The Notice: News and Resources for Paralegals, Litigation Support & Docketing Professionals
We hope that everyone had a memorable Thanksgiving celebration surrounded by cherished family and friends, indulging in delicious food and creating beautiful memories. As we enter the final stretch of 2023, we hope that you are rejuvenated and filled with renewed energy to embrace the upcoming holiday season and end the year on a high note.
In recent legal news: Biglaw firms face criticism for signing a letter addressing antisemitism in law schools without backing it up with substantive action; a U.S. judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit alleging Tesla's monopolization of vehicle maintenance and parts markets; following a period of strong expansion, legal tech funding is projected to achieve its most sluggish year since 2017; and more!
We hope you enjoy this issue of The Notice!
~The Team at ECFX
WORKING IN LARGE LAW
Wave of Big Law Leader Exits Stokes Succession Concerns
After defying pandemic expectations of mass retirements, senior Big Law firm leaders have been enjoying extended runs at the top. But there’s evidence that a changing of the guard may be underway as a growing number of managing partners, chairs, and CEOs announce plans to step down.
“I can’t remember a time in the past couple of decades of advising law firms that this many chairs and managing partners have told me they are going to hang it up within such a short period of time,” said Kent Zimmermann, a legal business and succession consultant based in Newport Beach, California, at Zeughauser Group.
This year, Zimmermann said he has heard from more than 10 managing partners or chairs of some of the nation’s largest firms that they intended to step down or retire by the end of the year or in the first quarter of 2024. Normally, he said, he hears from three to five firms a year about such intentions. Of those whose departures were announced, most are leaving leadership posts, but not giving up legal practice, a review of recent announcements shows.
While Zimmerman declined to identify the partners he’d spoken with, a search of law firm announcements shows that from January to October 2023, Reed Smith, Goodwin Procter, Holland & Knight, WilmerHale, Cooley, Fried Frank, and Troutman Pepper all announced that their chairs, CEOs or managing partners were stepping down or planned to early next year. Most, but not all, of the group exiting leadership roles are in their 60s or older, according to published media accounts and public records that include state bar admission dates.
Many of the leaders are leaving their executive roles and focusing on their practices at the firms. Some are retiring from the practice to serve on nonprofit boards and the like. Others are retiring from their firms to practice law elsewhere.
Biglaw Firm Joins Hotline For Victims Of Campus Antisemitic Harassment
Last week, a number of Biglaw firms signed onto a letter lamenting the rise in antisemitic harassment on law school campuses and committing to doing absolutely nothing about it. But they did go out of their way to point fingers at law school deans to do something about it, preferring to leave the hard work of separating controversial but fair political commentary about Israel from antisemitism masquerading under the headlines to the administrations already struggling with exactly that task.
There were firms signing this letter that advertise about their work with states that don’t even recognize Israel’s right to exist. Some of these firms have offices in countries that deny Israel’s legitimacy. Which is probably why they prefer low commitment PR stunts to taking any action that might hit them in the pocketbook.
Bottom line: firms should commit to doing something tangible with the massive financial and in-kind resources they can bring to bear and dig into the sometimes messy details if they want to make a difference. And some law firms are doing just that.
Gibson Dunn has partnered with Hillel International, ADL, and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law to announce the Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL), offering folks on campus a free legal helpline. In addition to Gibson Dunn’s partnership, the helpline will draw upon pro bono resources from Morgan Lewis and other firms not specifically identified in the press release.
Antisemitism is not limited to campus, but students and schools both have limited resources to deliver justice. “Poor student” is a stereotype for a reason and schools meting out punishments face due process challenges and ultimately can’t deliver much more than kicking someone out of school. Lawyers can certainly assist students in dealing with the school’s internal system… but torts and criminal law can accomplish a lot more if available under the circumstances.
NEWS FOR 2023
Bayer Ordered to Pay $1.56 Billion in Latest US Trial Loss over Roundup Weedkiller
A Missouri jury ordered Bayer to pay $1.56 billion to four plaintiffs who claimed the company's Roundup weedkiller caused injuries including cancer, a verdict that could intensify investor pressure on the German drugs and agricultural chemicals company to change its legal strategy.
The Cole County, Missouri jury found on Friday that Bayer's Monsanto business was liable for claims of negligence, design defects and failing to warn plaintiffs of the potential dangers of using Roundup, according to court documents.
Valorie Gunther of New York, Jimmy Draeger of Missouri and Daniel Anderson of California were awarded a combined $61.1 million in compensatory damages and $500 million each in punitive damages. Each was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma that they alleged was caused by using Roundup on their family property. Draeger's wife Brenda was awarded $100,000 for the harm she allegedly suffered from her husband's disease.
The punitive damages could be reduced on appeal as it exceeds U.S. Supreme Court guidance.
