1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’…

Law Firms

‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’ Judges consider injunction bids by firms targeted in Trump orders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 10:57 am CDT

Two federal judges sharply questioned a government lawyer Wednesday as they considered bids by Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to permanently enjoin executive orders that target them and their clients.

“Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era, the Red Scare era?” asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., in the Perkins Coie case. Howell was questioning Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson, according to Law360.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Law360, include the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law.com (here and here).

Lawson argued for the government in the cases before Howell and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, both of whom are located in the District of Columbia.

Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are among four law firms that filed lawsuits to challenge the executive orders that typically seek the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances; restrict their access to government buildings; and call for termination of government contracts for which the firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Targeted firms have represented clients and worked on causes opposed by President Donald Trump.

Howell asked the “throwback” question after noting a declaration from a former Department of Defense official who oversaw security clearances. He said a blanket suspension of clearances, as called for in the executive orders, “harkens back to the repudiated and discredited programs,” including the Red Scare.

Arguing for Perkins Coie, Dane H. Butswinkas, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said Trump’s actions stem from “the playbook of authoritarianism,” according to Bloomberg Law.

“This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids,” Butswinkas said.

Butswinkas said the executive orders targeted lawyers who are no longer with the firms, according to Law.com.

“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” he said.

In the hearing before Leon, Lawson said the orders are a valid exercise of executive function rather than punishments for First Amendment activities.

Leon questioned that assertion, Law360 reports.

“It’s pretty clear it’s retaliation,” Leon said, “at least to this court.”

Arguing for WilmerHale, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy said the executive orders “are a direct and lethal threat to an independent bar,” according to Law360.

“The signal it sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out,’” Clement said.

Nine firms have reached deals with Trump to avoid executive orders. The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

Above the Law has created a list of firm actions in response to the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.”

See also:

Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased…

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog will expand offerings, keep ‘unbiased coverage’ after acquisition by Dispatch Media

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 11:52 am CDT

Dispatch Media Inc. has acquired SCOTUSblog, the website with in-depth and breaking news coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court that was founded by Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, a husband-and-wife legal team.

The New York Times described Dispatch Media as “a right-of-center political news and commentary startup” founded by two conservative journalists.

Law360 and Above the Law also covered the sale.

Dispatch Media “plans to maintain SCOTUSblog as our users have come to enjoy it and will continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost,” according to a SCOTUSblog announcement on the sale. “The site will also continue to remain a source of unbiased coverage of the Supreme Court.”

The announcement said SCOTUSblog “scaled back our coverage in recent years” because of rising costs, but “through our partnership with the Dispatch, we will be able to restore SCOTUSblog’s publishing capabilities, including expanded analysis for all merits cases and oral arguments.”

Dispatch Media will also bring back “beloved features” to SCOTUSblog, such as the Stat Pack, according to the announcement.

Howe continues her work at SCOTUSblog as her husband, a high-stakes poker player, faces a federal indictment accusing him of evading taxes and making false statements to mortgage lenders. Goldstein won’t be part of SCOTUSblog, according to Michael Rothman, the president of the Dispatch, who spoke with the New York Times.

As part of the acquisition, the Dispatch “will invest in Amy, her team and additional staff to ensure that SCOTUSblog remains the go-to authority on the Supreme Court,” said Steve Hayes, the CEO and editor of the Dispatch, in an announcement.

Dispatch Media will also “announce additional talent” in the coming weeks, “including a partnership with Original Jurisdiction founder and legal commentator David Lat,” Hayes said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate…

Law Firms

Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate bribery, anti-fraud laws? Democratic letters seek answers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 2:26 pm CDT

Sixteen Democratic lawmakers have sent letters to nine law firms that ask them to disavow deals with President Donald Trump and to answer questions about their legality.

Among the 16 Democrats are two lawmakers leading the effort: U.S. Rep. Dave Min of California and U.S. Rep. April McClain Delaney of Maryland, who are both lawyers, according to an April 24 press release and ABC News.

HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery posted a link to the documents on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The nine firms getting the letters are Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Firms making the deals pledged to devote millions of dollars in pro bono hours to issues supported by the firms and Trump. Their agreements allowed them to avoid executive orders that, among other things, call for the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances and imperil their clients’ government contracts.

According to the letters, continued performance under the agreements may be unenforceable under contracts law, would have negative effects on the legal system, could expose the firms to civil and criminal liability, and creates potential ethics violations with respect to conflicts of interest and limits on future law practice.

Agreements of this kind “signal acquiescence to an abuse of federal power, raising serious questions about how or whether your firm would represent clients or take on matters that might be seen as antagonistic to President Trump or his agenda,” the letters said.

The letters asked firms to explain whether the deals open themselves up to liability for:

  • Violating federal bribery laws by offering something of value to influence official acts.

  • Aiding and abetting violations of the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to affect commerce by extortion.

  • Violating federal anti-fraud laws that prohibit schemes to defraud the public of the honest services of public officials.

  • Violating the federal law that prohibits participation in a racketeering enterprise.

  • Violating state statutes that ban providing public servants with benefits to influence actions.

The April 24 letters follow inquiries sent to firms from U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who are both Democrats, according to Reuters and an April 22 press release.

The first batch of letters by Blumenthal and Raskin sought more information on attempts made to poach lawyers and clients from one of the targeted firms and asked six firms to retain records pertaining to the executive orders. A second group of letters asked five firms for more information while asserting that their “capitulation” allowed Trump to suppress their speech.

“Your agreement makes you complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law and to turn private attorneys into President Trump’s personal law firm, ready to do whatever he decides,” Blumenthal and Raskin wrote.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Gone are the days of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. law firm receptionists chained to their desks, limited to answering phones and taking messages.

Modern consumers in search of legal guidance expect more, including 24/7, responsive service and immediate answers to their questions. Office hours have become an obsolete concept, with potential clients often seeking to research firms and retain legal services at their convenience and from the comfort and privacy of their homes.

As technology advances, lawyers have more lead management options available, including virtual receptionist services, online intake forms or generative artificial intelligence-powered chatbots designed to meet consumers where they are and adeptly address their concerns. Firms that rely on these tools, rather than on staff employees alone, are far better positioned to thrive in today’s highly competitive legal marketplace.

The good news is that reception and intake are some of the easiest firm functions to offload. In-house staff can’t answer calls around the clock, but virtual receptionists and chatbots can, offering prospective clients the flexibility and convenience of full-time after-hours coverage. By outsourcing call handling and intake processes, you can increase your firm’s availability to new and existing clients while reducing administrative burdens and costs.

Choosing the right tools for your firm

There’s no shortage of virtual receptionists and intake tools for firms. The right fit will depend on your firm’s priorities, including cost, features and whether you want a legal-specific provider. Some companies focus exclusively on firms; others serve a broader market. However, don’t automatically discount the generalists.

Depending on your firm’s needs, they may very well check many of the boxes at a much more appealing price.

Before choosing a service, it’s essential to understand that outsourcing requires sharing your firm’s data with third parties, which in turn triggers certain ethical duties. These include the obligation to preserve confidentiality by vetting how and when your firm’s information will be accessed, used and stored by the provider.

With that in mind, let’s review some of the more widely used, stand-alone virtual receptionist services and client intake tools for firms. Information about pricing will be provided unless it’s not listed online.

Virtual legal intake and receptionist options

LexReception offers virtual receptionist services tailored for firms. They include handling calls, client intake, appointment scheduling and payment collection. LexReception differentiates itself by focusing on the legal industry, offering 24/7, bilingual availability and integrating with a wide range of legal practice management and payment processing tools.

