy Strom about how these so-called "runs on the partnership" can play out and about which types of firms are the most vulnerable to a catastrophic implosion. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Law firms are striking deals with President Trump to avoid getting hit with a punitive executive order, and all of these deals include pledges of tens of millions of dollars in pro bono legal work. In this quickly changing landscape, it appears that the biggest law firm in the country, Kirkland & Ellis, is considering one of these commitments to the White House. However, the details of how these deals will work in practice are scant to nonexistent. How will the legal work be tracked? What qualifies as a conservative client? Can the White House reject certain clients as not conservative enough? And does this mean these firms will now turn away liberal-leaning pro bono clients? On today's episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Bloomberg Law reporters Justin Henry and Meghan Tribe dig into the questions surrounding these law firm deals and ask whether this ambiguity is by design. They also talk about what it means that a firm as big as Kirkland is now choosing to negotiate with the White House rather than fight it in court. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History:  Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil ServiceOn April 7, 1933, the German government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a key early legal step in the Nazi regime's campaign to marginalize and exclude Jews and political dissenters from public life. The law targeted civil servants, stating that anyone who was not of “Aryan” descent or who held views deemed politically unreliable—especially Communists and Social Democrats—could be dismissed from government service. While phrased in bureaucratic language, the law was a thinly veiled act of political and racial purging. Jewish teachers, professors, judges, and other state employees were removed from their posts, some having served Germany for decades, including veterans of World War I.The law also gave the regime a tool to begin shaping state institutions along Nazi ideological lines. Its vague language about “unreliability” gave officials wide discretion to remove not only Jews but anyone who opposed the Nazis or failed to show sufficient loyalty. Although certain Jewish individuals were temporarily exempted under a “front-line fighter” clause—meant to placate concerns about fairness—the loophole would soon be closed in later legislation.This marked the first legal codification of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, providing a model for further exclusionary laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. It also demonstrated how laws could be used not only to formalize discrimination but to normalize it, embedding it into the everyday machinery of the state. By disguising oppression as administrative reform, the Nazi government laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic system of persecution that would escalate into far more violent phases in the years to come.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's highest-grossing law firm, is in negotiations with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by an executive order similar to those issued against several of its competitors. The firm reportedly reached out to the White House proactively, hoping to strike a deal that would spare it from the penalties imposed on others—such as revoking security clearances, limiting federal access, or canceling client contracts.Other cowardly firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Milbank have already secured deals involving multimillion-dollar pledges for pro bono legal work aligned with White House priorities. These agreements also include commitments to avoid discriminatory diversity practices and to recruit ideologically diverse attorneys. Kirkland, though not yet the subject of an executive order, is one of 20 firms under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scrutiny following Trump's directives.In 2024, Kirkland earned nearly $9 billion, with its lawyers playing key roles in major private equity and M&A deals, topping Bloomberg Law's transactional rankings. The firm's aggressive style and market dominance have made it a heavyweight in the legal world, and this move signals its intent to shield its interests amid the Trump administration's ongoing pressure campaign against firms seen as politically opposed.$9 billion in earnings is, apparently, not enough to buy a spine. Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid OrderMore than 500 law firms have signed onto a court brief supporting Perkins Coie in its legal challenge against a Trump executive order that penalizes the firm over past political work and diversity policies. The brief, filed with U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticizes what it describes as a dangerous effort to intimidate the legal profession, warning that legal representation of disfavored causes may now provoke government retaliation. Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on March 11, following Trump's order targeting the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its internal diversity policies. Several firms targeted by similar orders—such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling—have either sued or signed the brief. Others, including once again the aforementioned Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached deals with Trump to avoid formal action.Judge Howell has already blocked parts of Trump's order, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to the legal system's foundations. The White House maintains the orders are lawful exercises of presidential authority. The brief was spearheaded by former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who now practices at Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of several prominent firms suing the administration over related matters. Many top law firms have stayed silent, but the growing backlash reflects broad concern about the use of presidential power to retaliate against legal opposition. Critics say the executive orders weaponize the law to chill dissent and undercut core legal protections.More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie suit against punitive Trump order | ReutersA U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been placed on administrative leave after failing to defend the government's actions in a wrongful deportation case that a federal judge described as “wholly lawless.” The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran migrant with a valid work permit, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that he be returned to Maryland and found no legal basis for his arrest, detention, or deportation, noting he had complied with all immigration requirements and had no criminal record.At a recent hearing, DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni struggled to explain the deportation and admitted he lacked evidence justifying the government's actions. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that Reuveni and his supervisor August Flentje have been sidelined from the case. The administration is appealing the order but has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's deportation was a mistake.The deported man is now being held in a high-risk prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming gang affiliations, though there are no charges against Abrego Garcia. The case highlights broader concerns about due process and immigration enforcement under the current administration, with critics pointing to a pattern of ignoring legal protections in deportation proceedings.US sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless' | 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

