Learn more from this report: Associate Lateral Move Timing

🔑 Key Takeaways for Associates

• 2–6 Years Is the Sweet Spot
  The most in-demand candidates are mid-level associates with 3–5 years of experience. At this stage, lawyers have proven skills, billing efficiency, and the flexibility firms seek.
• Less Than a Year? Too Soon
  Leaving a firm within your first year often raises red flags. Hiring managers want to see stability and commitment before considering a candidate.
• Seasonal Market Advantage
  The busiest lateral hiring season runs January through June, after bonuses are paid and firms refresh their budgets. While year-end hiring can also be favorable, summer months typically slow down.
• Wait Too Long, Risk Marketability
  Associates with more than 6–7 years of experience may face challenges moving laterally, as firms often prefer training and molding younger lawyers into partnership tracks.

⚖️ Why It Matters

A lateral move is more than just a change of workplace—it’s a career-defining decision. Choosing the right timing can open doors to better opportunities, higher pay, and stronger promotion prospects, while moving too early or too late can limit options.

Learn more from this report: Associate Lateral Move Timing

The post The Best Time for Associates to Make a Lateral Move first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

📌 Watch here: Unemployed Attorneys: How to Highlight Your Skills and Experience in a Cover Letter

Key Takeaways for Attorneys:

• Emphasize Achievements: Focus on your last position and the skills you gained, rather than drawing attention to your unemployment status.
• Save Explanations for the Interview: A cover letter should build interest. Reserve personal details or reasons for career gaps until you can discuss them directly with an interviewer.
• Use References Strategically: If you have strong references from your most recent job, mention them briefly, but don’t let them dominate your letter.

Why This Matters

This advice helps attorneys shift the narrative from “out of work” to “ready to contribute,” keeping hiring managers focused on strengths and value.

✅ JDJournal encourages unemployed attorneys to watch the full video and apply these strategies to their job search.

📌 Watch here: Unemployed Attorneys: How to Highlight Your Skills and Experience in a Cover Letter

The post Smart Cover Letter Strategies for Unemployed Attorneys first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering a groundbreaking move requiring attorneys to validate the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence (AI) materials before filing them with the court. This potential shift in protocol, detailed in a notice released by a court employee on Tuesday, signals a heightened focus on the accountability of legal professionals in utilizing AI-generated content.

Proposed Rule Changes

The New Orleans-based appeals court is contemplating an amendment to its certificate of compliance, introducing a new stipulation obliging attorneys to confirm the accuracy of AI-generated materials. Attorneys guilty of making a “material misrepresentation” on this certificate may face sanctions. The proposed rule changes are currently open for public comments until January 4, 2024, reflecting a commitment to soliciting input from legal practitioners and stakeholders.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Unprecedented Move

If implemented, the Fifth Circuit would become the first US appeals court to mandate such a verification requirement for attorneys practicing within its jurisdiction. This development underscores the evolving landscape of legal practices and the need for regulatory adjustments in response to advancements in AI technology.

Preceding Initiatives

This move follows the lead of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which has already adopted a rule effective from December 1, instructing lawyers to review and verify any computer-generated content produced by AI tools to ensure compliance with relevant standards. Additionally, US District Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas initiated a certification requirement for lawyers appearing in his court, emphasizing the necessity for independent verification of AI-generated materials due to the potential for hallucinations and bias in current AI platforms.

Regional Perspectives

Since Starr’s court falls under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, encompassing federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, this move could set a precedent for AI accountability across a substantial portion of the United States. US District Judge Fred Biery of the Western District of Texas also actively reminds attorneys of their professional responsibility in AI, emphasizing honesty and validation of pleading contents for accuracy and authenticity.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Legal Ramifications

The necessity for AI accountability gained further prominence when US District Judge Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York sanctioned two attorneys earlier this year for submitting a legal brief containing fictitious case citations generated by an AI tool. This incident highlights the potential legal consequences that may arise when AI-generated content is not diligently validated.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post US Appeals Court Contemplates Mandatory AI Verification for Attorneys first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has enacted a groundbreaking bill, Senate Bill 40, which mandates attorneys to notify the state bar if they suspect their colleagues of treason. This article delves into the implications, controversies, and the bill’s broader impact on legal oversight.

