1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Conservative group sues ABA over Legal Opportunity…

Diversity

Conservative group sues ABA over Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund program

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 12:36 pm CDT

A group led by a conservative activist has filed a lawsuit alleging that an ABA scholarship program engages in “blatant discrimination” in violation of federal law.

The April 12 suit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a nonprofit organization, says the scholarships are contractual in nature, and their restrictions on eligibility violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination in contracting.

The ABA is represented by Jenner & Block, one of the law firms targeted in a punitive executive order by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg Law reports. Jenner & Block has filed a suit challenging the order against it.

The suit by conservative activist Edward Blum’s group targets the ABA’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund, which awards $15,000 scholarships to select incoming law students. Applicants must be members of underrepresented racial or ethnic minorities, such as Black/African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders, according to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

“Even if the scholarship did not flatly exclude whites on its face,” the suit says, “the scholarship discriminates against whites in application and by design.”

The suit seeks a declaration that the scholarships violate Section 1981, an injunction barring the ABA from considering race or ethnicity in the program, an order to reopen the application process using neutral criteria, and nominal damages.

Another organization that Blum created, Students for Fair Admissions, won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2023 that struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights is represented by Lawfair and Consovoy McCarthy.

The goal of the new suit, Blum said in a statement, “is not to eliminate ABA’s scholarships but to ensure they are based on legitimate criteria, such as financial need or merit, rather than race.”

The ABA does not comment on active litigation, according to Jim Walsh, the chief communications officer and associate executive director of the ABA.

Publications covering the suit include Law.com, Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law.

See also:

Activist who succeeded in ending affirmative action targets law firms’ diversity efforts

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed…

Law Firms

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 8:52 am CDT

Amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie are piling up in its challenge to a punitive order against the law firm signed by President Donald Trump.

The briefs have been filed by more than 500 firms, more than 360 law professors, nearly 350 former judges and a “cross-ideological group” that includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest firm, report Law.com (here and here); Bloomberg Law; Reuters (here and here); Law360; and press releases by Law Forward, a nonprofit organization, and the ACLU.

The firm brief is mostly signed by smaller and midsize firms. According to Law.com, larger and well-known firms that signed are:

  • Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

  • Covington & Burling

  • Crowell & Moring

  • Davis Wright Tremaine

  • Fenwick & West

  • Foley Hoag

  • Freshfields US

  • Hanson Bridgett

  • Jenner & Block

  • Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

  • Munger, Tolles & Olson

  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

  • Stoel Rives

  • Susman Godfrey

  • Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Perkins Coie sued after Trump issued an executive order that suspended Perkins Coie’s security clearance, limited access to federal buildings by its lawyers, blocked government hiring of firm employees, and required federal agencies to take steps to terminate contracts with the firms and their clients—if the firm provided services in connection with the client contract.

WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also sued after they were targeted with executive orders. Covington & Burling was also targeted in a more limited executive order; it has not filed suit.

As of April 3, four other firms reached deals with Trump to avoid punitive measures. The deals included pledges of pro bono support on issues supported by Trump and the firms.

A Perkins Coie spokesperson told Reuters that the firm was grateful to the firms that signed the amicus brief “in our challenge to the unconstitutional executive order and the threat it poses to the rule of law.”

Above the Law is compiling firms’ reactions to actions by the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.” Law.com has published a timeline of the executive orders and firms’ response to them.

The legal advocacy groups that signed the ACLU brief are:

  • The ACLU

  • The ACLU of the District of Columbia

  • The Cato Institute

  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

  • The Institute for Justice

  • The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

  • The National Coalition Against Censorship

  • The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press

  • The Rutherford Institute

  • The Society for the Rule of Law Institute

Judges who signed an amicus brief include retired state supreme court and appellate justices and former federal judges. Among them are:

  • Retired Judge J. Michael Luttig of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia

  • Retired Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia

  • Retired Judge Kathleen M. O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Retired Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia

  • Retired U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York

Law professors who signed the professor brief are from law schools that include Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, the University of California, the Georgetown University Law Center, the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Cornell Law School, the New York University School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School and the University of Michigan Law School.

