Le Journal

Boutiques Are Sharing The Wealth: Perry Law, Pallas Partners, and Ross Aronstam & Moritz! As Are Biglaw Firms!: Freshfields and Sullivan & Cromwell! Latham Gets Honored As A Pro Bono Innovator: They somehow forgot to mention the pro bono payola. Lawsuit Aims To Know What Work The Trump-Cowering Firms Are Up To: American Oversight wants answers. Mind The Deadline!: Apply for the Startup Alley Competition at ABA Techshow! The post So Much Bonus Money! — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day! According to the newly released the 2026 Citi Hildebrandt Client Advisory on the legal industry, which city is considered the most important market for law firm expansion? Hint: Contrast this city’s legal industry outlook with the Chinese market, which the report says remains “challenging.” See the answer on the next page. The post The Seat Of The Legal Industry’s Expansion appeared first on Above the Law.

The AI Summit kicked off on December the 10th with some fireside chats with various business leaders about how they view AI. Their conclusions? Be flexible. Look at AI and what it can do holistically. Deal with not knowing the future by admitting that you don’t. The contrast with AI legal thinking could not have been more striking. Legal still sees AI as just something to add on here and there instead of a potential new reality. It’s like driving pell-mell into the future while looking at the rear-view mirror. But first let’s get to the fireside chats. The Players Here were the players in yesterday morning’s fireside chats: Aaron Rajan, Chief Digital Information Officer and Global VP, Unilever Traci Gusher, EY Americas AI and Data Leader Chris Crayner, Chief Digital & Technology Officer, NBC Universal Axel Threlfall, Editor at Large, Reuters Three different businesses. Remarkably consistent viewpoints. A Mindset for the Future Here is what permeated their comments first with respect to how to deal with the exponential change AI may bring. Leaders need to make themselves vulnerable when it comes to AI. As Rajan observed, there is power in saying I don’t know. Of admitting that I don’t know what the future will hold or what the best AI use cases will be. That’s a hard pill for most lawyers to swallow and for managing partners of a firm full of aggressive lawyers to admit. It’s probably not the best way to remain managing partner. Leaders also need to be open to the possibility that the future is going to be different, not just a minor iteration in what it is now. It’s less about having a crystal ball and more about being nimble and flexible. Each panelist kept coming back to the idea of journey: the tech that we all bet on two years ago is not what we have today. Understanding that it’s a journey and not a destination is key. And recognizing the value of experimentation and research and development. AI Is Not Just a Bolt-On The group emphasized it’s essential for organizations to think about AI not as an add-on tool but as an end-to-end workflow transformation. Rather than taking legacy processes and trying to squeeze AI into them, the focus should be on reimagining the entire workflow. Rather than a bolt-on, AI is the foundation. The goal is rethinking processes entirely, not just solving individual pain points. AI is not “whack-a-mole.” Seeking 10% improvements in various tasks with AI tools is a trap. It creates tech debt, choosing quick technical fixes over robust solutions, leading to increased work and hidden costs down the road. Cultural Debt Crayner talked about the notion of cultural debt, where businesses follow a “cow path” just because it’s a path they can see. Businesses need to identify places and workflows where things are done a certain way just because that’s the way they have always been done. Cultural debt, according to Crayner, like tech debt, is where changes are made that don’t transform the business. Another point: a value of AI is that by freeing professionals of busy work, it makes them happier employees. And as Crayner pointed out, there is direct correlation between happier employees and consumer satisfaction. The group did admit that training is an issue yet to be solved. In every business, the younger generation of future leaders learn about the business by walking around and just doing things. Many of those learning opportunities are being replaced by AI. How younger people will gain the same level of knowledge than those before them remains to be seen. So, how does this all square up with legal and with law firms in which I spent some 30 years of my life? And What Say Legal? One of the reasons I like to come to conferences like this is to hear how other businesses and industries think. Yes, there were a lot of platitudes thrown out during the chats and beyond. Yes, there were lots of lofty goals and reality may be far different. But lofty goals and platitudes create a culture that can better…

