Justice Jackson accuses Supreme Court majority of playing Calvinball

Justice Jackson accuses Supreme Court majority of playing Calvinball


U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Jackson accuses Supreme Court majority of playing Calvinball

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A partial dissent last week by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is attracting attention for her reference to a game that made a recurring appearance in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes.

The game was Calvinball, which had only one rule—that the rules can never be the same twice, Above the Law explains. Judicial Notice also mentioned Jackson’s Aug. 21 opinion, which criticized the majority’s order allowing the National Institutes of Health to end $783 million in grants for research related to diversity objectives, gender identity and COVID-19.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”

Jackson issued the opinion in an emergency docket case in which a five-justice majority stayed a decision by U.S. District Judge William Young that required continuation of the funding. The Supreme Court did not, however, pause Young’s decision vacating NIH internal guidance documents. Young had said the NIH decisions were “breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

SCOTUSblog and Reuters are among the publications with coverage of the decision.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the deciding vote. She agreed with four other conservative justices that Young likely didn’t have jurisdiction to consider the grant terminations because the issue should be decided by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. She cited another emergency docket decision, U.S. Department of Education v. California.

But Barrett believed Young was likely correct that he had jurisdiction to consider the challenge to internal agency guidance.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a partial dissent, joined by the court’s liberal justices. He said Young had jurisdiction to vacate the agency guidance and, as a result, he also had jurisdiction to vacate the grant terminations that stemmed from the guidance.

The case is National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association.





Source link

ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech

ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech



On the surface, ILTACON 2025, the International Legal Technology Association’s largest annual legal technology event, had all the makings of a great conference. But despite the thought-provoking sessions and keynotes, networking opportunities and PR fanfare, I couldn’t shake the sense that we were in the midst of a seismic shift in legal tech, surrounded by the restless energy of a boomtown.

The conference was held last week, and its venue wasn’t the problem. It was quite lovely, all things considered. Out of all the Gaylord’s and their post-apocalyptic dome environs, the Maryland facility is the most navigable and conference-goer friendly. It doesn’t take long to get where you need to go, and things are often right where you’d expect them to be.

And it wasn’t the conference itself either. As far as legal tech conferences go, this one was well-planned, with many engaging activities, networking events and seminars. There were plenty of opportunities to network. The wine selection wasn’t bad—something that is particularly important to me—and attention to detail was evident. There were information booths, carefully placed drop boxes for the Klik SmartBadges post-conference, and ILTAcon representatives were conveniently located throughout the facility, ready to assist with directions and more.

The gold rush

It wasn’t ILTACON that bothered me; it was the heady, gold-rushed, “anything goes and whatever sticks works” environment that was unsettling. While this year’s conference was pirate-themed, it felt more like the Wild West to me.

This attitude permeated the conference, driven largely by the frenzied, frontier-style artificial intelligence revolution. The AI train is hurtling forward at lightning speed, destination unknown, and everyone is trying to cash in before it derails.

AI roadmaps and products shared mere months ago have already been abandoned. Companies announced new AI tool names, new development approaches, and new advancements, while acknowledging that AI deployment is an imperfect, moving target, because the foundational tools relied upon today may very well change tomorrow.
Meanwhile, legal AI startups are multiplying faster than anyone can track, which is just as well, since there’s little reason to try. Many will vanish overnight, either burning through their funding or getting swallowed up in the acquisition abyss.

Off the rails

Ultimately, however, my unease was driven by more than the free-wheeling abandon of the AI era. There was also a sense that the reins, both technological and professional, had been tossed aside altogether, a gleeful abandonment of restrictive expectations. It’s the Wild Wild West all over again, prior constraints be damned. The atmosphere carried a familiar bravado—a chest-thumping, disruption-at-all-costs energy that celebrated excess as much as innovation.

From the questionable choice to feature a scantily clad woman contortionist in an absurdly oversized champagne glass during a company’s after-hours party, to the casual conversational invocation of last year’s Legalweek sexual assault controversies as little more than a passing punchline, it felt like something had shifted. The industry’s bombast and showmanship were becoming impossible to ignore, at times overshadowing its substance.

The lay of the land

Even so, not everything was runaway trains and desperado tactics. Beneath the noise, the press briefings offered real insight into where vendors are placing their bets on this AI frontier. In the face of excessive bluster, some press briefings offered a balanced perspective, with vendors eager to prove they weren’t merely jumping on the gold rush bandwagon but instead were offering worthwhile advancements and updates to their customers.

Two themes emerged from my discussions. First, no matter who you spoke to, “agentic AI,” meaning AI that autonomously takes purposeful actions, was a buzzword that cropped up often, whether during press briefings or over drinks. Another key trend was the race to become the generative AI home base for legal professionals.

