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. Top Montana court allows gender-affirming…

Privacy Law

Top Montana court allows gender-affirming care for trans minors during litigation, citing privacy protections

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 11:52 am CST

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The state supreme court upheld a state judge’s determination that a privacy challenge to the 2023 law blocking the care was likely to succeed on the merits, and that challengers were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.

The Montana Supreme Court’s Dec. 11 decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction that blocks the ban on gender-affirming care pending a trial in the case.

The state supreme court cited the Montana Constitution, which provides: “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

The law should be evaluated using strict scrutiny, the state supreme court said.

“The statute at issue here prevents a wide range of treatment even when such treatment is determined, in the judgment of a medical professional working with their patients, to be in the patients’ best interest and given with informed consent,” the Montana Supreme Court said. “The district court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits.”

Two concurring justices said the state supreme court also should have addressed the plaintiffs’ claim that the law violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

“Gender-affirming care is currently being litigated on equal protection grounds around the country, and the United States Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue this term,” the concurrence said. “These cases are instructive in certain ways, but they cannot answer what this court is being asked: how sex/gender discrimination and suspect class discrimination should be handled under the unique equal protection provision of the Montana Constitution.”

A partial dissenter would have allowed the law’s ban on Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care to take effect.

Hat tip to the American Civil Liberties Union, which issued a Dec. 11 press release.

How Appealing linked to coverage by the Flathead Beacon and Courthouse News Service.

Updated: With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, many traditional software categories have been reinvented. Legal software has not been immune from this impactful change. Over the past few years, AI has been increasingly embedded into tools that support legal workflows, and the result has been improved functionality that increases the overall intuitiveness and value of legal software.

The next generation of litigation analytics

Litigation analytics software is no exception to this trend. This category of software has changed significantly since I last wrote about it in 2020. The addition of more sophisticated AI capabilities, including generative AI, to some platforms, has supercharged the output. As a result, this category of software is even more appealing than ever to litigation attorneys and their teams.

Since the rollout of ChatGPT in November 2022, improved AI capabilities have impacted new and existing litigation analytics tools, noticeably increasing competition in this space. With this influx of AI-enabled products comes the challenge of sifting through the many choices available to identify the tool that is the best fit for your law firm’s needs.

That’s where this article comes in. I’ll provide an overview of this software category, tips for choosing the right tools, and a rundown of top contenders in the space.

The how and why of litigation analytics

Litigation analytics software quickly sifts through court records, filings and other public and private datasets, providing users with organized insights about judges, case outcomes, attorneys, expert witnesses and more. This technology helps legal professionals identify the patterns and trends that influence the direction of a case, providing for more informed strategy development.

With the addition of generative AI, these tools go beyond traditional data sorting. Generative AI capabilities enable the software to not only organize and analyze data but also generate summaries, predict potential outcomes, and offer strategic recommendations based on historical trends and similar cases. For example, the software can highlight patterns in a judge’s previous rulings or identify the likelihood of success for certain motions.

This enhanced functionality enables legal teams to reduce the time spent on manual research and data analysis. Using real-time, AI-powered insights, lawyers can make more informed decisions, improving the accuracy and efficiency of case preparation. Whether forecasting a case’s outcome or identifying trends in opposing counsel’s litigation tactics, these tools help legal professionals optimize their strategies from start to finish. The result is not just improved workflow efficiency but an increase in data-driven decision-making that can have a direct impact on litigation success.

Evaluating AI tools for litigation analytics

Before exploring new AI-powered software, you’ll have to first evaluate your firm’s current tech choices. Software vendors often introduce updates or may be in the process of forming partnerships that enhance the platforms that are already used in your firm, which could potentially add the features you’re seeking. Checking with your firm’s trusted providers before evaluating other tools can save time and resources by avoiding redundant purchases.

If you determine that a new solution is necessary, the next step is to clearly define the problems you have to solve. Review your firm’s current tech to identify gaps in your IT stack and uncover workflow inefficiencies. Make sure to involve team members who will use the software, so that you better understand their pain points and preferences. Their input will ensure a smoother adoption process and alignment with day-to-day operations.

Once you have a clear sense of your needs, research available tools. The list of litigation analytics platforms below is a good starting point. Take advantage of free trials or demos to test functionality and determine whether the software integrates well with your existing systems and workflows.