Professors who signed the brief include Michael C. Dorf of Cornell Law School, Mark A. Lemley of Stanford Law School, Owen Fiss of Yale Law School, Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School, Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School, Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School.

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

Insets: Photos provided by Myla Hemingway’s mother, Tamara Hemingway, showing her hair before and after the 2-year-old’s braid was pulled out (WABC/YouTube). Background: Growing Kids Academy in Ocean Township, N.J., where Myla Hemingway went to day care (WABC/YouTube).

A New Jersey mother says she is taking legal action against a day care that has given her no explanation for how her 2-year-old daughter came home last week with one of her “cornrow” hair braids missing from her head — claiming they didn’t know if her child “pulled it out” herself or whether something more nefarious happened.

“You have to use some type of force for a braid to be removed,” Tamara Hemingway told New York ABC station WABC about her daughter, Myla, and what happened to her.

“It was a cornrow so it was braided down to her scalp,” Hemingway said. “There’s no way that, I don’t know who could have done it, but I know for a fact she or a kid would not have done that.”

Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

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. Nearly 30 legal entities may leave Utah’s…

Access to Justice

Nearly 30 legal entities may leave Utah’s regulatory sandbox program after state tightens rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 4, 2025, 1:45 pm CST

At least 27 law firms and businesses may be leaving a Utah program that permits nontraditional legal services providers to operate in the state, including firms operated by nonlawyers, according to a published report.

The exodus follows a tightening of regulations governing the program, Reuters reports.

Under the new rules, program participants must show that they will reach Utah consumers currently underserved by the legal market, and that the impact is substantial compared to an entity’s overall reach. National and international companies serving only a small number of Utah residents don’t qualify.

Utah appellate court administrator Nick Stiles told Reuters that at least 27 participants in the program have left or may be leaving because they are withdrawing or being terminated because of the changes.

Only about a dozen participants remain in the program, according to Reuters. Records indicate that those companies use technology to lower legal costs or use nonlawyers to provide legal services in areas such as medical debt and domestic violence, the article reports.

Rocket Lawyer is among the companies withdrawing from the program, Reuters reports. The online legal services company is shifting efforts to Arizona after it won approval in the state’s program, said Jack Rives, president of Rocket Lawyer subsidiary Rocket Legal Professional Services, in a statement to Reuters. Rives is the former executive director of the ABA.

Rocket Lawyer was one of the first entities approved to participate in the Utah program.

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

There’s nothing fake about it. The legal industry is facing a big problem with deepfakes. Courtrooms are not yet flooded with a tsunami of deepfake evidence, but with this artificial intelligence-generated technology playing with great success on social media and in fraud schemes, it’s only a matter of time before deepfakes regularly drop into the exhibit list.

Cases with a deepfake component already include:

• United States v. Reffitt: A defendant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s evidence could be a deepfake.
• Sz Huang v Tesla: A defendant’s counsel argued that video evidence of a party’s principal’s statements could be a deepfake.
• United States v. Doolin: A court allowed introduction of video evidence that the defense argued could have been a deepfake.
• Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corp.: An attorney submitted an exhibit reciting an allegedly false timeline of facts published in a newspaper that does not exist.

According to March 2023 article the New York Times, many of the apps and tools used to create deepfakes are available to anyone with a smartphone and are free or inexpensive, making it far too easy to create or alter digital evidence.

Amplifying the problem is the fact that “right now, truth is starting to become a matter of degree,” says Maura R. Grossman, a research professor at the University of Waterloo and an attorney and e-discovery special master. Grossman points to examples, such as touching up an exhibit photo to turn a frown into a smile. This small change may be immaterial to a case—or not.

What about changing a few pixels to make it impossible to tell whether someone is holding a phone or a gun in their hand? Materially altered photo and video evidence will be thrown out, but misinformation based on reconfigured reality will undoubtedly be introduced into the courtroom and to juries.