"I cannot imagine a worse deal than the one that Skadden came away with." That's the opinion of one of the law firm's own associates, Rachel Cohen. The Chicago-based finance lawyer has grabbed the spotlight by criticizing Skadden and Paul Weiss for reaching agreements with President Donald Trump as he targets Big Law through a series of executive orders. She's also slammed others for staying quiet, even as three major firms fight Trump directives in court. "The industry is not uniting," said Cohen, who is set to officially leave the firm later this week. "We have to be proactive here and we've not seen that from anyone except for associates." Late last week, President Trump said that, to avoid being targeted by a punitive executive order, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom agreed to provide $100 million worth of pro bono services to causes Trump supports. This is $60 million more than was offered in a similar deal struck by the firm Paul Weiss weeks earlier. Even before this, Cohen had already put in her resignation, which will take effect later this week. More than 1,500 Big Law associates anonymously signed an open letter criticizing the industry's response to Trump's attacks. Cohen chose not to remain anonymous. Now she's calling on Big Law associates to go on a "recruitment strike" and refuse to do any recruitment for their firms until partners take a stronger stance against Trump. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, Cohen speaks with Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens about her reaction to the Skadden deal and about what power associates have in this ongoing battle between Big Law and the White House. "Associates are the workhorses," she said. "And the partners certainly do not want to be responsible for the work that they historically farm out to associates." Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US legal industry was already in a tough spot before President Donald Trump started attacking Big Law firms. Gloomy economic conditions and tariff-related uncertainty quickly tanked law firm leaders' expectations for a rebound that followed Trump's election. They're looking to stay off the president's target list in a wave of executive orders, while navigating a slowdown in deals activity and across practice groups. "From cautiously optimistic to cautious." That's how Gretta Rusanow described the mood shift she's seen in recent weeks among managing partners at some of the country's biggest law firms. Rusanow, the leader of Citigroup's law firm advisory group, says firms are feeling much more bearish now than at the end of last year. There's potential for an economic contraction, she says, and the fact that the huge revenue growth of prior years is now looking more like an aberration. Even as the country's elite firms come off of a record year for revenue and profits. Rusanow joins our podcast, On The Merits, to talk about why 2025 likely won't see the industry outperform its average growth numbers. She also tells Bloomberg Law reporter Roy Strom that any overachieving that does happen this year will likely flow toward just a handful of the largest firms. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Millions of US companies are off the hook when it comes to disclosing their beneficial owners' identities to the federal government, after the Trump administration announced it wouldn't enforce penalties for domestic entities under the Corporate Transparency Act. The Treasury Department's previous regulations had required about 30 million businesses operating in the US to disclose who directly or indirectly controlled them in reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. But in a pivot from the previous administration, the Treasury now says all US entities are exempt from reporting requirements. The move was the latest twist in a wave of litigation against the law, which some companies argue oversteps Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Following a nationwide injunction blocking the CTA's enforcement in December 2024, businesses across the country faced whiplash as the law and the previous version of its implementing regulations were successively enjoined past the original January 2025 compliance deadline. But now, facing a narrower scope of which companies are obliged to comply under new rules, appeals courts must now grapple with whether newly exempt domestic companies retain their standing to sue. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax audio producer David Schultz talks with Bloomberg Law reporter John Woolley about the year-long legal drama around the Corporate Transparency Act, how the Trump administration disrupted that litigation, and how the Treasury's policy changes could impact the fight against international financial crime. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

President Donald Trump has targeted major law firms in his second term in unprecedented ways. He hit three Big Law firms with executive orders that pose potentially existential threats to those firms. Then on March 21, the Trump administration issued a broad memo targeting any lawyer who files “frivolous, unreasonable, and even vexatious litigation against the United States.” On this podcast episode we're talking about yet another way the administration is going after firms. Andrea Lucas, the acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sent a letter to 20 major firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, and Simpson Thacher requesting extensive documentation to investigate whether their Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs are discriminatory. The EEOC is asking for names, gender, race, law school and GPA information for all who have applied to be hired since 2019. Joining the podcast are two Bloomberg Law reporters who are following this story, Business & Practice reporter Tatyana Monnay and EEOC reporter Rebecca Klar. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Trump administration wants to fold the FDIC's bank oversight duties into the OCC without congressional approval. Evan Weinberger, a banking correspondent at Bloomberg Law, details the ramifications for community banks, what's already happening at both agencies, and what may happen next.