Security and compliance are also essential considerations when adopting AI tools. Your firm’s ethical obligations require careful vetting of any third-party provider that handles your firm’s confidential information. Confirm how client data will be handled, stored and backed up. Determine who will have access to it and under what circumstances.

Additionally, because analytics tools depend on firm data, ensuring robust data security is critical. While vendors often claim to protect data, you should verify the protections in place and assess whether the steps taken meet professional and regulatory standards.

When researching AI tools, another security factor to consider is whether the provider uses your firm’s data inputs to further train its AI models. Current ethics guidance suggests that confidential data should not be used for this purpose.

Finally, evaluate the AI tool’s accuracy and reliability. Consider how well it performs tasks, such as analyzing court data and predicting litigation outcomes, ensuring that it complements rather than complicates your litigation strategy. With these factors addressed, your firm will be better equipped to adopt a solution that enhances efficiency and litigation management.

With that advice in mind, let’s review some generative AI-enhanced litigation analytics tools. Understand that this list is not all-inclusive. Additionally, offerings from large legal tech companies, like Thomson Reuters, LexisNexis and vLex, are excluded. Each of these companies provides large-scale generative AI platforms that include litigation analytics data, so if your firm has these tools in place, it’s worth learning more about these capabilities and their costs before investing in a stand-alone option.

The cost of most legal analytics software depends on subscription models, features and firm size and is often negotiated with the vendor. However, if pricing is available on the company’s website, it will be included below.

Litigation analytics software with AI capabilities

First, there’s Trellis, which is a state trial court research and analytics platform. It provides access to court dockets and the judicial rulings of most states. Trellis offers insights into judges, opposing counsel and their firms and case outcomes. Pricing starts at $129.95 per month for up to three accounts.

LegalMation is an AI-driven tool that automates the litigation process. It generates legal documents and provides data analytics for litigators. The analytics provided draw from datasets that include external sources, such as court dockets, along with a firm’s internal data and documents. Reports provided include a risk index, outcome and cost predictions and counsel comparisons.

Another option is Premonition, an AI-driven litigation data and analytics platform. It predicts motion outcomes and provides insights into lawyers, firms, companies, judges and courts, offering comprehensive data coverage and detailed analysis of various litigation participants.

Finally, Pre/Dicta collects, classifies and analyzes the entire federal docket and every judge’s unique personal attributes, including age, gender, resumé/background and political affiliation. Then, using what it calls “predictive AI,” it predicts the success or failure of a motion to dismiss before that judge.

Maximizing litigation teams’ efficiency with AI

We are in a fast-moving era of technological advancements, and ignoring AI is not an option. Instead, position your firm for long-term growth by investing in AI-powered software that streamlines your teams’ litigation workflows and supports strategic decision-making.

The data-driven insights will improve courtroom outcomes and enhance client satisfaction, enabling your firm to stay ahead of the competition. The bottom line: There’s no better time than now to explore AI solutions that will empower your legal team for future litigation success.

---

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.

---

Updated Oct. 29 at 9:29 a.m. to clarify wording for the Pre/Dicta litigation analytics software.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Jones Day gets involved in election litigation…

Law Firms

Jones Day gets involved in election litigation for RNC after declining to advise Trump campaign

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 31, 2024, 9:15 am CDT

Jones Day is no longer advising the Trump campaign, but the law firm is staying involved in election litigation.

Jones Day “is edging its way into the legal fight to send [former President] Donald Trump back to the White House, even after the powerful Washington firm distanced itself from the former president,” Bloomberg Law reports.

Jones Day represents the Republican National Committee in several cases, including a bid to stop Pennsylvania from counting provisional ballots cast by voters whose mail-in ballots were disqualified because they weren’t sealed in inner secrecy envelopes.

Jones Day partner John Gore, who was the acting head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in the Trump administration, is leading the lawyers in the Pennsylvania case. Their brief asked the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision requiring that the ballots be counted, according to Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog. The case is Republican National Committee v. Genser.

Another firm involved in the Supreme Court emergency-stay application is the Gallagher Firm, formed by election lawyer Kathleen Gallagher after her previous firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, stopped representing the Trump campaign.