Governor Newsom Takes the Initiative

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 40 into law in a significant move for legal accountability. This transformative legislation compels attorneys to promptly inform the state bar if they have credible suspicions regarding fellow lawyers engaging in acts of treason. The bill’s passage marks a crucial step towards ensuring ethical conduct within the legal profession.

Bipartisan Divide on Senate Bill 40

The bill’s journey through the legislative process wasn’t without controversy. The California legislature, with Democrats supporting the bill and Republicans opposing it along party lines, ultimately passed Senate Bill 40. This partisan division reflects the ongoing debate over the balance between legal ethics and individual rights.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Reporting Treason: A New Obligation

The core of Senate Bill 40 revolves around the obligation placed on attorneys to report fellow lawyers involved or suspected of engaging in seditious conspiracy, treason, rebellion, or insurrection, as defined by federal law. Importantly, this requirement doesn’t override attorney-client privilege. Moreover, the bill explicitly prohibits using this provision for harassment, emphasizing the importance of responsible reporting.

Strengthening Oversight of the State Bar

Beyond addressing attorney misconduct, Senate Bill 40 also strengthens the oversight of the State Bar of California. In the future, the California Senate must approve the appointments of the State Bar’s executive director and general counsel. This development aims to enhance transparency and accountability within the legal profession.

A Call for Reform

Senator Tom Umberg, the senate’s judiciary committee leader and a Democrat from Orange County, expressed the legislature’s commitment to reforming the State Bar’s disciplinary process and ensuring increased transparency. This move responds to past concerns regarding the State Bar’s relationship with disbarred lawyer Tom Girardi, who faces charges for alleged client fund misappropriation.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Unraveling Girardi’s Network

Tom Girardi’s alleged connections within the State Bar of California have raised concerns. A report from March highlighted an extensive network of connections built by Girardi within the bar, including directing substantial financial contributions to a former investigator. Tom Girardi has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, bringing further attention to ethical concerns within the legal profession.

Aligning with the Supreme Court’s Professional Rule

August saw the California Supreme Court introducing a mandate for lawyers to report fraudulent activities, fund misappropriation, and other criminal conduct that questions another attorney’s trustworthiness and fitness for the legal profession. Senator Umberg underscored the complementarity between Senate Bill 40 and the Supreme Court’s new professional rule, reinforcing the commitment to legal ethics.

Positive Responses to Senate Bill 40

Brandon Stallings, the chair of the State Bar of California’s board of trustees, praised Governor Newsom’s decision to sign Senate Bill 40 into law. Stallings highlighted the bar’s progress in enhancing transparency and accountability and noted the legislation’s potential for increasing the annual licensing fee for California lawyers, a move viewed as a significant step towards maintaining high ethical standards in the legal field.

In conclusion, Senate Bill 40 represents a pivotal moment in California’s legal landscape. It not only underscores the commitment to ethical, legal practice but also serves as a response to recent concerns and controversies within the legal profession. The broader implications of this legislation are poised to shape the future of legal oversight and accountability in California.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post California’s New Legal Landscape: Reporting Suspected Treason Among Attorneys first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Law Graduates and Licensed Attorneys to Face Significant Fee Hikes

To address a looming budget shortfall, the State Bar of California has approved substantial fee increases for the California bar exam. Starting in February, law graduates and licensed attorneys will see significant hikes in their examination and moral character determination fees.

Law Graduates to Bear 26% Increase

Law graduates preparing to take the California bar exam will face a 26% increase in examination fees. The cost will jump from the current $796 to a new price point of $1,000. Law graduates will also witness a 32% increase in their moral character determination fee, which covers the review of an applicant’s past conduct. This fee will rise from $725 to $960.

