1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Litigation boutique firm will pay special…

Lawyer Pay

Litigation boutique firm will pay special bonuses as high as $60K

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 12:51 pm CDT

Litigation boutique law firm Wilkinson Stekloff will pay special bonuses to associates ranging from $25,000 to $60,000, the firm recently told employees in a memo.

The bonuses will be paid June 1, according to Above the Law, which obtained a copy of the April 11 announcement.

The bonuses are “separate and apart from end-of-year bonuses,” the bonus memo said.

Here is the bonus scale:

• Class of 2024: $25,000

• Class of 2023: $30,000

• Class of 2022: $35,000

• Class of 2021: $40,000

• Class of 2020: $45,000

• Class of 2019: $50,000

• Class of 2018: $55,000

• Class of 2017: $60,000

Nonlawyers will receive a $7,500 bonus.

The bonus memo said the firm continues to be in “a particularly busy stretch” as it prepares for upcoming trials.

“We are also grateful that many of us are working on essential matters to fight government overreach and defend the rule of law,” the memo said.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Suits seeking continued US funding will likely…

U.S. Supreme Court

Suits seeking continued US funding will likely be routed to Court of Federal Claims after SCOTUS decision, law prof says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 11:42 am CDT

A decision on Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to an education-grant freeze will likely redirect many other lawsuits regarding Trump administration spending decisions to the Court of Federal Claims, according to a law professor.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision allowed the Trump administration to freeze $65 million in education-related grants while a suit filed by eight states is litigated.

The Supreme Court found that the government was likely to succeed in its argument that a district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the Administrative Procedure Act. The law waives government immunity but not for court orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the lines of the order by U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts, the Supreme Court said.

Instead, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear such suits, the high court said.

Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the ruling “should quickly knock out many other ‘spending’ cases and redirect them to the Court of Federal Claims. This is a court most people have never heard of but will soon become very important.”

The Supreme Court’s decision stayed a March 10 temporary restraining order issued by Joun, report Politico, Reuters, Howe on the Court, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the decision but did not issue or join a dissent. The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices also dissented.

The Trump administration had canceled the grants because they included diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The states that sued are California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.

Joun’s order had required the government to pay past-due grant obligations and to continue paying the obligations as they accrue. The judge based the decision on a finding that the challengers were likely to succeed on their claim that the freeze was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed with that finding.

Generally, TROs cannot be appealed, but the order issued by Joun was more akin to a preliminary injunction, the majority said.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the general rule is that Administrative Procedure Act suits go to federal district courts, even when a remedial order may result in the disbursement of funds.

“So the court’s reasoning is at the least underdeveloped, and very possibly wrong,” she said.

Kagan also criticized the majority for making a decision based on the government’s emergency application.

“The risk of error increases when this court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection,” she wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“It is beyond puzzling that a majority of justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency,” Jackson wrote. “It is likewise baffling that anyone is persuaded that the equities favor the government when the government does not even argue that the lower courts erred in concluding that it likely behaved unlawfully.”

The decision is Department of Education v. California.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t…

U.S. Supreme Court

Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t have standing, Supreme Court says while staying rehiring order

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 1:31 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a federal judge’s preliminary injunction that required the federal government to rehire as many as 16,000 fired probationary employees.

In its April 8 order, the Supreme Court said the injunction entered by Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California was based solely on claims by nine nonprofit plaintiffs. But those groups did not have standing, the Supreme Court said.

The injunction was not based on claims by other plaintiffs in the lawsuit before Alsup. Alsup didn’t rule on claims by the labor union plaintiffs because he found that he probably didn’t have the power to hear them, according to SCOTUSblog.

The Supreme Court stay will remain in place throughout the litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

SCOTUSblog, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico are among the publications with coverage.

According to Politico, “the decision’s ultimate impact is murky because another federal judge has issued a separate order reinstating many of the same probationary workers.”

Alsup had granted the preliminary injunction in a March 13 ruling from the bench, he said in a March 14 memorandum opinion. He ordered the employees’ reinstatement based on a finding that the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to fire employees of another agency. That authority belongs to each agency, he said.

Alsup’s injunction reinstated probationary workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury, according to a March 13 press release.

The government has contended that the firings can only be contested by individual employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The case is Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees.

