High flying and aggressive US-based law firm Boies Schiller continues to make the news, the latest interest being around the law firm’s apparent failure to make the raises to associates which was apparently due to be made on October 15, then at the end of the month and now . .
The obvious rumors reported in American Lawyer and elsewhere are that there may be cash flow issues for the firm which has recently faced issues around departing partners.
The firm has had a tumultuous time of late with departing partners. Among the issues facing the firm have been bad press received by founder David Boies with his controversial work for profile clients, as well as a slip for the firm in the AmLaw rankings.
Since the new leadership took over the firm, 31 partners have left the firm with 15 going from the LA office in April. The firm also fired a number of associates and staffers in LA.
The original pay plan was for the law firm to match those paid by Cravath Swaine & Moore, but now concerns are arising about the reason for the non-payment.
Firm co-chief Natasha Harrison received a high profile piece in The Times recently, where ‘the lawyer from Croyden’ moved from the UK to the US to co-manage the firm, but clearly faces challenges with the recent events, both economically and in terms of whatever the Boies Schiller balance sheet reveals.
- The OpenAI Defense: Inside the Wachtell Trial Team That Just Beat Elon Musk
While Elon Musk’s legal team tried to transform a federal courtroom in Oakland, California into an existential debate about the fate of human civilization and a “stolen charity,” Sam Altman’s defenders quietly built a procedural guillotine. A unanimous nine-member federal advisory jury took less than two hours to reject all of Musk’s claims against OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and President Greg Brockman, which presumably was both surprising and disappointing for the multi-billionaire. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers immediately adopted the verdict from the bench, dismissing the case in full. The same statute-of-limitations finding wiped out Musk’s aiding-and-abetting claim against Microsoft, an early backer of OpenAI’s for-profit arm. Log in to the the lawyer profiles . . . - From 40 Hours To 4: Is AI Forcing A $200 Billion Rewrite Of The BigLaw Billable Hour?
- Australian Firm Thomsons Bets on AI With Launch of New AI Legal Brand
- Quinn Emanuel Hit With $3M Sanctions as Judge Blasts “Deeply Disturbing” Litigation Conduct
- Trainee To Equity Partner: The 12-Year BigLaw Timeline, Mapped Honestly
Roughly one in twenty associates who start at a top US firm will make equity partner there. That is the number nobody puts in the recruiting brochure. The brochure says the partnership track is “approximately eight to ten years.” That is technically true and practically misleading — because it describes the timeline of people who finish, not the probability of finishing. The honest answer is that the BigLaw partnership track is a twelve-year funnel with five stages, four exit ramps, and a survival rate that would not pass muster as a clinical trial outcome. Here is what each stage actually looks like. Log in to read timeline . . . - Panel Games: Revolut’s New Legal Model is a Quarterly Hunger Games for Big Law
If you’re a partner at a Magic Circle firm currently leaning back in your Herman Miller chair, comforted by the warmth of a three-year panel appointment, you might want to sit up. The fintech disruptor that refuses to play by the rules is, predictably, about to break yours. Revolut, the neobank recently valued at a staggering $45 billion following a secondary share sale (with some internal projections whispering closer to $75 billion), is officially binning the traditional legal panel model. In its place comes “Revolut Partners,” a system designed to treat law firms less like venerable institutions and more like high-performance software vendors. Log in to read more . . - The Partner Who Signed the Brief: Inside Morgan & Morgan’s $5,000 AI Lesson
If you wanted a single case to put on the cover of every CLE brochure for the next five years, Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc. would do nicely. A hoverboard explodes in a Wyoming family’s home. The family sues. Their lawyers — from America’s loudest plaintiffs’ firm, no less — file a motion in limine citing nine cases. Eight of them do not exist. They have never existed. They were, in the now-familiar verb of our age, hallucinated. And so on 24 February 2025, U.S. District Judge Kelly H. Rankin handed down what is shaping up to be the defining American sanctions order of the generative-AI era. Rudwin Ayala — the Morgan & Morgan associate who actually fed the brief into the firm’s in-house AI tool, charmingly named MX2.law — lost his pro hac vice admission and was fined $3,000. Log in to read . . .