Licensed Attorneys Hit Hard

Attorneys already licensed in another jurisdiction who wish to take the California bar exam will bear an even heavier burden. Their examination fee will spike by a substantial 50%, soaring from $1,197 to $1,800. Furthermore, licensed attorneys’ moral character determination fee will witness a staggering 54% increase, reaching $850.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Necessitated by Rising Costs

Leaders of the State Bar of California emphasize that these fee increases are indispensable to cope with the escalating expenses of attorney admissions. Notably, the organization has refrained from adjusting admission fees since 2016. Without these fee adjustments, the State Bar’s admissions fund was projected to face a nearly $8 million deficit in 2024, posing a significant financial challenge for the organization, which operates with an annual budget of almost $270 million.

Mark Toney, a State Bar trustee, noted, “When you go year after year without adjusting fees, you’re going to have to pay the piper.”

Ongoing Fee Review and Adjustments

To maintain fiscal stability, the board of trustees has also greenlit a regular review of admissions fees every three years. Furthermore, they are considering the possibility of annual adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index.

Law Schools’ Concerns Heeded

While several fee increases were on the table, the board of trustees decided to delay implementing proposed fee hikes for California-accredited law schools. This decision came after these institutions expressed concerns about the potential financial strain. The State Bar had initially proposed raising the annual fee for these schools from $2,170 to $22,900, amounting to a staggering 955% increase.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Exam Site Reduction to Save Costs

As part of their cost-saving efforts, the State Bar reduced the number of testing sites for the February 2024 bar exam. Locations in San Diego, Sacramento, and Oakland were eliminated, while areas in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Ontario were retained. This measure is anticipated to save approximately $550,000.

Future Exam Plans and Remote Testing

Bar leaders are actively working on plans for the July 2024 bar exam, which may include further modifications to testing sites and the potential for conducting a portion of the exam remotely. These plans are expected to be finalized in January, offering insight into the State Bar’s evolving approach to attorney admissions in California.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post California Bar Exam Fees to Increase in February first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a groundbreaking decision, a federal trial court judge in the Northern District of Texas issued a standing order requiring attorneys appearing before the court to certify that no part of their filing was generated by artificial intelligence (AI). Furthermore, if AI drafted any language within the filing, it must be confirmed that a human has reviewed and verified its accuracy.

Judge Brantley D. Starr of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas expressed concerns about the current state of AI platforms, citing their propensity for producing hallucinations and exhibiting bias. According to Judge Starr, these platforms have been known to fabricate information, including quotes and citations, leading to potential inaccuracies in legal documents.

Highlighting the issue of bias, Judge Starr emphasized that while attorneys take an oath to set aside personal prejudices and uphold the law, AI systems lack the capacity to make such commitments. Generative artificial intelligence is developed by humans who do not share the same responsibility to swear an oath, potentially introducing bias into the legal drafting process.

To address these concerns, Judge Starr’s order requires attorneys to file a certificate on the court’s docket, attesting that they have familiarized themselves with the judge-specific requirements and understand that they will be held accountable under Rule 11 for the content of their filings, regardless of AI involvement. Failure to file the certificate will result in the court striking the attorney’s filing.

Are you being paid fairly for your hard work? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Judge Starr acknowledged that certain AI platforms might possess the necessary accuracy and reliability for legal briefs. Attorneys who believe that a particular platform meets these criteria are permitted to request leave from the court and provide an explanation justifying their claim.

This order reflects the court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and ensuring that the responsibility for the content of legal filings remains firmly with the attorneys themselves. By requiring certification and human review of AI-generated language, Judge Starr aims to safeguard against the potential risks posed by current AI capabilities.

Legal professionals and practitioners are closely observing the implications of this decision. It prompts a broader conversation about the role of AI in the legal industry and how it should be regulated to maintain fairness and accuracy.

While AI has made significant advancements in various sectors, the complexities of legal drafting and the potential ramifications of AI-generated content necessitate careful consideration. Ensuring the accuracy and reliability of legal filings is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.

Judge Starr’s order represents a crucial step in addressing the challenges AI-generated legal content poses. By requiring attorneys to take personal responsibility for the accuracy of their filings, the court underscores the significance of human oversight in legal proceedings.