Smith.ai combines live virtual receptionists with generative AI to manage calls, web chats, texts and Facebook messages while also handling lead qualification and customer relationship management integration. It also offers chatbots powered by generative AI to respond to online, social media and text messages. The standout feature is an “AI-first” receptionist, which streamlines intake workflows, provides multilingual support and transfers to human virtual receptionists when needed for follow-up. Pricing for each offering is available on the website.

LawDroid offers AI-powered legal automation tools that handle tasks, such as virtual intake, document drafting and client communication. LawDroid stands out for its early adoption of generative AI to support LawDroid Copilot, a legal assistant. The company’s forward-thinking approach makes it especially relevant for solo and small firms operating virtually. You can find pricing details on the website for various tools.

Ruby provides live virtual receptionists and chat services for small businesses, including firms, with an emphasis on friendly, human-first client interactions. The company consistently receives high marks for customer service quality and has strong brand recognition in solo and small firm markets. It integrates with some legal tech tools, and the website offers pricing information, including bundled options for live web chat and virtual receptionist services.

Back Office Betties delivers virtual receptionist and legal intake services staffed by receptionists trained exclusively in legal terminology and workflows. A number of integrations with legal products are available. The company’s flat-rate pricing stands out and is listed on the website.

Answering Legal is a 24/7 live answering service built specifically for lawyers. It offers features, such as call forwarding, new client intake and bilingual support. What sets it apart is the ability to customize call protocols and live call transfer capabilities that allow qualified leads to be quickly patched through to the firm.

Intaker offers AI-powered website chat tools designed to capture and qualify leads for firms through customizable, conversation-based interfaces. It integrates with many popular customer relationship management systems and legal software platforms. Its visually engaging, video-enabled chat experience, along with its focus on lead conversion, are notable.

The bottom line

Firms that take advantage of virtual receptionists and intake tools are simply more responsive and efficient. By ensuring that calls are promptly answered, leads are captured, and clients receive immediate attention—day or night.

Modern intake tools, whether AI-powered, human-staffed or a mix of both, reduce overhead and free up time for more analytical and nuanced legal work. This benefit can be particularly impactful for solo and small firms, enabling them to better compete with larger practices by offering scalable, professional client service without the cost of full-time staff.

Outsourcing reception and intake is one of the easiest and most impactful ways to improve the client experience and streamline operations. With so many options available, there’s a solution to fit nearly any budget or workflow. Invest in these tools now, and your firm will be better positioned to thrive and grow.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘It’s Time for You to Leave’: More immigration…

Immigration Law

‘It’s Time for You to Leave’: More immigration lawyers get notices to self-deport

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 25, 2025, 9:32 am CDT

Immigration lawyers outside Massachusetts are also receiving notices to self-deport, despite their U.S. citizenship.

Among the lawyers receiving notices are Austin, Texas, lawyer Hubert Montoya and Salt Lake City lawyer Carlos Trujillo, according to Fortune, KTVX and the Utah News Dispatch.

“It’s time for you to leave,” the notices said.

Immigration lawyers in Ohio, Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania have also reported receiving the notices, according to the Utah News Dispatch.

Montoya told Fortune that he laughed when he received the notice.

“I just thought it was absurd,” he said.

Trujillo told the Utah News Dispatch that he has advocated for the immigrant community, but he refuses to think that it is the reason for the notice.

“It probably was a mistake, and I love this country so much that I think my first inclination is just to believe that and leave it at that,” he said.

The notices are part of a what appears to be a mass email campaign telling immigrants that the immigration parole allowing them to temporarily live in the United States has been revoked, according to the Utah News Dispatch.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is canceling paroles that allowed people who entered the United States using an online appointment app to remain in the country for two years, according to previous reporting by the Associated Press. The Trump administration has suspended use of the app.

The Department of Homeland Security sent notices to email addresses provided by the immigrants, including, in some cases, email addresses of U.S. citizens they listed as contacts, according to a statement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Some of the notices may have been sent to lawyers and other unintended recipients, the agency told Fortune.