See also:

Judge orders Trump officials to offer jobs back to fired probationary workers

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge who sought female attorneys…

Judiciary

Federal judge who sought female attorneys among class counsel has acknowledged sex-bias concerns, order says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 9:21 am CDT

A federal judge who called for female attorneys to be “adequately represented” on the leadership team for plaintiffs in multidistrict contraceptive litigation has “acknowledged the concerns created by her statements,” according to an order closing an ethics inquiry.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the Northern District of Florida “has taken appropriate voluntary corrective action that acknowledges and remedies the problems created by her statements,” wrote Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta in the March 20 order.

Conservative activist Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project—a conservative group—filed a complaint against Rodgers after she said during a Feb. 21 case management conference and in a Feb. 23 order that she thinks that female attorneys have to be “adequately represented” on the leadership team given the female plaintiffs in the contraceptive drug Depo-Provera litigation.

Davis had released the complaint and his organization, the Article III Project, published online articles about it. He alleged that Rodgers’ statements amounted to discrimination based on sex and constituted judicial misconduct.

Rodgers omitted references to sex when she invited applications for leadership positions in a Feb. 28 order. All applicants would be considered based on merit, she said in the order. Then, in a March 13 hearing allowing nearly 70 applicants to give presentations, Rodgers said she would not give preferences to women to avoid the appearance of impermissible sex discrimination.

Pryor said Rodgers’ voluntary corrective action was sufficient while warning that judges can’t discriminate based on sex when selecting class counsel.

Pryor noted a 2013 statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a cert denial in which he criticized a judge’s “unique” requirement that class counsel fairly reflect the composition of plaintiffs.

What Alito described as a unique practice “has been touted as a ‘best practice’ in multidistrict litigation,” Pryor said. “Commentators openly encourage judges who preside over these actions to consider impermissible characteristics like sex or race when they appoint leadership counsel.”

Notions about a lawyer’s ability to fairly and adequately represent class interests “must exist within the bounds of the rules that govern judicial conduct, and those bounds prohibit discrimination based on sex,” Pryor said.

Law360 and Reuters are among the publications with coverage of the order, noted by How Appealing.

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

Historically, the legal profession has been slow to embrace emerging technologies. E-discovery software, however, was an exception, largely because Congress amended Rule 26(f) to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required its implementation. While e-discovery adoption was not always enthusiastic, it was notable, representing one of the first times legal professionals truly leaned into modern technology.

Initially, e-discovery software was cutting-edge, offering legal professionals the ability to sort through and categorize massive amounts of electronically stored information for production in litigation matters. Over the years, significant advancements in this category of software were few and far between. Systems transitioned from premises-based systems to the cloud—an important change—but truly innovative updates were rare.

In November 2022, generative artificial intelligence tools became widely available to the general public, which laid the foundation for the next stage of innovation in discovery software. Since then, more than 10 companies have integrated this technology into their products.

With generative AI features embedded in e-discovery tools, the identification, collection, preservation, processing, review and analysis of relevant electronic documents are simplified. The software can also assist with rapidly analyzing large volumes of data, identifying patterns and providing insights overlooked during manual review. Some platforms even include generative AI-driven advanced search capabilities, which enable more accurate keyword searches, tagging and redaction.

Choosing e-discovery software with generative AI features

If your law firm is interested in exploring how generative AI can improve the e-discovery process, first assess your firm’s specific needs and how these tools will integrate into your litigation workflow. What are the biggest challenges when managing electronically stored information? Which tasks consume the most time? How can generative AI streamline the process by automating document review, categorization or privilege identification?

Next, consider the tools that your firm is currently using. Do they include generative AI features, or is generative AI development on the product road map? Are there integrations available that would provide the functionality that you’re seeking? If your current providers are expanding their AI capabilities, it may be more efficient to adopt those updates, rather than implementing an entirely new platform.

Trusted providers should be the first place that you look before exploring new vendors. Leveraging existing tools with AI enhancements can minimize disruption, reduce onboarding time and ensure consistency in your firm’s workflows.

Vetting e-discovery providers

When your firm adopts cloud-based e-discovery tools, you are entrusting a third party with sensitive client data. Ethical obligations require you to vet the provider thoroughly, which includes reviewing data security measures, storage locations, access controls and backup policies to ensure compliance with professional responsibilities.