“So much of the justice system relies on interpreting evidence and deciding how much weight to give it,” Grossman says. “And we’re now moving into a world where not only can we no longer rely on our senses to do that, but we may need experts, and that changes the cost. And for the judge, that creates delays and adds a whole new layer.”

Is the most efficient solution a technical or a legal solution?

The legal world is grappling with how to handle deepfake evidence, with procedural solutions currently getting public attention as technology solutions develop more slowly. Here are three approaches on how evidence suspected of being deepfake can be handled in the legal system.

1. Technical experts

Digital forensic experts use machine-learning capabilities in AI-based detection systems to inspect the authenticity of digital media. Deepfake videos with audio are the most difficult to identify because of the human tendency to overlook small discrepancies in a video and focus on the main idea.

Digital forensic experts can apply multimodal analysis to examine multiple data sources and combine techniques. These capabilities range from artifact detection, to frame-by-frame analysis and blink analysis, to luminance gradient analysis and pixel error analysis. After conducting necessary analyses, the expert can render an opinion as to whether the evidence is authentic or altered—or not—based on irregularities found.

Hiring a digital forensic expert can cost from a few hundred dollars for hourly consulting to several thousand dollars per project. For high-profile cases with significant legal implications, fees can be much greater.

Jerry Bui of Texas-based Right Forensics is also a consultant to Interpol. He tells us that, “Deepfakes force us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Seeing is no longer believing. As forensic experts, we’re not just authenticating evidence—we’re trying to safeguard the integrity of the justice system in an era where digital manipulation can rewrite reality.”

Chuck Kellner is a strategic discovery adviser at Everlaw.

2. Court rules

U.S. courts are slowly moving to address deepfake evidence. At the Nov. 8, 2024, meeting of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, a committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the committee considered proposed Rule 901(c), authored by Grossman and Judge Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and professor at the Duke University School of Law.

The rule, if adopted, would govern “potentially fabricated or altered electronic evidence,” reading: “If a party challenging the authenticity of computer-generated or other electronic evidence demonstrates to the court that a jury reasonably could find that the evidence has been altered or fabricated, in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence, the evidence is admissible only if the proponent demonstrates that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect on the party challenging the evidence.”

Grimm and Grossman’s proposed rule places burdens on the challenging and the offering parties, as well as the courts, helping to reduce the risk of exposing juries to deepfakes. It is one of several being considered by various judicial committees. Some experts think that no changes are needed to the rules of evidence.

Given the speed at which deepfake technology evolves and improves, changes in rules or procedures might not be useful. In the meantime, decisions will be meted out by the courts based on individual challenges as they arise.

3. Procedural approaches

Courts will use the existing rules to make decisions for the foreseeable future, having hearings on evidence. Judges will have to agree to analyze digital evidence, putting the burden on litigants to prove the legitimacy of the evidence in question, rather than placing the onus on the judge to decide whether the evidence is genuine or deepfake, admissible or not.

One of the critical issues that arises when considering the legal impact of deepfakes is cost—who pays to prove whether evidence is real or fake?

“This becomes an access-to-justice issue,” says Rebecca Delfino, the associate dean of clinical programs and experiential learning at the Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University. “In a perfect world, it would be taken care of in a criminal case. If the government wants to prove an audio-visual image is of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defendant claims it’s a deepfake, the government should have to pay for expert analysis because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. That may or may not happen; It depends on the available resources.

“But in the civil context, it’s going to be a significant problem,” Delfino continues. “Even for a simple example—such as the expression in a photograph being digitally altered from a frown to a smile—the individual will need to retain some type of expert.”

In family court, with its many pro se litigants, yet another reality exists—that a photo showing bruises would change someone’s life. Is it real or a deepfake? Who pays the expert to analyze it?

It’s just one of a multitude of questions that remains to be answered on how the legal world will adapt to a rising tide of deepfake evidence. We may not be at the end of reality, but deepfakes are definitely going to rock the legal world as we know it.