The notices being sent are not limited to people who used the appointment app, according to a Customs and Border Protection statement cited by the Utah News Dispatch.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook…

Prosecutors

Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook posts criticizing judge presiding in his case, report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 11:12 am CDT

The acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., formerly helped ghostwrite posts criticizing a judge presiding in a civil case in which he was the defendant, according to lawsuit documents cited by ProPublica.

U.S. attorney nominee Edward R. Martin Jr. helped his associate, Priscilla Gray, write the posts that began in 2016 after the Illinois judge “dealt Martin a major setback in the case,” according to the report by ProPublica, noted by Bloomberg Law’s Wake Up Call. Martin is filling the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia position on an acting basis.

Gray’s posts on the judge’s Facebook page called the judge a “politician” with the “lowest rating for a judge in Illinois.”

Martin had urged Gray to call the judge’s actions “unfair and rigged over and over,” according to ProPublica. He also urged Gray to privately message the judge, the article reports.

The judge was presiding in a case seeking to oust Martin from association with a grassroots group that he once headed, the Eagle Forum. The plaintiff was Anne Schlafly Cori, an Eagle Forum board member who was the daughter of the group’s founder, Phyllis Schlafly.

The truth about Martin’s involvement in the criticism “emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit,” according to ProPublica.

President Donald Trump has nominated Martin, who has no prosecution experience, to remain in the U.S. attorney position. Martin did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gray also declined to comment to the publication.

Andy Schlafly, a former Eagle Forum board member who supported Martin, told ProPublica that Gray “speaks for herself” and had every right to express her outrage. He also said no court has ever sanctioned Martin for his “First Amendment advocacy.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Skadden improperly limited lawyer access…

Law Firms

Skadden improperly limited lawyer access to email distribution lists, group claims in NLRB filing

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 1:19 pm CDT

A workers’ rights group alleges that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom improperly interfered with protected employee discussions about the law firm’s deal with President Donald Trump when it restricted email distribution lists.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights filed an unfair labor practice charge with those allegations last week with the National Labor Relations Board, report Bloomberg Law, Law360 and Reuters.

Skadden’s deal, announced March 28 on Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, calls for the firm to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to support causes favored by Trump and the firm. The agreement also said Skadden will not engage in illegal discrimination based on equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Skadden reached the deal to prevent becoming a target in a punitive executive order.

The charge said “associates used firm email to discuss these changes, submit resignations, plan coordinated rejections of recruitment activities, and express concerns about the impact on what they do, with whom they work, and their ethical obligations.”

A letter sent to the NLRB, along with the labor charge, cited an anonymous Skadden employee who said the firm “turned off firm email lists to silence people” before announcement of the deal.

Curtailing access to email lists interfered with employees’ ability to engage in mutual aid and protection outside of a union, the letter said.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights submitted the charge because of its concerns about worker rights and was not acting on behalf of Skadden employees, according to the letter. Generally, the National Labor Relations Act allows anyone to file a charge for unfair labor practices, according to Bloomberg Law.

Jeremy D. London, a Skadden executive partner, did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses…

Judiciary

Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space,’ high-profile appeals judge writes

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 3:07 pm CDT

In a span of less than a week, a conservative federal appeals judge has written two opinions that are getting attention—for taking a tough stand against the mistaken deportation of an immigrant in one case and for waxing philosophical in another case.

In an April 17 opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III took the Trump administration to task for “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

Wilkinson wrote the “blistering” opinion for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia of Maryland, according to the New York Times.

Abrego Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador in Central America because of an “administrative error.” The case is Abrego Garcia v. Noem.

Now, Wilkinson is getting attention once again for an April 23 opinion in an insurance dispute involving a man on a lawn mower struck and killed by an underinsured motorist, according to Above the Law and the Judicial Notice newsletter at Original Jurisdiction.

The 4th Circuit held that the man’s estate was entitled to $150,000 under the plain terms of the man’s underinsured motorist coverage—and nothing more.