For AI-enhanced platforms, it’s also essential to understand the accuracy of AI-generated outputs, how the provider protects user data, and whether queries will contribute to training AI models.

Finally, whenever possible, take advantage of free trials or demos to test usability and determine whether a platform aligns with your firm’s needs.

With these considerations in mind, let’s explore AI-powered e-discovery tools.

E-discovery tools with generative AI features

  • Reveal: Offers an AI-powered platform featuring “Ask,” a generative AI search tool that facilitates natural language queries and streamlines document review and analysis by providing verifiable insights and summaries.

  • Relativity: Provides “Relativity aiR,” a suite of AI tools designed to enhance review to gauge the responsiveness of documents; case strategy to create case summaries and timelines; and privilege review, which accelerates the identification of privileged information.

  • DISCO: “Cecilia” is its generative AI tool that translates and summarizes documents and depositions, enables interrogation of evidence or individual documents, generates timelines, and automates document review.

  • Everlaw: Features the “EverlawAI Assistant,” which integrates with Everlaw’s Storybuilder and document review products. Using a Q&A format, it provides verifiable outputs that expedite document review and surface critical information to assist in crafting convincing arguments.

  • Exterro: “Exterro Assist” is a generative AI tool embedded in the company’s e-discovery and legal governance solutions. With it, users can query the system using natural language to obtain contextually relevant results. It can also be used to automate workflows, summarize cases and documents, and create reports.

  • Lexbe: Offers “CoPilot,” a generative AI-powered feature that summarizes documents, extracts key details and improves review efficiency. This tool enables legal teams to understand evidence and develop case strategies quickly.

  • HaystackID: HaystackID’s “Core Intelligence AI” automates key e-discovery tasks, such as data classification, document summarization and the identification of sensitive information. It helps legal teams manage large volumes of data, speeds up review and streamlines the process of locating relevant and privileged documents.

  • eDiscovery Assistant: For e-discovery practitioners, eDiscovery Assistant also integrates generative AI technology into its software. The functionality enables the generation of concise caselaw summaries, allowing legal professionals to assess the relevance and implications of judicial decisions swiftly.

Driving change

Having led the legal profession’s first major shift to digital workflows, e-discovery is once again driving change—this time through AI. With so many companies prioritizing generative AI development, e-discovery practitioners have more options than ever. As the technology improves, deeper integration will increase efficiency and introduce new capabilities.

Generative AI innovations are providing legal teams with an expanding set of tools to streamline document review, enhance predictive analysis, and uncover insights that might otherwise go unnoticed. As the technology evolves, deeper integration will further improve efficiency and introduce new capabilities, reinforcing e-discovery’s role as a key driver of legal innovation.

---

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. Which BigLaw firms and big-name lawyers are…

Law Firms

Which BigLaw firms and big-name lawyers are involved in suits against Trump administration?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 9:40 am CST

Several BigLaw firms and at least three U.S. Supreme Court practitioners are representing plaintiffs suing the Trump administration.

Well-known attorneys involved in the litigation include Neal Katyal, who recently joined Milbank from Hogan Lovells; Seth Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; and Paul Clement, who left Kirkland & Ellis to form Clement & Murphy, report Law.com and Reuters.

The three lawyers have significant Supreme court experience. Waxman and Clement are former U.S. solicitors general, while Katyal was an acting solicitor general.

Smaller law firms and legal organizations are also involved in the litigation, including the American Civil Liberties Union, its foundation and its affiliates; Lambda Legal; Democracy Forward; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; the National Security Counselors firm; Lawyers for Civil Rights; and immigrant rights groups. Democratic state attorneys general are also filing legal challenges.

According to Law.com and Reuters, these BigLaw firms are involved in lawsuits:

  • Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, representing fired inspectors general. (Law.com)

  • Hogan Lovells, seeking to block executive orders to end federal funding for gender-affirming medical care. (Law.com)

  • Jenner & Block, also seeking to block the orders on gender-affirming care and cuts to medical research funding. (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Ropes & Gray, also seeking to block cuts to medical research funding. (Law.com)

  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, representing the Amica Center for Immigrants Rights and others seeking to block funding cuts for immigrant legal services. (Law.com)

  • Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, representing the ABA and other groups challenging a freeze on foreign assistance funding. The firm also sued over the order ending birthright citizenship. (Law.com, ABAJournal.com, Reuters)

  • Perkins Coie, representing transgender service members challenging an order restricting military service. (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Milbank, representing the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a suit over her attempted ouster. (Reuters)

Just Security and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse are tracking legal challenges to Trump administration actions.