Ed. note: This is the latest in the article series, Cybersecurity: Tips From the Trenches, by our friends at Sensei Enterprises, a boutique provider of IT, cybersecurity, and digital forensics services. Cyber incidents are no longer rare, hypothetical events reserved for global corporations and household-name brands. Today, law firms of every size are squarely in the crosshairs. Ransomware groups, credential thieves, and organized cybercriminals understand exactly what law firms hold: sensitive data, privileged communications, financial leverage, and time-critical operations. Recent 2025 Mandiant incident response research highlights a reality many companies still find hard to accept: most breaches don’t fail due to a lack of technology. They fail because organizations are unprepared to respond under pressure. In other words, it’s not just what you buy. It’s what you practice. The “Break Glass” Moment Comes Fast Across countless real-world incidents, the same issues keep recurring: outdated response plans, unclear leadership roles, slow decision-making, and confusing communications. When attackers breach a network — often using stolen credentials rather than sophisticated exploits –organizations waste valuable hours just trying to figure out who is in charge and what should be done first. In cyber response, delays compound damage. Data exfiltration, lateral movement, and ransomware deployment don’t wait for committee meetings. For law firms, those delays are especially risky. They can lead to loss of client trust, increased regulatory scrutiny, ethical issues, and potential malpractice claims all within the first 24 to 72 hours after discovery. The choices made during that critical period determine the entire course of what happens next. What a Real Incident Response Plan Looks Like in 2026 A modern incident response plan is no longer just a single document tucked away in a shared folder. It is a dynamic operational playbook based on realistic attack scenarios. Strong programs now focus on: Scenario-specific playbooks for ransomware, phishing, insider threats, and data theft Clearly defined leadership and authority spanning IT, executive leadership, legal counsel, cyber insurance, and communications Centralized, automated detection where alerts and endpoint activity are correlated in real time Regular tabletop exercises where firms rehearse breaches under controlled pressure Post-incident reviews that drive fundamental improvements rather than quiet documentation The key shift is treating incident response like emergency management rather than treating it like IT troubleshooting. When a breach occurs, firms must move instantly from “business as usual” into structured crisis mode. Why This Matters More for Law Firms Than Most Industries Unlike many businesses, law firms operate under strict confidentiality and fiduciary obligations. A ransomware attack doesn’t simply disrupt operations; it can also compromise attorney-client privilege, court deadlines, escrow accounts, and regulatory compliance across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Despite this, many firms still invest heavily in prevention but underinvest in response. It is common to see detailed business continuity plans paired with outdated or barely tested cyber response protocols. That gap represents one of the most dangerous blind spots in legal risk management today. Cyber insurance may help cover recovery costs, but it cannot undo reputational damage or restore client confidence once sensitive matters are exposed. Preparedness Is a Leadership Issue, Not a Technology Issue Perhaps the most critical insight from recent incident response research is this: The companies that recover quickly are not those with the most tools — they are the ones whose executives, partners, IT teams, and outside counsel have already practiced their roles before stress, confusion, and public pressure arise. Preparation does not stop breaches from happening. It limits the damage when…

One of the most important legal stories of this year — hell, probably this decade — is the craven capitulation of nine major Biglaw firms to Donald Trump. You’ll recall, early in his second term, Trump launched a war on Biglaw through unconstitutional Executive Orders designed to break major law firms unless they bent the knee. In the face of financial harm, nine major firms (Paul Weiss, Skadden, Kirkland, Latham, Cadwalader, Willkie Farr, Simpson Thacher, Milbank, and A&O Shearman) sought Trump’s seal of approval, providing millions in pro bono payola, that is, free legal services on behalf of conservative clients or approved causes in order to avoid Trumpian retribution. Those deals keep getting worse, as the consequences hit home: there’ve been congressional investigations, client concerns, and there’ve been bunches lawyers bailing on the firms to distance themselves from the craven capitulation. But what work, exactly, are the firms doing to satisfy the terms of their deals? We’ve since learned that several of the capitulating firms have taken on a role papering up work for the Commerce Department in a questionably legal arrangement. But how this work squares with the deals the firms signed with Trump remains unclear. Earlier today, nonprofit watchdog American Oversight filed a lawsuit (available below) seeking compliance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about the deals. As the complaint notes, “Though the scope of the services included in these agreements is unclear, President Trump has suggested these law firms may be working pro bono for the federal government on issues including ‘trade deals, immigration enforcement, and . . . defending police officers who are under investigation for misconduct.'” As the complaint says, American Oversight has filed repeated FOIA requests — to both the Commerce Department and DOJ — related to the Biglaw deals, and got bupkus for their efforts. The FOIA requests seek communications, agreements, ethics waivers, billing records, and legal analyses concerning the firms’ work, including any pro bono or discounted arrangements. “When elite law firms decide it’s safer to appease political power than uphold the rule of law, the public deserves to know what was bargained away. Lawyers swear an oath to serve the public and the Constitution, not abandon principle when it threatens their bottom line. Yet these firms capitulated, engaging in anticipatory obedience to secure protection and profit,” said Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight. “They entered sweeping, secretive agreements with the very administration targeting them, and their work now advances the president’s political agenda at the public’s expense. That is unacceptable. These records must be released so the American people can see the terms of these deals and hold institutions accountable when they choose compliance over principle. And accountability must follow.” Whatever is turned up in these FOIA requests will certainly be interesting for legal industry watchers, and pretty much anyone who is deeply concerned about the rule of law in 2025. 2025.12.11 – 1 – ComplaintDownload Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social. The post New Lawsuit Seeks To Find Out What Exactly Is Up With Capitulating Biglaw Firms’ Deals With Trump appeared first on Above the Law.