Bayer has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The verdict is the fourth straight loss in court for Bayer, after the company had been found not liable to plaintiffs in nine consecutive trials. Earlier this month, Union Investment, one of Bayer's top 10 shareholders, called on the company to consider trying to engage with plaintiffs to settle more cases.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Around 165,000 claims have been made against the company for personal injuries allegedly caused by Roundup, which Bayer acquired as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. In 2020, Bayer settled most of the then-pending Roundup cases for up to $10.9 billion. Around 50,000 claims remain pending, according to regulatory filings.
Tesla Beats Lawsuit Claiming it Monopolizes Repairs, Parts
A U.S. judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Elon Musk's electric car company Tesla of forcing customers to pay high prices and suffer long waits for repairs by monopolizing the markets for vehicle maintenance and replacement parts.
In a Friday night decision, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco said customers in the proposed class action failed to show either that the alleged problems were "not generally known" when they bought their vehicles, or that they could not predict the costs to keep their vehicles running. She also said customers could not prove that Tesla coerced them into using its services and parts simply because they had bought their vehicles in the first place.
"To be sure, plaintiffs allege that defendant misled them about...how much maintenance its EVs are designed to need and how long that maintenance ought to take," Thompson wrote. "But nowhere do plaintiffs allege that consumers are in fact unaware of the supposedly supracompetitive prices and exorbitant wait times."
The judge also dismissed claims under California consumer protection laws. She said customers may choose to amend their complaint, which combined five lawsuits and covered drivers who have paid for Tesla repairs and parts since March 2019.
According to the complaint, drivers whose vehicles are powered by traditional engines can have repairs done at dealerships or independent shops, and use parts made by original manufacturers or other companies. Customers said Tesla differs by requiring them to have vehicles serviced by the Austin, Texas-based company or its approved service centers, and use only Tesla parts.
TECHNOLOGY & LEGAL SUPPORT
AI: Promise and Precautions on the Legal Tech Frontier
AI has generated global buzz, but hype obscures its nuanced potential in the legal field. AI represents not a revolution but rather part of an integrated framework that could expand use of technology by legal teams if thoughtfully leveraged. In-house legal teams that want to realize its promise must prepare for it in a pragmatic way.
Targeted AI applications provide tangible productivity benefits. Algorithms can analyze hundreds of pages of contracts for key terms and risks in hours instead of the days required manually. AI tools rapidly synthesize relevant precedents, reducing research time.
AI enables smaller legal teams to complete tasks once only feasible for large firms with vast resources. Solo practitioners can now use AI applications to answer common legal questions and conduct research, leveling the playing field. Enterprise legal departments also gain new efficiencies. Much legal data remains unstructured, posing challenges for manual analysis. Using AI and machine learning, teams can extract insights from mountains of documents and contracts. This allows professionals to focus time on higher-value strategic tasks.
But hype ignores the hard work required to implement AI usefully; quality data inputs and human guidance are essential. AI is not as simple as buying a “robot lawyer.” To realize benefits, teams must invest in training and education on how to leverage AI judiciously. They must also audit for biases and monitor outputs. AI does not replace human legal expertise and judgment, it augments them.
Effectively using AI means understanding current limitations. Biases in data produce biased outputs. Capabilities remain narrow and unpredictable. AI can process legal documents rapidly but lacks nuanced human understanding required for comprehensive counsel. Ongoing education is crucial.
Law schools should teach critical thinking around AI’s applications and ethical implications. Students need both tech literacy and an appreciation of AI’s limits. Firms must train employees continuously as capabilities advance. And collaborative guidelines for responsible AI development and use are key.
Wheels Of Justice Slow To Accept Legal Tech As Funding Falls
After a couple years of robust growth, legal tech funding is on pace to have its slowest year since 2017.
Venture funding to legal tech startups is pacing this year to hit about $725 million, per Crunchbase data. That’s a steep decline from the past two years, when funding to such startups was around $2 billion each year — even last year as overall venture capital started to slow.
While it is true venture is down nearly everywhere this year — except when it comes to AI — it’s still striking to see legal tech funding on pace to decline approximately 65% year to year. While the legal industry has been slow to adopt new technologies for a variety of reasons — which include regulations — the industry did seem to make strides during COVID to integrate cloud and other new tech tools involving filings and communications
However, that interest seems to have cooled, as the slowdown in dollars also matches a slowdown in deal flow — with only 129 deals being reported so far this year, compared to 268 last year and 284 in 2021.
Those deals also have not been big. While last year saw seven deals worth $100 million or more — including San Francisco-based Ironclad’s $150 million Series E — this year has not seen one nine-figure round.
So far in 2023, there have only been three rounds of $30 million or more — compared to 12 such deals last year.