See also:

Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration?

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

Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Lynn Tubalinal, the director of litigation support at Dykema, and Julia Voss, the director of litigation support and e-discovery at UB Greensfelder.

Both are among the industry leaders who contributed to the recently published report Advancing Litigation Support to Fuel Growth in a Changing Legal Market, supported by Opus 2.

They discussed the effect of the increasing volume and variety of data, how a team knows that it is time to upgrade its technology, successful strategies for driving adoption, and effective generative artificial intelligence use cases.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and your current role.

Lynn Tubalinal: I started my career as a paralegal and leveraged my technical background into a litigation support role. I began to lead teams at Sidley Austin, where I spent eight years, and three and a half years ago, I moved to Dykema.

Julia Voss: I am an antitrust litigator turned e-discovery professional. Twenty years ago, I had one of the more significant cases in the firm, while the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were changing. I was tasked with figuring it out and then started teaching my peers about those developments. So in 2014, when the firm decided that a lawyer should lead litigation support, they asked me to move into that role. I have been the director of litigation support and e-discovery for 11 years.

Ari Kaplan: Did anything in the Advancing Litigation Support to Fuel Growth in a Changing Legal Market report surprise you?

Lynn Tubalinal: What is really surprising to me, and it’s not necessarily related to the content overall, is that we are all going through the same issues and figuring this out as we go. In these roles, you tend to feel like you’re on an island and don’t hear about what everyone else is experiencing until you begin talking to them. In this fast-paced industry, we don’t always get to speak to one another and connect. Through these reports, I could relate to the perspectives of my peers and identify strategies that could work for us internally and as an industry.

Ari Kaplan: One theme in the report was the increasing volume and variety of data. What effect do you expect this trend to have?

Julia Voss: The growing data volumes are driving more litigators to realize they need a technical solution to manage their dockets. When they had small cases with a few hundred documents, they could manage, but that is no longer possible. The variety of data is the most complex issue today because many different data sources are available. Every day it seems as if there’s a new app or an update to the phone or Microsoft. Litigation support professionals are constantly chasing updates and developing new methods for collecting data. There was a time when we felt like we knew e-discovery because we could effectively collect emails. Then Teams came along, followed by Slack and then WhatsApp, and now, it feels like a never-ending cycle of chasing the newest app.

Ari Kaplan: What advice would you offer to others who are managing these changes?

Lynn Tubalinal: Don’t get overwhelmed. We are all going through this at the same time. Identify what works best for your team. Meet with your peers, and discuss specific issues, like processing unique data types and learn which solutions you can offer to the case team. It is typically not a single solution. You may need different applications for some instances, such as those with modern attachments. We focus on understanding the case team’s challenges to help develop a holistic strategy, rather than solely provide technical support. They are our internal clients, and we need to help them communicate more effectively with the firm’s external clients. It can really be easy to get overwhelmed because there are many different data types, and you will not be the expert on everything, but rely on those who are the experts and get information from them.

Ari Kaplan: Outdated technology, specifically case management, was another theme in the Advancing Litigation Support to Fuel Growth in a Changing Legal Market report. How do you know when it’s time to explore a new solution, and what are your tips for others as they select new applications?

Julia Voss: You start to realize it might be time to look at a new solution when people aren’t using the one you have or there is better technology that can provide more support. Focus on listening to the people around you to understand their evolving needs better. The hardest part of exploring a new solution is finding people with time to test the options and help determine the best way to move forward, especially with all the technology available due to developments in generative AI. With many things changing at once, you need a group of people who understand what your technology is doing and what a new product could improve.

Ari Kaplan: Does outdated technology contribute to a lack of adoption?

Lynn Tubalinal: Litigation support teams must always balance the use of outdated technology with the cost of moving to a newer, faster and better solution. Getting teams to buy into that upgrade can be a challenge. As technologists, we are enthusiastic about improving our tools, but cost, adoption and other variables factor into the ultimate decision to change.

Ari Kaplan: What strategies have been successful in encouraging adoption in your firm?

Julia Voss: Presenting the attorneys with the benefits instead of highlighting features alone is essential. The most effective strategy is to begin with a small team that pilots the application and presents the results to influence adoption. Once users see results, they are more likely to take advantage of the new tool.