Paul Zelizer is the host of the Awarepreneurs Podcast, the world's longest running social entrepreneur podcast, and has been a Business Coach who specializes in working with social entrepreneurs and climate tech founders for the past 18 years. This episode is sponsored by the coaching company of the host, Paul Zelizer. Consider a Strategy Session if you can use support growing your impact business. Resources mentioned in this episode include: Bloomberg Law article Hiring Hub site Rose Velasquez interview Paul's Strategy Sessions Pitch an Awarepreneurs episode

Ralph welcomes Vani Hari, also known as “The Food Babe,” to tell us about her campaign against Kellogg's to stop using artificial dyes in their cereals that have been linked to various health problems and have been banned in Europe. Plus, noted labor organizer, Chris Townsend gives us his take on the AFL-CIOs obeisant relationship to the Democratic Party.Vani Hari is an author and food activist. A former corporate consultant, she started the Food Babe blog in 2011, and she is the co-founder of the nutritional supplement startup Truvani.It is a game of whack-a-mole because we get these corporations to change, or they announce that they're going to change, and then they go back on their commitment. And that is what's happened with Kellogg's.Vani HariChris Townsend is a 45-year union member and leader. He was most recently the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) International Union Organizing Director. Previously he was an International Representative and Political Action Director for the United Electrical Workers Union (UE), and he has held local positions in both the SEIU and UFCW.These workers who have been betrayed, lied to, wrecked, destroyed, poisoned, all of these things—this becomes the breeding ground for Trumpist ideology. And the Democrats won't face this.Chris TownsendOur media largely ignores the labor movement. Our small labor press—left press—generally subscribes to the “good news only” school of journalism. So these endemic problems and even immediate crises are never dealt with. Now, some of that is because the existing labor leadership generally is not fond of criticism or is not fond of anyone pointing out shortcomings (or) mistakes.Chris TownsendWe're a cash cow—and a vote cow— to be milked routinely and extensively by this Democratic machinery… The leadership today in the bulk of the unions is an administrative layer, business union through and through to the core. The historic trade union spirit that always animated the unions in various levels is not extinguished, but in my 45 years, I would say it is at a low ebb. In the sense that we just have been sterilized because of this unconditional and unholy alliance or domination by the Democratic Party. And there's no room for spark. There's no room for dissent. There's no room for anyone to even raise the obvious.Chris Townsend[Leaders of the AFL-CIO are] basically bureaucrats in that building on 16th Street, collecting their pay and their nice pensions. Completely out of touch with millions of blue collar workers that have veered into the Republican Party channels—the so-called Reagan Democrats, which have spelled the difference in election after election for the Senate, for the House, for the Presidency.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 11/20/241. In his new book Hope Never Disappoints, Pope Francis writes “what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of genocide,” and called for the situation to be “studied carefully…by jurists and international organisations,” per the Middle East Eye. These comments come on the heels of a United Nations committee report which found that Israel's actions are “consistent with characteristics of genocide,” and alleged that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. The Catholic pontiff has long decried violence in all forms and has previously criticized Israel's “disproportionate and immoral” actions in Gaza and Lebanon, per AP.2. On November 14th, the AP's Farnoush Amiri reported that more than 80 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to President Biden on October 29th, urging the administration to sanction Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Only made public after the election, this letter called for sanctions on these individuals “Given their critical roles in driving policies that promote settler violence, weaken the Palestinian Authority, facilitate de facto and de jure annexation, and destabilize the West Bank.” This letter was principally authored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and in addition to dozens of House Democratic signatories, was signed by no less than 17 Senators.3. Another remarkable post-election Israel story concerns outgoing Congressman Jamaal Bowman, who was ousted from his seat by a flood of AIPAC money. In an interview with Rania Khalek, Bowman relates a remarkable anecdote about the presidential campaign. Bowman says he specifically requested to campaign for Kamala Harris in Michigan – where he was so popular his AIPAC-backed primary challenger disparagingly said “[Bowman's] constituency is Dearborn, Michigan” – but the campaign ignored him and instead deployed surrogates that seemed almost designed to alienate Arab-Americans: Liz Cheney, Ritchie Torres, and Bill Clinton who went out of his way to scold these voters. These voters were likely decisive in Kamala Harris' loss in that state.4. On November 13th, Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he intends to bring Joint Resolutions of Disapproval to the Senate floor. As Sanders writes in a press release, the “The JRD is the only mechanism available to Congress to prevent an arms sale from advancing.” Unlike previous efforts however, Sanders no longer stands alone. According to Reuters, “Two of the resolutions, co-sponsored with…Senators Jeff Merkley and Peter Welch, would block the sale of 120 mm mortar rounds and joint direct attack munitions (JDAMS). A third, sponsored by Democratic Senator Brian Schatz, would block the sale of tank rounds.