Wilkinson engaged in “existential, metaphysical musings” at the end of his opinion, according to Judicial Notice.

Here is what Wilkinson wrote: “What after all does it matter? A single, seemingly ordinary, rather technical insurance case. One among the many hundreds of rulings judges make each year.

“What does it matter? A case but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space and in the four-plus billion years since our solar system’s birth. What does it matter, this case deserted by both space and time?

“To be human is to live in the here and now. This small case extracts courageous meaning from the vast impersonality in which it resides. Its immediacy confounds infinity; its passions light the dark. We have given it our best; the litigants have given it their best. The trial court has done the same. We do not overlook for a moment the tragic passing of the insured but neither can we ignore the contract under South Carolina law that defines the insurer’s obligation.”

The insurance case is Owners Insurance Co. v. Walsh.

Wilkinson, 80, was appointed to the 4th Circuit by former President Ronald Reagan, the New York Times reports in a story about his background. He is the “son of a patrician Virginia banker,” an Army veteran and a law grad of the University of Virginia.

He delayed his legal education after one year to unsuccessfully run for Congress in 1970 as a Republican. After law school, he worked as a law professor and in the U.S. Department of Justice.

On the bench, the New York Times reports, Wilkinson has “a long track record of conservative rulings under his belt, having criticized rulings establishing abortion rights while writing approvingly of a broad conception of presidential power.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 59 partners leave A&O Shearman outside Asia…

Layoffs

59 partners leave A&O Shearman outside Asia since decision to trim 10% of equity partnership

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 3:19 pm CDT

Twenty-five U.S. partners are among the 59 partners who left A&O Shearman since its decision last year to trim 10% of its global equity partnership, according to a count by Law.com.

The count does not include 15 partners who left A&O Shearman in Asia, as previously reported by Law.com. Butit does include partners who left in the United States, London, Europe, Africa and Australia.

A&O Shearman said last year the partner cuts were “a difficult but necessary step forward” following the merger between Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. About 45 partners who left joined other law firms.

A&O Shearman said it currently has around 800 partners worldwide, which is about the same number that it had when it announced the cuts. It is unclear why the current number isn’t lower, according to Law.com.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates…

Careers

Attrition rate is ‘markedly higher’ for associates of color, NALP Foundation says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 9:19 am CDT

The attrition rate for associates in law firms was 20% in 2024, up from 18% in 2023 but still lower than the historic high of 26% in 2021, according to the NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education.

The attrition rate was slightly higher for females than males, at 22% and 20% respectively, and was “markedly higher” for associates of color, at 24% compared to 19% for white associates, according to selected findings from the NALP Foundation’s newest annual Update on Associate Attrition, a detailed report on firms’ associate hiring and departures for 2024.

An April 24 press release summarized the findings.

More associates are leaving in a shorter time frame than in the past, according to the data from 119 reporting firms in the United States and Canada. In 2024, 74% of associates left their firms within four years of their hiring, up from a high of 72% in 2023. That is a departure from the five-year historical pattern for departures.

The survey also found an increase in hiring and departures at the surveyed firms. In 2024, 6,092 associates were hired by reporting firms, up from 5,236 in 2023. The number who left—4,125 associates—was also higher than in 2023, when 3,875 associates left firms.

Fifty-five percent of new associates were hired at the entry level, rather than laterally. The difference is even more pronounced in the largest firms of more than 1,000 lawyers, where 61% of associate hires were at the entry level.

Fiona Trevelyan Hornblower, the president and CEO of the NALP Foundation, sees some trends in the findings.

“This new data shows shifts in the talent market are emerging, with the rise in entry level recruiting, as well as earlier departures by associates,” Hornblower said in the press release.

More larger than smaller firms responded to the survey. Only 17% of responding firms had 100 or fewer lawyers. Thirty-seven percent of the firms had more than 500 attorneys.

Law.com covered the results.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.