Practice tips

1. Look for items of evidence that are too good or too damaging to be true.
2. Deepfakes in social media tend to be video, audio and pictures. You can easily get automated optical character recognition to find text in pictures. You can also get machine transcription of audio and video. Each of these yields searchable text that you can use as a starting point to uncover suspicious material.
3. Plan your deposition or trial, so that you have your exhibit lists ready earlier than you do now. Implore the court to require your adversaries to do the same.
4. Evaluate the exhibits, paying close attention to those with audio, video or picture formats. Interview your witnesses, and challenge suspicious content. Don’t wait until the day of testimony.
5. Be prepared to engage a computer forensic examiner to evaluate the evidentiary quality of an item suspected of deepfake.

See also:

Is the legal system ready for AI-generated deepfake videos?

Chuck Kellner is a strategic discovery adviser at Everlaw. Kellner has worked as an expert on e-discovery protocols, proportionality and cost of e-discovery, findings on computer forensic examination, and requirements for defensible search and review.

Mind Your Business is a series of columns written by lawyers, legal professionals and others within the legal industry. The purpose of these columns is to offer practical guidance for attorneys on how to run their practices, provide information about the latest trends in legal technology and how it can help lawyers work more efficiently, and strategies for building a thriving business.

Interested in contributing a column? Send a query to [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. Former law firm partner censured over sex…

Ethics

Former law firm partner censured over sex with associate and legal assistant, stay-quiet offers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 8:55 am CST

A former partner at a Boise, Idaho, law firm has been publicly censured after he allegedly tried to entice an associate and a legal assistant to keep quiet about an incident in which he had sexual relations with them at the office.

The Idaho Supreme Court publicly censured Boise lawyer W. Dustin Charters in a Feb. 6 order, the Idaho Statesman recently reported.

The enticements involved money and a lightened workload, according to the public censure.

Charters was a mentor for the associate and supervised her work. She had joined the firm in August 2023, the month before the sexual incident, according to the censure order. The associate was 26 years old, and Charters was 37 years old, according to allegations cited by the Idaho Statesman.

Afterward, the order said, Charters offered compensation to both women if they did not report his conduct. He also offered to complete work for the associate that she could bill as her time and suggested that she falsely bill his completed work on a case as client development, according to the order.

Both women turned down the offers, and the associate did not falsely bill her time. They reported Charters’ conduct to the firm Sept. 26, 2023, three days after the incident, according to the allegations. Charters was fired two days later.

A stipulation in the case said Charters had no previous discipline and had acknowledged his misconduct, according to the Idaho Statesman. The stipulation also said he had received counseling and agreed to perform 100 hours of community service.

Charters did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and a voicemail.

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

“When you lose touch with inner stillness, you lose touch with yourself. When you lose touch with yourself, you lose yourself in the world.” —Eckhart Tolle

Yoga has been a therapeutic tool for the legal profession for decades. The benefits of yoga have become so mainstream that we even have CLEs dedicated to yoga and its impact on lawyers’ mental and physical well-being.

But yin yoga, a subset of the traditional yoga flow practice, is a more niche form of practice that is not as well known in the legal profession. Often defined as “still and contemplative yoga,” yin is a slower-paced and more meditative style that has the ability to teach additional, practice-oriented skills to lawyers.

What is yin yoga?

Many yoga practices today focus primarily on building strength and balance through active and sweat-inducing routines. Yin, on the other hand, works the deep fascial connective tissues in the body with slower movements and a larger focus on building connection between the mind and the body.

Although this style of yoga may appear lethargic and passive, yin can be quite challenging. Yin shapes can be held for upward of five minutes at a time, truly testing our patience muscles. These shapes gently stress connective tissues to allow for more oxygen into the muscles, thereby increasing blood flow throughout the body. Most notably, yin teaches us to be present in uncomfortable and fidget-worthy moments.

Lawyers and impulsive behavior

We all know that lawyers love to talk and argue—often feeling the need to assert their opinions into conversations. Lawyers are sometimes guilty of rehearsing “comeback” arguments in their heads before someone else even finishes their sentence.