For example, LexisNexis staked its claim on its new personalized AI-guided legal research tool supported by agentic workflows, Protégé. This tool includes a feature allowing its customers to access consumer LLMs like GPT-5 and Claude inside the Lexis+ AI platform. LexisNexis’ approach was both unique and practical. Instead of pretending lawyers will give up OpenAI, they’ve built around it, betting that security and convenience will keep users squarely in their ecosystem.

Similarly, Thomson Reuters announced its latest and final version of Westlaw, Westlaw Advantage. It also announced the latest launch of its generative AI legal research platform, CoCounsel Legal, which features deep research and agentic-guided workflows. During a press briefing at ILTACON, Steve Hasker, Thomson Reuters president and CEO, explained why the company was investing so heavily in AI integration, emphasizing the significant impact generative and agentic AI will have on the practice of law: “We are at the start of the biggest disruption to the legal profession in its history.”

The home base platform trend was also evident in e-discovery platform announcements, with vendors continuing to expand functionality within their platforms beyond what was originally intended. This approach is largely driven by the datasets that generative and agentic AI tools can leverage.

To that end, Everlaw announced its Deep Dive tool, which allows users to query entire document databases and obtain targeted responses. The company also announced that it had obtained FedRAMP authorization, thus enabling governmental use of its software.

DISCO’s announcements also highlighted an AI-enabled expansion of its platform’s original use cases beyond traditional tasks such as e-discovery and document management. Recent features added to the platform included the launch of Auto Review in the UK and AI-powered document summarization and translation features.

NetDocuments also focused on how AI is reshaping the role of document management platforms in law firms. A key point that came out during the product briefing was the integration of AI-powered workflow automation into the software has resulted in a shift where DMS platforms can now serve as the home base for generative AI-powered document-related tasks in law firms.

Meanwhile, the generative AI legal platform Legora is focused on providing a system that enables legal professionals to accomplish an array of legal tasks, from legal research and complex legal workflows to document drafting and document analysis. Legora continues to focus on expanding its increasingly popular platform’s customer base beyond Europe and has been gaining significant ground in the U.S., particularly with larger law firms.

During other briefings, more narrowly focused AI functionality was highlighted, featuring tools that harnessed the power of generative and agentic AI by addressing very specific legal use cases. One example is Chronotracer, a legal AI platform that was launched publicly earlier this month and is designed to process and analyze large datasets in litigation cases. It handles a range of evidence types, from phone records, emails and social media posts, enabling the user to create a comprehensive chronology that can be easily filtered and analyzed.

Likewise, Descrybe.ai is another tool that relies on generative AI for a focused purpose, namely, advanced legal research. Released in 2023, it offers access to user-friendly legal research capabilities at an affordable price point. To further its footprint, the team is now exploring the potential of allowing other legal AI tools to leverage its extensive dataset, prospecting for new ways to expand its reach.

There’s no sheriff in town

While the nuts and bolts of the news coming out of ILTACON felt like business as usual, strip away the practical announcements and demos, and the bigger picture is harder to ignore: The gold rush is in full throttle, and the town feels lawless. There’s real promise in these tools, but also significant danger lurking in the unchecked bravado. Coming out of ILTACON, I can’t help but wonder—who’s the sheriff in this story, and what happens if no one rises to the occasion?


Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist. She is the principal legal insight strategist at 8am, parent company of LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer and DocketWise. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is a 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 she regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on LinkedIn, or she can be reached at [email protected].






Source link

‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial

‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial


Criminal Justice

‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial

Donna Adelson, who is charged in the 2014 murder-for-hire of Florida State University law professor Dan Markel, listens to potential jurors answer questions during the first day of jury selection Aug. 19, 2025, in Tallahassee, Florida. (Photo by Alicia Devine/The Tallahassee Democrat via the Associated Press)

Lawyers questioned potential jurors this week as 75-year-old Donna Adelson went on trial for the July 2014 murder of her son-in-law, Florida State University College of Law professor Dan Markel.

Florida Assistant State Attorney Georgia Cappleman asked what a killer looks like. “Can a killer look like a granny?” she asked. She went on to ask jurors whether they could keep an open mind.

The Tallahassee Democrat reported on Cappleman’s question in its live updates on the trial at Tallahassee.com.

Donna Adelson was arrested in November 2023 when she was at the Miami International Airport after she and her husband bought one-way tickets to Vietnam. She is charged with murder, conspiracy and solicitation in the slaying that happened during a custody dispute between Markel and Donna Adelson’s daughter, Wendi Adelson.

Donna Adelson’s son, Florida dentist Charlie Adelson, was convicted on the same charges for hiring hit men to kill Markel. He was convicted a week before his mother’s arrest.