Ari Kaplan: Generative AI has been and will continue to be a hot topic. How are you using AI in your firm, and what have you learned from your experiences so far?

Lynn Tubalinal: There are different types of AI, not just generative AI, and we have been utilizing more traditional AI in our workflows for years. We just purchased a generative AI component for our e-discovery document review platform and are excited to deploy it. I’m trying to identify my champions, who can use it in their matters and provide honest feedback. Most lawyers want to see results, rather than the nuts and bolts of how the technology works. Based on the impressions of generative AI that I have heard, everybody’s waiting to see what others are doing. Nobody wants to be behind the curve, and we want to adopt it, but we’re cautiously treading into the arena.

Julia Voss: We have also been using different kinds of AI for a long time, but generative AI is the obvious new shiny toy. We had been testing generative AI in our document review platform for a few months and are starting to expand access to grow adoption. For resources and training, we need to persuade the professionals on our team to allocate the time to update their skills using generative AI products, so that the great people we have can continue to help the legal teams move forward.

Ari Kaplan: What is your team doing in 2025 to maintain its competitive edge?

Lynn Tubalinal: Ensuring that the talent that we have can utilize our full suite of tools and be our champions. Education and marketing are paramount. I spent much of 2024 marketing my team because not everyone fully understands what we do. My team is just trying to get the work done but may not necessarily know how to market the team while they are supporting others. I have been working on that internally by encouraging more direct support, such as a phone call over an email or Teams chat. We are moving back to basics to better showcase our talent and capabilities.

Julia Voss: What didn’t surprise me about this report is that we’re all trying to do some of the same things. We are internally rebranding our group as the data intelligence team. We are showcasing the skills of our technologists and e-discovery counsel to raise their profile and highlight where they can provide support, so the trial teams can focus on the merits of their cases.

Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change and introduce new technology at his blog and on iTunes.

---

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

I have always been interested in mistakes, also known as errors, blunders or, in my best legalese, boo-boos.

I am especially interested in historical iconic mistakes. I just read that the city of Bologna, Italy, has two towers, “le due torri,” both closed to visitors because they also are now leaning. Welcome to Pisa II. What gives?

I visualize the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Surely, it would not take legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright to notice that it was not rising according to plan. None of us would allow our houses to be built like that without at least emailing the builder at one point and saying, “I don’t know. When you get a chance, please drop by and have a look.”

I Googled to see if anybody had ever sued but saw nothing even remotely resembling The Municipality of Pisa v. the Tower Pros. Then again, maybe there actually was a lawsuit along these lines, perhaps unreported. I imagine the legal decision emanating from some district court judge might look as follows.

Justice Alto:

This is an action for breach of contract by the city-state of Pisa (“the plaintiff) against the Tower Pros, Inc. (“the contractor”).

Facts

In or about the year 1173, the plaintiff hired the contractor to construct a large tower about eight stories in height in Pisa’s main square next to the cattedrale. It was a term of the contract that the tower be of good workmanship and be fully functional, as a campanile, i.e., a bell tower, within one year. The contractor’s principal, Mario di Genoa, assured the plaintiff that the job would be completed in one year “as sure as the world was flat.” The city’s eager mayor, Paolo Pisano, proudly announced at the groundbreaking ceremony, “This tower will be great for our economy, attracting thousands of visitors annually.”

Unfortunately, the tower was not completed until 1372. Even worse, rather than being straight, it ended up leaning about 5 degrees—or about 4.5 meters—off perpendicular.

The court heard from a number of witnesses and also considered evidence from depositions and other writings from people no longer around.

I note that His Worship Paolo Pisano noticed after about year one that construction consisted only of the digging of a few spades of earth. He sent a messenger to di Genoa querying the apparent slow rate of construction. Di Genoa’s response was that he was busy doing some minor renovations at the Coliseum in Rome, and he would resume working on the tower in Pisa on the following Tuesday.

The two main issues in this case are delay in completion of the work and quality of workmanship.

Delay

The contractor argues that any delays were not the company’s fault.

It claims that its chief architect, Antonio Grande, suffered a nasty accident as he fell off the scaffolding, resulting in major delays. It was not an uncommon occurrence for architects to fall off scaffolding. But the court notes from the archival records that at that point, the scaffolding was only about 1 meter high. I reject the argument that for years the architect was unable to resume his duties due to an alleged disability of post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by a fear of heights. I find this argument to be a crock of bologna.

