Second quarter was ‘unnaturally calm’ for law firms amid ‘tumultuous’ backdrop, new report says

Second quarter was ‘unnaturally calm’ for law firms amid ‘tumultuous’ backdrop, new report says


Law Firms

Second quarter was ‘unnaturally calm’ for law firms amid ‘tumultuous’ backdrop, new report says

Client preferences may be shifting to more specialized or cost-effective legal solutions, according to Thomson Reuters’ Law Firm Financial Index. (Image from Shutterstock)

Client preferences may be shifting to more specialized or cost-effective legal solutions, according to Thomson Reuters’ Law Firm Financial Index.

The report released Monday found that the nation’s 100 top-grossing law firms, the Am Law 100, experienced a 0.6% decrease in demand for legal services. The numbers were better for lesser-grossing firms.

Demand for services increased 2.6% for Second Hundred firms and 3.5% for midsize firms, report Law.com and Reuters.

Overall, firms had a good second quarter, boosting the Law Firm Financial Index score to 55, an increase of four points from the first quarter. Demand increased 1.6%, and worked rates—the price paid for legal services after negotiations—were up 7.4%.

The index is a composite score based on factors such as firm rates, demand, productivity and expenses among 195 large and midsize firms. The report is available with this summary, according to a Aug. 11 press release.

Strong demand is spurring growth in head count, but that could translate to overcapacity if the financial numbers slip, the report warns. Firms are also investing in technology, a necessary expense to stay competitive, the report said.

Technology spending increased by 8.6% on a rolling 12-month average, while spending on knowledge management was up 11.2%.

“Despite a tumultuous geopolitical and economic backdrop, law firms found the second quarter of 2025 to be unnaturally calm—and unexpectedly prosperous,” the report said. “Whether this moment represents the start of a more stable era or merely reflects the eye of the hurricane with harsher winds to come, remains to be seen.”

The report said beneath the smooth surface, differences emerged in practice area performance. Mergers and acquisitions increased by only 0.3%, bested by litigation (up 2%), real estate (up 1.7%), tax (up 1.5%), corporate (up 1.3%) and labor and employment (up 1.3%).





Source link

SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein had motive for money offers to firm manager, prosecutors allege

SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein had motive for money offers to firm manager, prosecutors allege


Criminal Justice

SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein had motive for money offers to firm manager, prosecutors allege

A superseding indictment in a tax fraud case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein includes new allegations about attempts to influence his law firm manager and misuse of a firm trust account. (Photo by Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)

A superseding indictment in a tax fraud case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein includes new allegations about attempts to influence his law firm manager and misuse of a firm trust account.

The Aug. 7 superseding indictment adds allegations and new details but no new counts against Goldstein, Reuters reports.

An Aug. 7 docket entry for the case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, refers to a related case but provides no details.

Prosecutors have described Goldstein, a retired U.S. Supreme Court litigator, as an “ultrahigh-stakes poker player.” He was accused in a January indictment of hiding millions of dollars in income and cryptocurrency transactions on tax returns. He was also accused of using his boutique firm, Goldstein & Russell, to help cover his debts and of making false statements to mortgage lenders.

The superseding indictment claims that, from about October 2020 to January 2021, Goldstein “repeatedly” offered his firm manager things of value, including a $10,000 bonus, student loan payments and cryptocurrency, “at least in part to dissuade the firm manager from cooperating with the IRS’ ongoing criminal investigation.”

Goldstein allegedly feared that the manager would provide information about a woman who did not work for the firm who was nonetheless listed as a firm employee and covered by a firm health insurance policy.

The new indictment also alleges that Goldstein used his firm trust account to shield nearly $1 million belonging to him and his wife from the Internal Revenue Service.

The superseding indictment says Goldstein and his wife withdrew at least $960,000 from their retirement accounts in March 2021 to pay for a new home, and that Goldstein had the funds wired to Goldstein & Russell’s trust account to prevent an IRS levy before the purchase. Goldstein transferred the funds to a firm business account before the closing and then wired the money to the title company, the superseding indictment alleges.

The new indictment also accuses Goldstein of falsely telling IRS representatives that nearly $1.7 million in income reported on his 2016 tax form was accurate, and that his only poker investors were for his games with “California Businessman-2.”

Goldstein had previously sought to compel production of grand jury testimony from the law firm manager, arguing the government had wrongly characterized the offer of compensation as an attempt to bribe a witness. The government made the allegations while trying to keep in place conditions of Goldstein’s pretrial release.

Goldstein had suggested that there was another explanation for offering compensation to the manager: to retain the manager to assist the firm in gathering materials responsive to government subpoenas.

Goldstein previously pleaded not guilty and argued in May case filings that some charges were filed too late or based on erroneous legal theories.

Goldstein is represented by lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson, who did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for comment.





Source link

Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025

Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025



Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025


Delhi High Court

Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025

                          $~71
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                            Date of Decision: 31.07.2025


                          +      CRL.M.C. 2908/2025
                                 MALKIT SINGH @ MONEY @ MANNY SINGH & ORS.
                                                                           .....Petitioners
                                              Through: Ms. Sadhna Singh, Advocate

                                                    versus

                                 THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
                                              Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the
                                                        State with SI Ankur, PS Tilak Nagar
                                                        Mr. Ashish Pratap singh, Advocate
                                                        for R2


                                 CORAM:          JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.178/2017 of PS Tilak Nagar for
offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on the ground that the complainant
de facto (respondent no. 2) has compromised the disputes with the
petitioners.

2. Statements of petitioners and respondent no. 2 have already been
recorded by the concerned Joint Registrar. I have again spoken with
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 present in court and it is stated by them
that now, having compromised all their disputes, they are living together

CRL.M.C. 2908/2025 Page 1 of 2 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH
Signature Not Verified GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.31 17:27:38 +05’30’

Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:31.07.2025
17:55:18
happily and also have a daughter currently aged 04 years. Respondent no. 2
submits that she does not wish to pursue prosecution of petitioners.

3. Having spoken with the parties, I am satisfied that it would be in the
interest of justice not to push them through trial.

4. Therefore, the petition is allowed and accordingly, the FIR
No.178/2017 of PS Tilak Nagar for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC
and proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

Digitally signed by

                                                                                GIRISH    GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.31
                                                                                          17:27:20 +05'30'

                                                                                   GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                        (JUDGE)
                          JULY 31, 2025/as




                          CRL.M.C. 2908/2025                                            Page 2 of 2 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:31.07.2025
17:55:18





Source link

The brain tumor that almost made me blind

The brain tumor that almost made me blind



As a lawyer, I used to think advocacy was something I only did for others. After almost going blind, I learned the hard way that it’s also something I must do for myself.

After almost losing all of my vision, we found out I had a brain tumor. It started subtly. Squinting. Straining to focus. Black spots. Then struggling to read anything at all.

So I went to my doctor, and she sent me to an optometrist. My eyes looked “perfectly healthy.” But I still couldn’t see. Over the next few weeks, I went to see two more optometrists. I passed along, exam after exam, with no answers. Eventually, I saw a retina specialist. Still no answers. Still, no one thought to look behind the eyes.

Everyone was focused on the eye. But the eye wasn’t the issue. And I continued to be pushed through the medical machine to try and find out what the problem was.

The problem was pressure—building silently in my skull and slowly suffocating my optic nerve. And while everyone else missed it, my wife didn’t. She was the one who insisted that I push for answers. She was the one who urged me to ask about imaging.

Before my next appointment could happen, my vision turned into the worst headache I had ever known. “Go to the ER,” my wife (not-so-gently) insisted. I was stubborn. But she insisted. And so I went. While the pain continued and only got worse.

My father-in-law drove me to the hospital, and my parents met me there a few minutes later. It was about 9 p.m. on a Tuesday night, and my wife waited at home with our sleeping toddlers. And she continued to text all of us that we couldn’t leave the ER without a scan.

I asked the doctor myself, almost timidly: “Would it make sense to do a CT scan?” That one question changed everything.

They found a brain tumor. A sizable mass, roughly the size of a lime, sitting right behind my eyes. And all at once, the blurry vision made sense.

What I wish I had known

I wish I had pushed harder. I wish I had advocated more forcefully for myself when the first—or second—optometrist said everything looked fine. I wish I had asked for the scan sooner. Maybe I could have prevented some permanent damage to my optic nerve.

But here’s what I’ve also learned: When you’re inside the system, it’s incredibly hard to question it. Especially when you’re scared. Especially when you want to believe the people in charge have it all figured out.

So I followed the process. The process that failed me. But it also taught me something I’ll never forget.

From patient to partner

Before this, I considered myself a pretty compassionate professional. But this experience brought a new layer to how I show up for others. Because once you’ve been the person sitting in a hospital gown—terrified, exhausted and overwhelmed—while your wife sits at home nervously waiting for you to call her and tell her good news, you see people and situations differently.

I now understand how vulnerable it feels to say, “I don’t know what’s wrong, but something is.” I know how disorienting it is to go through a system that feels designed for speed, not care. I also know how powerful it is to have someone by your side saying, “We’re not leaving until we get answers.” That’s what I try to be now, for my family, my friends, my clients.

Before this, I might have felt skeptical if a client came to me with “something they read online” or challenged part of a strategy. Now? I welcome it.

Because what they’re really doing is what I didn’t do early enough: They’re advocating. They’re trying to understand and seeking to learn. They’re saying, “This matters to me. Please listen.” And I do.

Nobody knows their business better than they do. Nobody knows their story, their case, their team better than they do. Just like nobody knew my symptoms, my body, my instincts better than me and my wife.

Advocacy is a team sport

That’s the biggest lesson I’ve learned: Advocacy is not a solo act. It’s a team effort. I had my wife. I had my parents. I had doctors who treated me. And I had to bring my own voice to the table.

Now, I work the same way with my clients. I don’t see myself as the all-knowing expert at the front of the room. I see myself as a collaborator, a navigator, someone who walks with them, not ahead of them. Someone who has been down this path before and acts as a guide. A leader. But not a dictator.

There are still hard days. I live with the risk of apoplexy, a one-in-six chance that the tumor could swell, rupture and send me into emergency brain surgery. That reality humbles me, and it also drives me. Because I know how precious time is. I know how valuable it is to have a team you trust. And I know how important it is to speak up while focusing on the things that matter most.

What I see clearly now

The damage to my optic nerve is permanent. I won’t see like I used to. But in a strange way, I see more now than I ever have. At work, I see the person behind the policy. I see the employee behind the leave request. I see the client not as a case file but as a whole person or organization.

When a client comes to me with a question about accommodating someone’s medical condition, I don’t just think about compliance. I think about compassion. About culture. About the long game of treating people well. Because we’re not just in the business of law. We’re in the business of service. And service—at its best—is human.

Final thoughts

I don’t tell this story because I’m looking for sympathy. I tell it because it changed everything. It changed how I parent. It changed how I practice law. It changed how I partner with others in every area of my life.

Here’s what I hope you take away: You don’t have to wait until you’re in crisis to use your voice. You don’t have to be a doctor or a lawyer to ask good questions.


Zack Anstett helps employers navigate the ever-evolving landscape of U.S. employment law, from agency investigations and litigation to workplace policies and procedures. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina, with his wife and their three young children.


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






Source link

After second federal judge withdraws error-riddled ruling, litigants seek explanation

After second federal judge withdraws error-riddled ruling, litigants seek explanation


Judiciary

After second federal judge withdraws error-riddled ruling, litigants seek explanation

U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate of the Southern District of Mississippi in August 2022. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has asked Wingate to explain “significant substantive errors” in a withdrawn opinion and to put the ruling back on the docket. (Photo by Rogelio V. Solis/The Associated Press)

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has asked a federal judge to explain “significant substantive errors” in a withdrawn opinion and to put the ruling back on the docket.

U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate of the Southern District of Mississippi withdrew the July 20 opinion on July 23, a day after the attorney general’s office pointed out the errors in a July 22 motion to clarify. Now, the office said in a July 28 motion the old and new opinions should be posted for “accuracy and completeness of the court docket.”

Wingate’s withdrawn opinion referenced allegations and parties not in the lawsuit, nonexistent declarations by four people, and language not found in the state law being challenged, according to the motions.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law360 have coverage.

Wingate withdrew the opinion on the same day that District Judge Julien Xavier Neals of the District of New Jersey withdrew an opinion that misstated case outcomes and contained fake quotes from opinions. The New Jersey case is not related to the Mississippi litigation.

The errors were found in Wingate’s temporary restraining order blocking a Mississippi law that prohibits programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion or that endorse concepts such as gender identity and gender theory.

In the withdrawn opinion, Wingate cited “specific institutional impacts” from the withdrawal of DEI offices and initiatives at three state universities, even though there are no allegations to that effect in the complaint, according to the July 22 motion.

The withdrawn TRO also stated that faculty members at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi, “have been instructed not to discuss gender theory or historical interpretations involving systemic racism,” although evidence in the record and suit allegations do not support that claim.

Wingate substituted a new opinion on July 23, according to the attorney general’s office. It was filed and stamped July 20 but dated and signed July 22.

“In the present action,” the attorney general’s office said in the July 28 motion, “numerous press articles and reports have cited the erroneous portions of the original TRO order, creating widespread and unnecessary confusion that cannot easily be rectified after the fact with the original TRO order erased from the docket.”

“Moreover,” the motion said, “defendants respectfully submit that given the nature of the multiple substantive errors included in the original TRO order—errors that cannot be dismissed as typographical or scrivener’s errors—the parties and the public are due an explanation from the court as to how these errors occurred.”

When the ABA Journal called Wingate’s chambers for comment, a person who answered the phone said questions should be emailed. There was no immediate response to the Journal’s email.





Source link