The alleged motive was to allow Wendi Adelson to move with the children from Tallahassee, Florida, to be near her family in Miami.

One of Donna Adelson’s lawyers, Joshua Zelman, asked jurors about jailhouse snitches. The question was apparently spurred by an investigation into allegations that Donna Adelson offered money in exchange for favorable testimony while at the Leon County Courthouse, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. A previous story is here.





Source link

After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases

After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases


Law Firms

After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is one of nine law firms that reached deals with President Donald Trump to provide pro bono hours to causes they support. But that didn’t stop the firm from working with the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations to secure recent wins in two cases. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is one of nine law firms that reached deals with President Donald Trump to provide pro bono hours to causes they support. But that didn’t stop the firm from working with the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations to secure recent wins in two cases.

Bloomberg Law has the story.

Simpson Thacher worked with the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Black civic leaders in a case challenging district maps in Mississippi Supreme Court elections, the article reports. U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi ruled Aug. 19 that the map diluted the votes of Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

In the second case, Simpson Thacher helped challenge a Texas law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in all classrooms. The firm worked with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation to challenge the law, Bloomberg Law says.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction blocking the classroom displays in an Aug. 20 opinion.

Bloomberg Law asked a Simpson Thacher spokesperson whether work on the two cases would count toward the firm’s pro bono pledge to Trump of $125 million in free legal help to mutually agreeable projects. There was no immediate reply.

Jon Youngwood, co-chair of the firm’s litigation department, emphasized in a statement to the publication that the firm “has a steadfast commitment to pro bono” reflecting its belief “that everyone should have equal access to justice.”

The pro bono deal with Simpson Thacher and three other firms announced April 11 said the firms were pledging an aggregate $500 million to causes supported by Trump and the firms, including help for veterans, ensuring fairness in the justice system and fighting antisemitism.

See also:

What pro bono is BigLaw providing under Trump deals? Trade deals get help but not some conservative causes





Source link

‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges

‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges


Education Law

‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges

A prospective class action lawsuit accuses 32 top colleges and universities of violating antitrust laws by an “early decision conspiracy” that essentially forces applicants to be bound to a school that makes an early offer through a competitor agreement not to compete. (Image from Shutterstock)

A prospective class action lawsuit accuses 32 top colleges and universities of violating antitrust laws by an “early decision conspiracy” that essentially forces applicants to be bound to a school that makes an early offer through a competitor agreement not to compete.

The Aug. 8 suit claims that the mutual agreement among schools raises tuition prices “and entrenches a system widely acknowledged to be unfair and harmful.”

Students who apply for “early decision” indicate that they will accept any admissions offer and withdraw all other applications, according to the suit. Applicants also state that they will accept the tuition and fees as long as they can afford them after factoring in financial aid. That prevents them from considering competitor universities and comparing financial aid packages, the suit alleges.

Presenting the application as a binding agreement is a “core misrepresentation,” the suit says.

Admissions experts and school officials have acknowledged that the early decision agreement is not an enforceable contract, the suit says. That aids the schools, which can withdraw an offer if student grades fall before high school graduation or if their conduct doesn’t meet university standards.

Plaintiffs in the suit are three current students and a recent graduate at the defendant schools, according to an Aug. 8 press release.

Among the defendants are Brown University, Cornell University, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern University, Rice University, Vanderbilt University, the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania.

Other defendants include the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, which facilitates information sharing among undergraduate schools, and two college application platforms.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is D’Amico v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education.

The plaintiffs are represented by Langer Grogan & Diver and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

Publications with stories include the Chicago Maroon, Forbes and Inside Higher Ed.





Source link

Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone

Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone


Many corporate legal departments and law firms have gone “all in” on alternative fee arrangements, while others have chosen not to adopt them at all. After more than a decade in common use, only an average of 23% of legal work is performed under an AFA despite wide acknowledgement of their benefits. Why does this divide exist? It’s not just about financial risk but also execution.

The biggest barrier to AFA success: overcomplication

The main benefit of implementing AFAs into legal operations is that it simplifies legal billing by shifting the focus from hours worked to value delivered. However, many organizations unintentionally introduce complexities that diminish their effectiveness.

A common mistake is layering traditional billing oversight onto an AFA model. Legal departments often add requirements that make it harder for law firms to execute AFAs efficiently. For example, when legal departments expect compliance with hourly billing guidelines and extensive reporting, it contributes to the complexity of AFAs and creates additional administrative burdens for outside counsel. Requesting that a firm provide hourly breakdowns while adhering to a fixed-fee model undermines efficiency and can make AFAs unattractive.

With that in mind, let’s explore how departments can make AFAs a win-win for everyone.