The defendant further pleads that the construction project was hampered by frequent wars between the city- states, including Siena, Lucca and Firenze. It alleges that there was no sense in trying to build a tower only to have some hordes come by and knock it over.

In my view, the war excuse is mere speculation. True, workers were in short supply due to being conscripted, but I find the contractor did not do enough to address the problems. In fact, about 70 years before completing construction, it placed a sign at the tower’s entrance reading, “Not hiring now.”

The contractor further pleads that the project suffered delays due to the Great Plague. Its current principal claims that many of its workers refused to show up for work. He argues that the head of the mason’s guild, Mauricio di Milano said, “No way my men are going near that tower. Did you see those black blotches on the foreman’s face?”

I take judicial notice that hardly a century goes by in Europe without the continent being visited by a plague. In one century alone, we all got hit with many strains of Bubonic, including Alpha, Beta and the most severe, Parmigiana.

I accept the plague as a reason to cut some slack for the defendant taking a bit more time than one year to complete the project.

Which gets us to the problem of the leaning tower.

Workmanship

The plaintiff alleges that the tower is off perpendicular by 5 degrees. It says thousands of people have been flocking to Pisa in the past few years, and they all laugh at and ridicule the tower. The mayor says he has received dozens of letters from people offering to sell his city the Venetian Rialto Bridge.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff condoned the tower’s looks, taking about 200 years to start this court action. It testified that after the tower was about two stories high, it leaned a bit, resulting in the designated bell ringer, Marco de Medici to say, “Hey, I’m not climbing up this thing until you straighten it out.”

The mayor and his councilmen claimed they would look at the tower under construction occasionally when they came out of the neighboring tavern, and it looked straight to them.

Regardless of whether there was some condonation, the defendant argues that any claims are barred given the expiry of limitation periods. Section 3 of the Limitations Act notes:

“Parties have two years to initiate any claims for road accidents, medical malpractice and construction of faulty towers.”

I find that the plaintiff is caught by this statute because it was dilatory in commencing this action.

The case is dismissed. Counsel have 14 days to provide written argument for legal costs. Please do hurry; the courts may close down because there is a rumor that we are about to be attacked by the Duke of Verona. A plague on him.

---

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com, and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

---

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

This year was one of confounding contradictions. Technology advanced quickly—faster than ever before—with legal technology companies updating their software at rates never before seen in a race to include generative artificial intelligence capabilities. However, despite the rapid deployments, the integration of AI was often surface-level, with deeper integrations planned but not yet achieved.

Development hurdles were numerous. One challenge was overcoming the significant complexities involved in leveraging accessible data to provide in-depth analytics. Another issue was the high costs associated with relying on mainstream generative AI models, such as OpenAI and Anthropic’s Claude, especially when performing complicated data analyses.

Last year, legal professionals and law firms initially implemented AI at a pace that far surpassed the adoption rates of the technologies that preceded it, such as social media, mobile computing and cloud computing. However, study after study showed that in 2024, usage numbers stabilized, although interest in the potential of generative AI remained high.

The initial uptick in usage happened despite the many ethical challenges presented by AI, including confidentiality, biases, “hallucinations” and more. In response, state bars took notice and issued AI guidance at a record pace in an attempt to assist lawyers with navigating the many roadblocks encountered when using these tools in their firms.

Throughout it all, I tracked AI software trends and offered advice on choosing legal software, most of which was AI-enabled. Traditional legal software categories were also updated, providing legal professionals with new features designed to streamline practice and matter management and automate document creation. Each month I offered an overview of a software tool, so if you’re in the market for new tech for your firm, there’s a good chance one of my 2024 roundups includes the information you need.

January: Legal tech survey results

The legal industry saw rapid changes in 2024, driven by fast-moving advancements in tech, including generative AI. In January, I covered the LawPay and MyCase Legal Industry Report 2024, which offers valuable insights into how firms are adapting, covering key topics, such as AI adoption, common technology implementation challenges, and the software relied on to improve efficiency and profitability. The data showed that in late 2023, 27% of respondents reported that they personally used generative AI tools for work-related purposes, and 24% shared that their firms had adopted legal-specific generative AI software. More than half of those surveyed (53%) reported that it increased efficiency somewhat, and for 24%, it increased significantly. Other topics covered included common tech implementation challenges and the software relied on to improve efficiency and profitability. Whether you’re a solo lawyer or managing a large firm, this report provides practical advice on outsourcing, payment flexibility and streamlining operations.

February: Document automation software

If your firm’s practice areas are document-intensive, recent advancements in document automation are worth exploring. As I explained in February’s article, this software has evolved significantly—now offering faster, simpler document assembly. Additionally, strategic acquisitions by legal tech companies have integrated advanced automation features into law practice management platforms, making it easier than ever to streamline document creation workflows. Looking ahead, generative AI will further improve document assembly by analyzing legal language and the subtle nuances in context, simplifying drafting and reducing the need for manual editing. By automating the routine tasks involved in creating complex documents, these advancements will save time and increase productivity.

March: AI-powered legal research

Generative AI has dramatically impacted legal research, with tools such as GPT-4 now playing a prominent role. When I last covered legal research tools in 2019, AI was being used to refine search results, but generative AI was not yet available. Today, it’s embedded in most legal research platforms, offering an extremely intuitive interface with enhanced capabilities. However, it is not without its challenges, including hallucination risks. My article from March explores some of the top legal research products that include generative AI features. Whether you’re a seasoned lawyer or new to AI, this guide will help you choose the right AI-enhanced legal research platform for your firm.

April: Matter management tools for in-house teams

With in-house legal teams facing increasing demands, efficient workflows are essential. In April, I discussed how matter management software addresses this need by streamlining processes from case intake to resolution while improving collaboration with internal teams and outside counsel. The right platform can enhance efficiency, mitigate risks and optimize operations, but selecting the right tool for your team’s unique needs isn’t always easy. This article provides an overview of matter management software for small-size to medium-size legal departments, highlighting key features, such as e-billing, workflow automation, contract management and AI capabilities.

May: AI brief drafting and analysis tools

Brief drafting and analysis is another area impacted by generative AI. Many brief writing platforms now include features to assist with editing, summarizing and drafting documents, and they also enable the analysis of lengthy materials, such as trial transcripts or appellate briefs. These tools are particularly useful for litigators, helping them focus on more complex tasks, such as developing legal strategies and crafting arguments. May’s article focuses on AI-powered brief writing and analysis software developed for solo and small firms. In it, I outline key features to look for, explore available tools, and discuss the importance of integration with a firm’s existing document creation software to ensure a seamless transition and uninterrupted workflows.

June: AI-supported pretrial litigation

Pretrial litigation often involves repetitive and time-consuming tasks, especially during the discovery phase. AI tools, particularly those that incorporate generative AI, are beginning to address these inefficiencies. By streamlining the drafting and analysis of pleadings, discovery requests and responses, these tools help reduce the time spent on routine work, allowing litigators to focus on high-impact, strategic work. This article from June reviews AI tools for managing pretrial discovery and offers guidance on selecting the right software for your firm. Issues to consider include identifying workflow challenges, assessing the capabilities of existing tools, and considering integration options with current systems.

July: Leveraging AI in law practice management software

Law practice management platforms serve as the business foundation for many firms, streamlining workflows, reducing administrative tasks, and improving productivity and profitability. Adding generative AI features to LPM tools enhances efficiency by automating routine tasks, such as time tracking, invoicing, document drafting, summarization and case updates, freeing legal professionals to focus on higher-value work. In July’s article, I review recent AI advancements in LPM software, including key announcements and feature releases from leading providers. I also offer guidance on factors to consider when adopting AI tools, such as functionality, pricing and the importance of user-friendly integrations with existing systems.

August: ILTACON 2024’s AI hard sell

This year’s ILTACON in Nashville, Tennessee, offered flashy but unproven promises. Generative AI dominated the conversation, with vendors discussing ambitious visions of the future but often showcasing tools in beta or early development mode via controlled demos. Overall, however, as I explained in August, it was an innovative showcase of legal tech potential with several key themes emerging that suggest where the industry is headed. First, generative AI is quickly becoming the new interface for legal tech, greatly improving how professionals interact with their firm’s software and data. Also, competition among vendors was fierce, driving innovation and new features. While much of the AI implementation remained surface-level, the promise of robust, impactful AI development was on the horizon.

September: AI-enabled deposition summaries and analysis

Deposition summarization and analysis is another area in which generative AI is changing the way that legal professionals interact with their software. AI deposition tools use advanced algorithms to review transcripts, identify critical themes, flag inconsistencies and extract key insights. By automating these time-consuming tasks, this software enables attorneys to focus on strategic trial preparation, rather than on mundane, time-consuming transcript review. This September article explores the benefits of these tools and offers guidance on selecting the right software for your litigation needs.

October: The next generation of litigation analytics

Finally, in last month’s article, I cover how litigation analytics software has evolved significantly since I last wrote about it in 2020. By analyzing court records and decisions, filings and other datasets, this software provides insights into judges, case outcomes, attorneys and more, enabling litigators to develop informed, data-backed strategies. Some companies have rolled out generative AI integrations that offer an intuitive conversational interface that enhances analytics functions, generating summaries, predicting outcomes and offering strategic recommendations based on historical trends. Using this information, legal teams can identify patterns in rulings, forecast motion success and optimize case strategies.

Reflecting on 2024, looking ahead

Reflecting on the past year, legal tech’s rapid evolution was driven by the integration of generative AI combined with the steady refinement of core practice management tools. This year had remarkable innovation and significant growing pains, as firms balanced the appeal of cutting-edge technologies with the realities of ethical implementation.

Looking ahead, the momentum from 2024 offers a strong foundation for further innovation. Forward-thinking legal professionals who approach emerging technologies with strategic planning and an open mindset will be best positioned to thrive. Whether through AI-driven analytics, enhanced case management systems or a blend of both, the opportunities to streamline workflows and provide superior client service have never been greater.

---

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. BigLaw firm sanctioned for ‘flagrant violations…

Law Firms

BigLaw firm sanctioned for ‘flagrant violations of a protective order’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 4, 2024, 2:36 pm CST

Latham & Watkins and its client must pay an attorney-fee sanction for “flagrant violations of a protective order,” according to a federal judge in California.

U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of California ordered Latham and its then-client, former Banc of California CEO Steven A. Sugarman, to pay attorney fees incurred by investment company Muddy Waters Capital in a motion for sanctions, report Reuters and Law 360.

In a Sept. 30 order unsealed last Tuesday, Gee said Latham wrongly gave Sugarman an expert-witness report that relied on documents produced by Muddy Waters Capital that had been designated for “attorneys’ eyes only.” Sugarman then wrongly shared the report with others in a bid to implicate Muddy Waters Capital in a bid to devalue Banc of California stock, Gee concluded. Latham had designated the report as “confidential,” rather than for “attorneys’ eyes only.”

The underlying litigation was a securities class action lawsuit by investors who alleged a failure to disclose harmful information that led to a decrease in stock price. The information, revealed in an anonymous blog post, consisted of allegations that Banc of California had ties to a fraudster.

Sugarman subpoenaed Muddy Waters Capital based on his belief that it may have been among market participants who were aware of the blog post in advance because they had short positions that would benefit from a decrease in stock price. Muddy Waters Capital produced documents about its Banc of California transactions in response to an order saying the material would be for attorneys’ eyes only.

The report that relied on the attorneys-eyes-only information was prepared by a professor who was asked to provide an opinion on why the bank’s stock price decreased. He concluded that traders engaged in a “short-and-distort” trading scheme.

Sugarman said he didn’t think that the expert report contained information for attorneys’ eyes only, and it was his confidential document. He said he didn’t recall authorizing an employee to disseminate it. Gee nonetheless found Sugarman in civil contempt, saying his conduct “was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the protective order.”

Latham claimed that the expert report did not include information derived from attorneys-eyes-only material, but that argument “is obviously wrong,” Gee said. The law firm alternatively argued that civil contempt wasn’t warranted for “a technical error during a yearslong, incredibly complex litigation requiring near-daily application of the protective order.”

“This argument,” Gee said, “undermines the critical importance of complying with protective orders in civil litigation—and minimizes the degree of care that must be exercised in ensuring compliance.”

Gee acknowledged, however, that “there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Latham acted in bad faith as opposed to in serious error.”

A Latham spokesperson declined to comment to the ABA Journal. A lawyer for Sugarman, Mona Hanna of Michelman & Robinson, did not immediately respond to the Journal’s emailed request for comment.