Also representing the RNC is Dickinson Wright, which is involved in Michigan litigation over overseas voters, Bloomberg Law reports. Other firms handling RNC work include Consovoy McCarthy and the Dhillon Law Group.

Firms working for the Democratic National Committee, on the other hand, include Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, Law.com reports.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Blank Rome tried to exact financial ruin…

Trials & Litigation

Blank Rome tried to exact financial ruin because lawyer switched sides in airline litigation, her suit alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2024, 12:00 pm CST

A lawyer in Dunnellon, Florida, has filed a lawsuit alleging that attorneys at Blank Rome filed an “utterly baseless” suit against her in a bid to exact financial ruin, destroy her reputation and send a warning to lawyers who switch sides in litigation involving its aviation clients.

The amended suit by civil-trial lawyer Veronica Turner says Blank Rome lawyers engaged in a “retaliatory charade” when they alleged that she breached her fiduciary duty to their clients.

Law360 covered the Feb. 29 amended suit, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Law.com covered the Feb. 19 initial complaint in an earlier story.

The amended suit says Turner once defended Lycoming Engines, a division of the Avco Corp.—a manufacturer of piston aircraft engines—in aviation crash cases. When Turner ended her representation of the companies, her aviation cases and files were transferred to Blank Rome, which picked up the representation of Lycoming Engines and the Avco Corp.

Several years after that work ended, Turner accepted an assignment from a plaintiffs’ aviation litigation law firm. The work involved responses to evidence motions in litigation that did not involve or implicate the Avco Corp., the suit says. The Avco Corp. had initially been a defendant in the case, but the company was dismissed on personal-jurisdiction grounds.

Blank Rome sued Turner on behalf the Avco Corp. parent company Textron Inc. in August 2020, falsely asserting that she used information that gleaned in her representation of the Avco Corp. in representing plaintiffs against it. The suit was “based entirely upon an absurd, nonsensical and fabricated factual predicate,” Turner’s amended suit says.

“Defendants’ case against Ms. Turner was illegitimate from the day it was filed, was nothing more than an ill-conceived ‘hit job,’ and was intended from its inception to damage and destroy Ms. Turner personally and professionally,” Turner’s suit says.

Turner’s suit alleges wrongful use of civil proceedings, civil conspiracy and loss of consortium by Turner’s husband.

The initial defendants in Turner’s suit included Blank Rome and three of its lawyers. The amended suit names the lawyers but not Blank Rome as defendants. Other defendants are the Avco Corp. and Textron Inc.

Blank Rome did not reply to requests for comment by Law360 and Law.com. Blank Rome and the three lawyer defendants did not immediately reply to an email requesting comment by the ABA Journal.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of filing class action suit…

Ethics

Lawyer accused of filing class action suit at behest of litigation opponent

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 11, 2024, 1:10 pm CDT

A California lawyer has been accused of filing a class action lawsuit that had been prepared by a lawyer working for his litigation opponent and then collecting attorney fees when the case settled on terms advantageous to the opponent.

The State Bar of California filed a notice of disciplinary charges against California lawyer Michael Jacob Libman in a March 6 complaint, report Law360 and the Los Angeles Times.

The disciplinary charges allege that Libman was a local counsel in the class action suit ostensibly filed on behalf of name plaintiff Antwon Jones, a utility customer, against the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power. The public utility company provides electricity and water to city residents. The suit was based on billing mistakes that happened after the adoption of a new billing system.

In reality, the Jones suit was prepared by Paul Paradis, one of two lawyers hired by the city to sue PricewaterhouseCoopers, which had configured and implemented the billing system, the ethics charges allege. The $67 million settlement agreement in the Jones suit was also prepared Paradis, according to the ethics charges.

Libman was recruited as a local counsel by Paul Kiesel, the other lawyer hired to sue PricewaterhouseCoopers, the charges say. Paradis recruited an Ohio lawyer to be the lead counsel and reached an agreement for the Ohio lawyer to kick back 20% of his attorney fees to Paradis, the ethics complaint alleges. The Ohio lawyer has since died, according to Law360.

Jones wasn’t aware of the alleged collusion in his suit against the city, and neither was the judge who approved a $1.65 million fee for Libman, the suit says. In his fee request, Libman had falsely claimed to have worked on wage-and-hour class actions in the past, according to the charges.