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen have announced their intention to support the JRD. Certain heavy-hitting Democratic-aligned institutions have also bucked precedent to back this effort, including the massive Service Employees International Union and leading Liberal-Zionist group J Street.5. In the House, Republicans and many Democrats are pushing H.R. 9495, a bill which would grant the executive branch the power to unilaterally strip non-profit organizations of their tax-exempt status based on accusations of supporting terrorism. As the Intercept notes, “The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor…provide evidence.” The ACLU and over 150 other “civil liberties, religious, reproductive health, immigrant rights, human rights, racial justice, LGBTQ+, environmental, and educational organizations,” sent a letter opposing this bill in September, and celebrated when the bill was blocked on November 12th – but it is back from the grave, with Nonprofit Quarterly reporting the bill has cleared a new procedural hurdle and will now advance to the floor. Yet even if this bill is successfully blocked, little stands in the way of Republicans reviving it in the next Congress, where they will hold the House, Senate, and the Presidency.6. Back in October, we covered Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib's letter to Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen expressing grave concern over the company's decision to roll out facial recognition-based price gouging technology. According to Tlaib, Kroger has stonewalled Congress, so she is leading a group of House Democrats in a new letter demanding answers to the critical questions that remain, such as whether Kroger will use facial recognition to display targeted ads, whether consumers can opt out, and whether the company plans to sell data collected in stores. This letter is co-signed by progressives like AOC, Barbara Lee, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, among others.7. In new labor news, the NLRB has issued a rule banning anti-union “captive audience meetings,” per the Washington Post. This report notes that these meetings, in which employers warn workers of the risks in unionizing, are considered highly effective and are commonly used by companies like Amazon, Starbucks, Apple and Trader Joe's. According to the Post, Amazon alone spent more than $17 million on consults to do exactly this between 2022 and 2023. On the other hand, Bloomberg Law reports a federal judge in Texas has blocked a Labor Department rule that would have expanded overtime eligibility to four million mostly lower-level white collar workers. This was seen as among the Biden Administration's key achievements on labor rights and foreshadows the rollback of worker protections we are likely to see in a Trump presidency redux.8. Donald Trump has signaled that he will nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy will likely face a difficult confirmation process; his past environmental activism is anathema to Republican Senators, while his more recent vaccine-skepticism is unpopular among Democrats. Yet just as Donald Trump emerged as an improbable RFK ally, a surprising opponent has emerged as well: former Vice-President Mike Pence. In a “rare” statement Pence writes “For the majority of his career, RFK Jr. has defended abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy, supports overturning the Dobbs decision and has called for legislation to codify Roe v Wade. If confirmed, RFK, Jr. would be the most pro-abortion Republican appointed secretary of HHS in modern history…I…urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination.” As with other unpopular Trump nominees, many expect RFK to be appointed on an acting basis and then possibly installed via the recess appointment process.9. In some positive news, Drop Site reports that in Sri Lanka, the Leftist president Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who wrested the office from the corrupt clique that has ruled the nation since independence has won a resounding victory in the recent parliamentary elections. Reuters reports that Dissanayake's coalition won a “sweeping mandate,” with enough seats to pass his anti-corruption and poverty-alleviation agenda. More shocking is the fact that Dissanayake's coalition ran up the score in the Tamil-dominated north and east of the country. As Drop Site notes, only 15 years ago the Sri Lankan government crushed the Tamil Tigers and carried out large-scale massacres of the Tamil minority. Dissanayake has vowed to end the occupation and release Tamil political prisoners, as well as take on the International Monetary Fund which is seeking to impose economic control on the country in exchange for a fiscal bailout. Neither goal will be easily achieved, but the size of Dissanayake's victory at least provides the opportunity for him to try.10. Finally, AP reports that three of Malcolm X's daughters have filed a $100 million lawsuit against the CIA, FBI, and NYPD. This lawsuit alleges that these agencies were “aware of and…involved in the assassination plot,” and that law enforcement was engaged in a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional [relationship with]…ruthless killers that…was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents.” Two of Malcolm X's alleged assassins were exonerated in 2021 after an extensive re-investigation found that authorities withheld crucial evidence, per AP, and new evidence reported earlier this year by Democracy Now! supports the theory of an assassination plot involving collusion between the FBI and NYPD, if not others.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe