New fraud reports impacting immigration clients
Straight white woman drops bias case against King & Spalding over its diversity fellowship
Law Firms
Straight white woman drops bias case against King & Spalding over its diversity fellowship
A straight white woman who sued King & Spalding over a diversity fellowship has filed a joint stipulation dropping her claims, leading a federal appeals court to dismiss her appeal. (Image from Shutterstock)
A straight white woman who sued King & Spalding over a diversity fellowship has filed a joint stipulation dropping her claims, leading a federal appeals court to dismiss her appeal.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, dismissed Sarah Spitalnick’s appeal with prejudice Nov. 14. The stipulation of dismissal, docketed Nov. 13, did not indicate whether a settlement had been reached.
Law 360 covered the stipulation, reached before appeals briefs were filed in the case.
Spitalnick had alleged that she was deterred from applying for a summer-associate diversity fellowship at King & Spalding in February 2021 because of a job ad that restricted applicants.
The ad said candidates “must have an ethnically or culturally diverse background or be a member of the LGBT community,” according to the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maryland.
Spitalnick alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar of the District of Maryland tossed Spitalnick’s case in February because of a “paucity of allegations” that she was ready and able to apply for the fellowship.
The ABA Journal sought comment from Spitalnick’s lawyer, Eden P. Quainton of Quainton Law, and one of the lawyers for King & Spalding, Proskauer Rose partner Evandro C. Gigante. Neither immediately responded.
King & Spalding also did not immediately respond to the Journal’s request for comment.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
Man accused of fatal shooting after release on unrelated charges because of lack of appointed lawyers
Public Defenders
Man accused of fatal shooting after release on unrelated charges because of lack of appointed lawyers
A Boston man has been charged with murder less than a month after unrelated charges against him were dropped because of a lack of court-appointed lawyers. (Image from Shutterstock)
A Boston man has been charged with murder less than a month after unrelated charges against him were dropped because of a lack of court-appointed lawyers.
The suspect, 29-year-old Javon K. Robinson of Boston, is accused of fatally stabbing a man Saturday night.
The Boston Globe, NBC Boston and the Boston Herald have coverage.
Prior charges against Robinson—carrying a dangerous weapon and possession of Class A drugs—were dismissed Oct. 25, the Boston Globe reports. The charges stemmed from allegations that Robinson threw a knife in a sewer after one of his acquaintances stabbed a man outside a Dunkin’ restaurant, according to NBC Boston.
Robinson is among the defendants benefiting from the so-called Lavallee protocol, imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court after court-appointed lawyers stopped accepting cases in late May to protest low pay.
The emergency protocol requires the release of indigent defendants in custody for seven days without a lawyer and the dismissal of charges against defendants who don’t have legal representation for more than 45 days. The dismissals are without prejudice, meaning that charges can be reinstated when an attorney is appointed.
The Suffolk County district attorney in Massachusetts sought to reinstate the prior charges against Robinson on Oct. 29, but there was no action taken, the Boston Globe reports. He previously served time in prison after his conviction on federal drug charges.
Court-appointed lawyers were making $65 per hour, which is below the rates in neighboring states, when they stopped accepting new cases. Lawmakers approved a $20 pay raise over two years in August, but many are still declining new representations, the Boston Herald reports.
Lawyer Michael L. Tumposky is representing Robinson in the murder case. In an email to the Boston Globe, he said his client “denies that he committed any crime and looks forward to his day in court.”
Tumposky said the previous charges were dismissed under the protocol adopted by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
“The parties solely responsible for the shortage of attorneys are the folks on Beacon Hill who have refused to allocate sufficient funds to pay those who fight to protect a critical and constitutionally guaranteed right, the right to a zealous defense,” Tumposky told the Boston Globe. “More defendants will be released and more cases will be dismissed until our elected officials take appropriate action to resolve this crisis.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
Cravath kicks off associate bonus season and other firms follow
Lawyer Pay
Cravath kicks off associate bonus season and other firms follow
Cravath, Swaine & Moore is the first BigLaw firm this year to announce associate year-end bonuses along with special bonuses matching those announced by Milbank this summer. (Image from Shutterstock)
Updated: Cravath, Swaine & Moore is the first BigLaw firm this year to announce associate year-end bonuses along with special bonuses matching those announced by Milbank this summer.
Several other law firms quickly followed. Above the Law broke the news on Cravath and also covered other bonus announcements.
Law.com, Bloomberg Law, Reuters and Law360 also have coverage.
Cravath’s year-end bonuses range from $15,000 to $115,000 and depend on class year. The special bonuses range from $6,000 to $25,000. Bonuses for the class of 2025 are prorated.
The bonus scale has been the same since 2021, according to Law360.
Here is the bonus scale:
• Class of 2025: $15,000 year-end, $6,000 special, $21,000 total (prorated)
• Class of 2024: $20,000 year-end, $6,000 special, $26,000 total
• Class of 2023: $30,000 year-end, $10,000 special, $40,000 total
• Class of 2022: $57,500 year-end, $15,000 special, $72,500 total
• Class of 2021: $75,000 year-end, $20,000 special, $95,000 total
• Class of 2020: $90,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $115,000 total
• Class of 2019: $105,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $130,000 total
• Class of 2018: $115,000 year-end, $25,000 special, $140,000 total
Base salaries for associates will remain the same at Cravath in 2026. This is the scale:
• Class of 2025: $225,000
• Class of 2024: $235,000
• Class of 2023: $260,000
• Class of 2022: $310,000
• Class of 2021: $365,000
• Class of 2020: $390,000
• Class of 2019: $420,000
Several firms followed with their own bonus amounts. Here is the list, including Cravath. Firms matched Cravath unless specified.
• Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (Those with at least 2,200 billable hours will get 120% of the year-end bonus)
• Cravath (This firm was the first to announce.)
• Dechert (No bonus is specified for the class of 2025. Associates with 2,200 or more hours will get an extra 30%, and those with 2,400 hours will get an extra 40%.)
• Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (High billers with between 2,200 and 2,450 hours will get an extra $3,000 to $34,500.)
• Hogan Lovells (Bonuses begin with the class of 2024.)
• McDermott Will & Schulte (Associates who started after Aug. 1 won’t get year-end bonuses. About two-thirds of associates from predecessor firm McDermott Will & Emery will receive above-market bonuses.)
• Ropes & Gray (Associates in the class of 2017 and beyond will get a year-end bonus of $130,000 along with a $25,000 special bonus. High billers may get year-end bonuses of up to 150% of the standard amounts.)
• Wilkinson Stekloff (Year-end bonuses range from $22,500 to $172,500, and formerly announced spring bonuses range from $25,000 to $60,000.)
Associates and other nonshareholders at McKool Smith, meanwhile, are getting Thanksgiving bonuses ranging from $2,500 to $10,000. The amount is in addition to year-end bonuses that will be announced in coming weeks.
Updated Nov. 19 at 2:10 p.m. to clarify that McKool Smith bonuses are for all nonshareholders and to add information on McDermott Will & Schulte; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; and Dechert. Updated Nov. 20 at 3:30 p.m. to include Hogan Lovells, Ropes & Gray and Wilkinson Stekloff.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
The AI superpower that lawyers aren’t using is flipping the narrative
Lawyers are masters at arguing their cases, but what happens when artificial intelligence flips the narrative?
Our profession trains us to advocate relentlessly. We can argue any position so convincingly that over time we start believing every word we say. That superpower wins cases and clients. Yet inside our own heads, it can also trap us in stories that erode confidence, strain relationships and fuel burnout.
This is where AI quietly enters the scene, not as a threat but as a mirror.
Case study No. 1: The boss vs. the visionary
One of my clients was convinced his boss was sabotaging him. He saw himself as the strategist and big-picture thinker destined for leadership. His boss, in his view, was a micromanaging cost cutter buried in the weeds.
I suggested a twist: Feed the situation into ChatGPT but from the boss’s point of view.
The output flipped everything. Suddenly, he was not the overlooked visionary. He was portrayed as the underperformer who was resistant to feedback, quick to blame and failing to deliver. It was uncomfortable to read, but it shifted his mindset. He walked into his next meeting seeing not an adversary but a manager responding to his own blind spots. That reframing changed the conversation from confrontation to collaboration.
Case study No. 2: The crusader vs. the organization
Another client felt vilified by her organization. In her mind, she was the principled whistleblower who was standing up for what was right while others stayed silent. We ran the same exercise and asked AI to write the story from the organization’s perspective.
The narrative that came back was sobering. She was portrayed as disruptive, uncollegial and unwilling to work within established channels. It was not the truth, but it was a version worth examining. Reading her story in the organization’s voice revealed why her message, though valid, was falling flat. She adjusted her tone, timing and alliances, and the same leaders who once resisted her ideas began to listen.
The hidden superpower of AI for lawyers
Neither AI output was perfect. Neither was right. But both offered something more valuable than validation: clarity. These clients discovered that perspective-taking is not surrender; it is strategy. It delivers:
• Perspective insurance against blind spots
• Confidence resets before difficult conversations
• Healthier boundaries by processing narratives outside midnight rumination
• Career clarity by understanding how others might see us
When used in this way, AI becomes an empathy engine that helps lawyers examine the assumptions behind their arguments and anticipate how those arguments land.