Libman was ordered in March 2021 to forfeit his attorney fees. Libman did not obey court orders to turn over detailed time records for the case and to answer deposition questions, the ethics charges say. He was found in contempt in August 2023, ordered to pay $1,000 for each act of contempt, and ordered to pay a $700 daily fine until he complies with court orders, the ethics charges say. To date, he has not complied.

The notice of charges alleges moral turpitude, conflicts of interest and failure to obey court orders.

The Los Angeles Times called the ethics charges “the latest twist in a DWP corruption saga that largely centered on the role of the [Los Angeles] city attorney’s office and how its lawyers responded to litigation over a faulty billing system.”

The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power scandal led to guilty pleas by four people, including three city employees, the article says. Libman was not charged in the scheme, but Paradis pleaded guilty to bribery, according to a November 2021 U.S. Department of Justice press release.

Libman’s legal counsel provided a statement on his behalf to Law360.

“I am disappointed that the state bar filed charges against me in this politicized [Los Angeles Department of Water & Power] case driven by vindictive, corrupt and connected lawyers bent on railroading me because I have been exposing their corruption for the past few years,” Libman said.

“If I will get a fair trial that allows me to present all the evidence, I will be fully vindicated and the true scale of the layers of corruption further exposed,” Libman said. “I look forward to the public trial, and I invite members of the media, bench and bar to come watch.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer censured after calling governor ‘tyrant’…

Ethics

Lawyer censured after calling governor ‘tyrant’ and lawmakers ‘spineless tools’ in COVID-19 litigation

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 6, 2024, 3:55 pm CST

A New Mexico lawyer has received a public censure partly for “inflammatory and misleading statements” in litigation opposing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, including a claimed right to disqualify judges who had received COVID-19 vaccines.

The New Mexico Supreme Court censured lawyer Nancy Ana Garner of New Mexico on Jan. 29 after imposing a deferred one-year suspension, subject to unsupervised probation.

The Legal Profession Blog noted the censure, while the New Mexico Political Report has coverage.

Garner did not contest that that her conduct violated ethics rules.

Garner’s statements stemmed from her representation of the Backstreet Grill, which operated despite revocation of its food permit. She also approved a cease-and-desist letter sent to managers at Sandia National Laboratories that directed them to stop COVID-19 mitigation measures, even though they were represented by counsel.

In the Backstreet Grill litigation, Garner agreed to accept service for the business, according to the censure order. She filed an acceptance-of-service pleading asserting a “right to disqualify any judge who allowed themselves to be injected with an experimental gene therapy.”

Her acceptance of service also made statements that:

  • Referred to Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham as “a tyrant.”

  • Stated that: “Our Supreme Court justices are blind” or practicing medicine in the courts, “which is what their latest COVID-crap to come out of them is.”

  • Stated that: “A restaurant refused to make its employees wear a face-diaper (because after all, you are breathing in your own s- – -), nor be the Nazi brownshirt enforcing any of the tyrant’s latest rules.”

  • Said the governor “seized power with the glee of an adrenochrome addict,” which may be a reference to a conspiracy theory involving blood harvesting for the supposed youth-enhancing chemical.

  • Called lawmakers “spineless tools.”

  • Said the opposing counsel was an “unethical opponent.”

  • Accused the opposing counsel of misleading the court “to imply, without exactly saying, nothing about the constitutionality of what began its attack on a citizen exercising constitution rights and duty to abolish or correct a government that has gone despotic.”

After a district court ordered Garner to withdraw her inflammatory statements, she apologized for “any offense taken.” She also filed a pleading titled, “Notice of Suggestion of Death of Another New Mexico Business.” The pleading said the Backstreet Grill had been “crushed out of existence by an overreaching government.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court said Garner “placed her personal interest in the subject matter of the litigation above her client’s interests,” which impaired her representation. Her “inflammatory and misleading statements made in court filings harmed her clients, opposing counsel, the public and various members of the judicial and the executive branches.”

Her statements were republished in news outlets, which “undoubtedly harmed the public’s perception of the legal profession” while “casting a negative light on New Mexico lawyers,” the state supreme court said.

Garner was licensed to practice law in 1981. She has no prior disciplinary history and expressed remorse for her conduct.

Garner did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s voicemail and email requests for comment.