Four essential pillars of a successful AFA

To achieve the best results from AFAs, law departments and firms should focus on four key pillars when negotiating terms.

1. Efficiency

AFAs should reduce administrative work, not increase it. If a legal team requires the same level of oversight as traditional hourly billing, or possibly even more, it negates the efficiency gains that make AFAs attractive for both sides. Saving time on matter-by-matter invoice review and continuous budget and forecasting updates are also value-add reasons for leveraging AFAs. To streamline the approach, focus the success of AFAs on value not line items. Is the desired outcome to avoid trial? Did the firm get you a lower than company average settlement amount? If so, the cost should reflect the value of that outcome. The number of hours worked and whether they are invoiced at an agreed upon rate should not matter and diminish the purpose of using AFAs.

2. Predictability

AFAs create predictability, which can in turn more accurately forecast legal costs. With flat or fixed rates, you know upfront what you are going to spend. For portfolio work, when a new matter comes in you know what it’s going to cost and have already included that in budget. Reducing volatility and guesswork can help legal departments better allocate budgets, plan for future expenses and negotiate favorable terms with outside counsel.

3. Cost savings

Cost savings are a key driver behind the shift to using AFAs, but savings cannot come at the expense of efficiency. A hyperfocus on reducing costs on every individual matter can lead to restrictive fee structures that discourage law firms from taking on work because the administrative cost of adhering to the AFA will likely outweigh the benefit of the arrangement. For AFAs to succeed, some level of risk must be present for both the law firm and the corporate legal department. Law departments and outside counsel must work together to balance financial control and operational flexibility for AFAs to be successful.

4. Relationships and strategic alignment

Beyond efficiency, predictability and cost savings, the success of an AFA also depends on the quality of the relationship between the corporate legal department and the law firm.

AFAs should be grounded in a strategic partnership based on trust, transparency and shared business goals. Organizations implementing AFAs successfully recognize that pricing structures should align with broader legal and business objectives. If reducing litigation spend is a business objective, create phased AFAs focusing on incentives for the law firm to settle matters earlier, recognizing that a higher cost to settle the case earlier still achieves long-term savings and also preserves business reputation—another value-add. If a company is looking to grow market share, creating a portfolio-level fee arrangement with a single firm for efficient contract review will not only speed up turnaround times, but also save administrative work to produce and review a high volume of invoices for both corporate legal departments and law firms.

The most effective AFAs incorporate open communication, clear expectations, and a shared understanding of risk and reward. When both parties approach AFAs as a collaborative effort rather than a cost-cutting exercise, they create a sustainable model that benefits everyone involved.

The role of generative AI

Much discussion exists about how generative AI could catalyze the legal industry to move away from the billable hour, but it’s too early to say if that will happen. Most law firms’ and legal departments’ structures and processes remain firmly built around billable hours. Furthermore, firms and legal departments are still testing generative AI use cases, and many law firms are still learning and deciding how to absorb the costs associated with generative AI implementation.

Generative AI can help make engagement between law firms and legal departments more efficient, productive and communicative—starting with the “Request for Proposal” stage. For example, generative AI can review large data sets to determine costs, budgets and outcome expectations for repeatable tasks or certain matter types, all of which can set clear expectations from the beginning based on past billing and performance. Corporate legal departments can use generative AI to help create the RFPs and review responses, while firms can utilize AI in their review and response.

What generative AI cannot do is take the place of people in “people, process and technology.” It doesn’t negate the need for transparent and candid communication about expectations, goals and values. Instead, generative AI embedded in existing legal technologies can monitor matters from intake through execution and review. It can pick out inefficiencies and spark valuable conversations about managing matters effectively and staying on track to deliver optimal outcomes.

The path forward: Making AFAs work

For AFAs to deliver on their promise, organizations must move beyond a cost-savings mindset and adopt a fully strategic approach. Rather than focusing solely on reducing legal spend, corporate legal departments and firms should use AFAs to:

  • Streamline administrative processes.
  • Improve budget predictability.
  • Align legal work with business objectives.
  • Foster stronger, more collaborative relationships.

By treating AFAs not just as a pricing mechanism but as a partnership framework, legal teams and law firms can move beyond the inefficiencies and poor perception of hourly billing and create a more sustainable, value-driven approach to legal work. This approach will undoubtedly require a cultural shift from both corporate legal departments and law firms, but law departments are in prime position to increase communication and raise awareness of the desire to shift the pricing framework.

Increasing communications and embracing the change will allow AFAs to flourish, resulting in greater efficiency, predictability and strategic alignment. When these things come together, internal teams and outside counsel can focus their time predominately on outcomes over processes.


Jennifer McIver is the director of legal operations and industry insights at Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions.


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.





Source link

YouTube
Instagram
WhatsApp