As this decision may set a precedent for other jurisdictions, legal professionals across the country are monitoring developments closely. The order encourages attorneys to be discerning in their use of AI platforms, promoting a cautious approach that prioritizes accuracy, fairness, and adherence to legal standards.

The recent standing order issued by Judge Starr in the Northern District of Texas has mandated attorneys to certify that their legal filings do not contain content generated by AI. This move emphasizes the court’s commitment to accuracy and accountability in the legal process and opens the door to further discussions regarding the role of AI in the legal industry. Legal professionals will continue to follow these developments and assess their impact on legal practice and procedure.

The post Judge Orders Attorneys to Certify Compliance with AI Policy first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Silicon Valley-based law firm Gunderson Dettmer has recently announced layoffs affecting 10% of its attorneys, paralegals, and staff. The move was made “in response to current macroeconomic and market conditions,” according to a memo viewed by Bloomberg Law from Gunderson managing partner David Young. The firm made its name working with emerging companies and venture capital backers, advising on deals involving Andreessen Horowitz and Bain Capital, among others.

The layoffs at Gunderson are not limited to experienced attorneys. According to three sources familiar with the situation, the cuts include first-year associates who began their tenure at the firm in January after a three-month delay. Young said incoming associates graduating in the spring might have their start dates deferred on a case-by-case basis. The firm is providing severance and semi-monthly stipends for any deferred incoming associate.

According to figures reported by the American Lawyer, the firm has 393 attorneys across nine offices. The layoffs come as a response to the recent slowdown in demand in the legal industry. Like other major law firms, Gunderson added to its associate ranks to meet spiking demand in 2021. However, it was forced to delay the start date for the first-year class as markets turned and competitors trimmed their headcount.

Gunderson’s layoffs are not an isolated event in the legal industry. Kirkland & Ellis, the world’s largest law firm by gross revenue, also announced a round of associate reductions after mid-year performance reviews. This year has seen a marked slowdown in law firm activity, with many firms struggling to maintain the high demand experienced during the boom in 2021. Some firms have had to resort to layoffs to adjust to market conditions.

Let LawCrossing help you navigate the legal job market – sign up today.

The legal industry faces other challenges, including the increasing competition from alternative legal service providers and the trend towards in-house counsel. The industry is undergoing a significant transformation, and law firms must adapt and innovate to remain relevant.

In response to the current market conditions, Gunderson has made the difficult decision to lay off some of its attorneys, paralegals, and staff. The firm has also deferred the start dates for incoming associates graduating in the spring. These moves reflect the current state of the legal industry, which is experiencing a slowdown in demand. Law firms must navigate this challenging landscape and find new ways to stay competitive and relevant.

The post Gunderson, Silicon Valley Law Firm, Announces Layoffs of Attorneys Across Multiple Offices first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The legal industry is currently facing an economic decline, with numerous Biglaw firms being impacted by the situation. This has led to many experts warning about the potential impact of the decline on the industry. One such firm is Procopio, which is ranked 194th on the Am Law 200, and made a gross revenue of $128,919,000 in 2021. The firm recently announced a “reduction in force,” which involves layoffs of attorneys and staff members as a cost-cutting measure.

According to an internal email from the firm, 2022 was a challenging year for Procopio, like many of its peer firms. With the expectation of more “economic headwinds” in 2023, the management at Procopio has been exploring various cost-cutting measures, including accounts receivable and practice management policies that mandate best practices at all levels in the firm, starting with the partners.

Over the past few days, the firm has let go of several attorneys and staff members as part of its reduction in force. This was a tough decision for the firm, affecting colleagues and friends. The human resources team at Procopio has been asked to do everything possible to ease the transition process for those affected. The firm expressed gratitude for the contributions of the affected individuals.

The legal industry is facing a challenging time, with many firms being impacted by the current economic situation. However, Procopio is not alone in its decision to implement a reduction in force. Other Biglaw firms such as Cooley LLP, Goodwin, Shearman, Gunderson, and Kirkland have also announced layoffs of associates. This trend highlights the importance of cost-cutting measures for firms during economic downturns and the need for firms to be proactive in their financial planning.