Beyond efficiency: Building AI-resilient lawyers
Most conversations about AI in law focus on speed: faster research, quicker drafting and streamlined billing. Efficiency matters. Yet the future of law will belong not only to those who automate but to those who integrate humanity with technology.
AI-resilient lawyers know how to:
• Use AI to challenge their own narratives instead of reinforcing them
• Strengthen emotional intelligence and confidence through reflection
• Communicate AI use transparently to build trust with clients and colleagues
This is professional development for the age of algorithms. It does not replace judgment; it sharpens it.
Privacy and ethics: Guardrails for curiosity
Every innovation brings caution. When experimenting with AI, lawyers must protect confidentiality as carefully as any other client data. Public AI tools should be treated like open forums, not closed files.
A few practical guardrails include:
• Anonymizing inputs by removing client names, case details and identifying facts.
• Using enterprise or private models that do not store or train on your prompts.
• Applying the same professional responsibility lens you would use with any vendor; if you would not share it in an elevator, do not paste it into ChatGPT.
• Documenting your process when using AI for insight or drafting. Transparency builds trust.
Handled thoughtfully, these tools can co-exist with our ethical duties and even strengthen them by encouraging lawyers to think more critically before they speak or send.
Why it matters
The most dangerous story a lawyer will ever tell is the one they never question. AI makes questioning unavoidable.
By inviting a second and sometimes uncomfortable perspective, we trade certainty for insight. That is where growth happens. Lawyers who learn to use AI not as a shortcut but as a self-check will find themselves clearer, calmer and more effective advocates.
AI will not make us less human. Used well, it will make us more self-aware.
Brooke Loesby is a former BigLaw attorney and the founder of Law Life Coach Inc. She helps lawyers redefine success through career strategy, leadership coaching and well-being initiatives.
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.”
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.
How to define ‘rebellion’? ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’ enters fray in challenges to federal National Guard deployments
Legal Writing
How to define ‘rebellion’? ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’ enters fray in challenges to federal National Guard deployments
The definition of “rebellion” crafted by Black’s Law Dictionary editor Bryan A. Garner could play a role in challenges to the federalization and deployment of National Guard troops in several U.S. cities. (Image from Shutterstock)
The definition of “rebellion” crafted by Black’s Law Dictionary editor Bryan A. Garner could play a role in challenges to the federalization and deployment of National Guard troops in several U.S. cities.
At issue is a Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code that allows the federal government to call National Guard troops into federal service in cases of “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against the authority of the U.S. government. Another provision of the law allows a president to call up troops when a president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Courts have differed on the definition of “rebellion,” and “virtually all” the litigants in the National Guard cases have referenced the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, edited by Garner since 1995, the Los Angeles Times reports. From 1999 to 2024, Garner, who also is a frequent contributor for the ABA Journal, produced six new editions.
“The dictionary is Garner’s magnum opus, as essential to attorneys as Gray’s Anatomy is to physicians,” the Los Angeles Times says.
The first definition for rebellions reads: “1. Open, organized and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.” Citing that definition, states challenging the deployments argue that the word “rebellion” can’t possibly apply to unrest in their cities.
The Trump administration is relying on two other senses of the word, arguing that rebellion means resistance or opposition to authority, including disobeying a legal command or summons, the Los Angeles Times reports, relying on a summary of the administration’s definition by the California Department of Justice. California argues that the “resistance” definition is not what Congress intended.
One case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco. That appeals court has granted an en banc rehearing in a case challenging federal deployment of the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, Oregon Public Broadcasting previously reported.
In another case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration seeks an emergency order that will allow it to deploy the National Guard in Chicago, SCOTUSblog reports. The Supreme Court focused on the section of the law allowing the federalization of the National Guard when a president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” and asked for briefing on the meaning of “regular forces.” The Supreme Court asked whether the phrase refers to civilian law enforcement or the U.S. military.
The Los Angeles Times attributes the influence of dictionary definitions partly to Garner’s book on textualism co-authored by former Justice Antonin Scalia. The idea gained such acceptance that “by 2018, the Supreme Court was citing dictionary definitions in half of its opinions,” according to Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, who spoke with the Los Angeles Times.
Garner told the Los Angeles Times that he works on the dictionary “virtually every day,” rising early to begin his workday at 4 a.m. He has around 4,500 dictionaries and three libraries in his home. He also is the author of “numerous other works,” including a memoir about his friendship with Scalia, the article reports. And he also finds time to teach legal writing as he travels throughout the country.
Garner will be watching for a Supreme Court decision.
“I will be looking very closely at what the Supreme Court says,” Garner told the Los Angeles Times. “If it writes anything about the meaning of the word rebellion, that might well affect the next edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