Moreover, if a lawyer thinks that they are being verbally attacked (or worse, trying to be proven wrong), they may be tempted to react impulsively and say things that they will likely regret later. Any principles of active listening get thrown out of the window. The idea of pausing for reflection is not always in our repertoire, as it can be rewarding for our egos to be quick-witted.

The power of the pause

Yin introduces us to the power of the pause—allowing the body and the mind to be content in moments of silence and discomfort. A common methodology in practice is the principle of reaching your edge—the sensation in which the body feels the tension but also recognizes when to be still before it reaches the point of pain.

By understanding our edges in real life, we become more cognizant of our emotional triggers in conversations. When we feel the body get tense in a heated discussion with an opposing counsel or a colleague, we may benefit from taking a deep breath (or two).

Instead of feeling the need to respond immediately, we should challenge ourselves to be patient in silence, so we can process another person’s point of view. In doing so, we are more adept at engaging in healthy and productive conversations.

Dragon and energy channels

One of my favorite positions in yin is the dragon shape, which works the outer and the inner legs, as well as the spine. It resembles a kneeling lunge and can be a game-changer for those who sit behind a desk with tight hip flexors.

According to Mary Beth Harding, a certified 500-hour yoga teacher, “Meridians, originating from traditional Chinese medicine, form an integral energetic network of channels that stress and illness can often block or disrupt. Dragon shapes engage several of these channels, particularly those connected to the stomach and spleen meridians—areas closely tied to rumination and anxiety. Additionally, they can benefit the tissues often dehydrated by long days at a desk. By gently manipulating these specific channels and tissues, we can encourage the nervous system to release built-up tension and stress, as well as promote greater clarity of thought.”

While traditional yoga flow certainly has its benefits, the unique practice of yin yoga should not be overlooked. Consistent yin practice can teach lawyers to be patient in uncomfortable moments—no matter how intense a conversation may be.

Bradley T. Bald is an attorney in Nashville, Tennessee, where is associate general counsel for Lifestyle Communities, a national multifamily developer, investor and operator. He obtained his 20-hour foundations of yin yoga training in February 2024.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

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. The Modern Law Library
3. Former Watergate prosecutor and friends reflect…

The Modern Law Library

Former Watergate prosecutor and friends reflect on life in ‘Legal Briefs’

By Lee Rawles

February 5, 2025, 3:45 pm CST

For some people, retirement is an opportunity to kick back and finally relax. But for Roger M. Witten, it was a chance to finally tackle that book that he’d been thinking about writing. With a little help from longtime friends and colleagues, Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law was born.

Witten’s aim was to reach a general audience and give them an idea about what a life in the law could look like outside the most well-known bounds of a criminal justice, Law & Order career. The result is a series of short, digestible anecdotes from 20 attorneys, talking about memorable cases, clients and conundrums that they had. A reader could flip to any chapter in Legal Briefs and spend an enjoyable five to 10 minutes getting a snapshot from a contributor’s career.

Witten shares how he became an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s. In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, he tells host Lee Rawles about defending a wise guy client code-named Ted, who nicknamed Witten “Witless” and threw a party with a banner reading “Ted – 1, FBI – 0” when they reached a successful plea agreement.

Many of the contributors to the book of essays were involved in government litigation and complex corporate matters. Witten was one of the foremost litigators handling Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, and before his retirement, he was a senior litigation partner in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr’s New York office.

In this episode, he also shares his perspective as a former Watergate prosecutor on current events within the federal government since the Trump administration began, and he recounts his experience with the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona while defending campaign finance reforms.

In This Podcast:

Roger M. Witten

Roger M. Witten’s legal career began after a clerkship, with his appointment as an assistant Watergate special prosecutor on the staff of Archibald Cox. He then joined Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, which later became Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. Working in the law firm’s Washington, D.C., and New York offices, Witten’s practice focused on litigation that had international and/or public policy aspects; white-collar law enforcement matters; and internal investigations, which often related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He was also a devoted advocate of campaign finance reform. He was the chair of WilmerHale’s litigation group and was a member of the firm’s management committee. He is now retired. Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law is his first book.