While the news of the reduction in force at Procopio is unfortunate, it is a reminder of the current economic situation’s impact on the legal industry. Firms must be proactive in their approach to the situation, exploring cost-cutting measures and taking steps to maintain financial stability. At the same time, the affected individuals must be provided with the support and resources needed to help them transition to their next job. The legal industry will continue to face challenges in the coming months, but firms must work together to find solutions to ensure their long-term success and stability.

The post Leading Law Firm Implements RIF, Resulting in Layoffs for Attorneys and Staff first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Shearman & Sterling, a New York-based law firm, has announced that it has laid off 38 employees due to the changing market conditions. The firm confirmed that the limited workforce reduction included 26 members from its business services and 12 associates from its transactional practice. This comes amid rumors that the law firm is in merger talks with Hogan Lovells.

The announcement by Shearman & Sterling follows a similar announcement by Davis Wright Tremaine, which laid off 21 employees in areas where it had “excess capacity or redundancy and misalignment.” This trend of headcount reduction is not limited to these two firms alone, as other prominent law firms have also trimmed their headcounts in recent months. For instance, Cooley laid off 150 lawyers and staff last year to adjust for slowing demand. At the same time, Goodwin Procter announced earlier this year that it was laying off associates, paralegals, and other professional staff across its offices. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan also cut nine lawyers and 18 staff positions.

As the firm stated in its statement, the move by Shearman & Sterling to lay off its employees was a critical step to align its capacity levels with existing client demands. The firm acknowledged that while it was painful to part ways with its colleagues, adjusting to the changing market conditions was necessary. This decision was taken after careful consideration, and the firm believes it was the best course of action to ensure its long-term success.

Despite the headcount reductions, firms are optimistic about their future and are confident that they will be able to overcome the current challenges. The legal industry is known for its resilience, and it is expected to recover from the current market conditions soon.

REFERENCES:

Shearman & Sterling Lays Off 38 Attorneys, Staff in US Offices

The post Shearman & Sterling Downsizes US Operations with Layoffs of 38 Attorneys and Staff first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Paul Hastings has recently been on a hiring spree, bringing on prominent lawyers from established firms and boutiques to increase their presence in the legal world. The firm has added prominent partners to its legal teams, including Jayme Goldstein and Kristopher Hansen, who arrived from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan as part of a 43-lawyer restructuring team.

Adding these lawyers has enabled Paul Hastings to take on more complex cases. They recently won the role of representing the creditor’s committee in the bankruptcy of crypto company FTX, beating out multiple competitors.

Paul Hastings isn’t just looking to expand their legal operations; they have its eyes set on becoming a destination firm for the lucrative mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market. To that end, they have hired several high-profile partners from firms such as Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; and Weil, Gotshal & Manges to bolster their M&A practice. This includes Eduardo Gallardo – the global co-chair of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s M&A group – who now co-chairs Paul Hastings’ M&A group.

Gallardo has advised numerous high-profile clients, including AT&T, on its $1.4 billion sale of Warner Bros Games’ Playdemic to Electronic Arts and Barnes & Noble Education in its successful defense against an unsolicited takeover bid from Bay Capital Finance. With Gallardo on board, Paul Hastings is aiming to become a major player in the M&A space, taking advantage of the current complacency among some of the biggest legal players.

Though they still have some work to do to catch up with the Big Law’s elite dealmakers, Paul Hastings had a successful year in 2022, advising on $23.7 billion worth of deals – a far cry from Wall Street’s Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, who topped the Bloomberg league tables with their impressive $424 billion in deals. Despite this difference, Paul Hastings is confident that their recent legal acquisitions and moves in the M&A market will set them up for success in the coming years. With a strong team of experienced lawyers, they have all the tools necessary to make this vision a reality.

REFERENCES:

Paul Hastings Sees Profits Rise, Despite Tightening Market

The post Paul Hastings Boosts Earnings in Competitive Market Conditions first appeared on JDJournal Blog.