Ed. note : Please welcome Renee Knake Jefferson back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, Legal Ethics Roundup, here .
Welcome to what captivates, haunts, inspires, and surprises me every week in the world of legal ethics.
Hello First Monday!
Grounded in authoritative content and verified at every step, Protégé is the only legal AI tool that delivers work you can trust—without exception.
What is a “First Monday” edition? Every Monday here at the LER you receive a summary of the top 10 legal ethics headlines. But, on the “First Monday” of the month, you get lots more — the headlines plus reading recommendations, legal ethics trivia, job postings, events, and other features.
This week I’m writing you from the Pendry Natirar in Peapack, New Jersey, where we celebrated the Fourth of July, both the nation’s birthday and our wedding anniversary . We caught a double rainbow in our honor!
Last week I panicked when I heard the news of Justice Samuel Alito’s retirement because I still haven’t quite finished an op-ed about President Trump and Supreme Court shortlists I’ve been working on in anticipation of a future vacancy. Looks like I have a bit more time to keep at it, since NPR’s Nina Totenberg was wrong in her rush to break the story (check out headline #1 below if somehow you missed it). Order a copy of Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court now so that you’ll be prepared to navigate the next nomination season!
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
Here are your headlines and other “First Monday” features. Enjoy.
Highlights from Last Week – Top 10 Headlines
#1 “NPR Retracts Story Reporting Justice Alito is Retiring from Supreme Court.” From The Washington Post: “The story briefly appeared on NPR’s homepage before being removed. Reporter Nina Totenberg called the story ‘the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism’ and said she had sent an apology to Alito.” Read more here (gift link).
#2 “Lawyers are Working Nights and Weekends to Train AI for $200 an Hour.” From Business Insider: “When arbitrator Jessica Crutcher logs off after a day of hearing disputes, she starts a graveyard shift training AI models. She gets the work through Mercor, a company that hires subject-matter experts to train artificial intelligence systems. She often spends hours staring at the walls of her home office, dreaming up legal problems that machines can’t easily solve, at least not yet. One week, she’s inventing a lawsuit over oil and gas trading; the next, she’s writing an asylum case. She prompts the model and then reviews its responses. Lawyers have been told AI is coming for some of their work. Before that can happen, though, many are getting paid to teach it.” Read more here .
#3 “Trump Seizes on Democratic Push to Expand Supreme Court, End Filibuster.” From Newsweek: “ President Donald Trump warned Republicans on Friday that Democrats would eliminate the Senate filibuster and expand the Supreme Court if they regain power, arguing in a Truth Social post that the GOP should act first or risk losing future elections. While Trump has made similar arguments before, his latest post cited a recently introduced Democratic resolution calling for an end to the filibuster and structural changes to the Supreme Court as evidence that such proposals remain a priority for many Democrats.” Read more here .
#4 “In Clifford Chance Pay Dispute, a Rare Look Inside a Law Firm Partnership Agreement.” From Reuters: “How much financial pain can a law firm inflict on a partner who jumps to a competitor? A new lawsuit filed this week by two former Clifford Chance partners is bringing that question to the fore. The complaint and exhibits, filed in federal court in New York, lay out in compelling detail what Cliff Cone and Michael Sabin say happened earlier this year when they told Clifford Chance management they were leaving for Sidley Austin.” Read more here .
#5 “A Michigan Judge Says Book Sales Don’t Count as Reportable Income. A Legal Expert Says Otherwise.” From Michigan Advance: “Over his more than a decade on the Michigan Court of Appeals, Judge Mark Boonstra has authored three books, sold them through Amazon, and wrote commentary on his personal Substack account that comes with a suggested $80 annual subscription pledge. Financial reports filed annually with the State Court Administrative Office show Boonstra has not reported income from those activities. … Sam Bagenstos , a law professor at the University of Michigan and former Democratic candidate for Michigan Supreme Court, said that … [under the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct] Boonstra’s books would constitute reportable writing activity.” Read more here .
#6 “2nd Circuit Judge Previously Dinged for ‘Overly Harsh’ Work Environment Disciplined Again.” From the ABA Journal: “An appeals court judge has been disciplined for creating a ‘culture of fear’ among her clerks, three years after being sanctioned for similar claims, according to Above the Law. Judge Sarah Merriam of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York agreed to meet with other judges to advise on best practices for chambers management, participate in management training, and have her court’s workplace relations director meet more frequently with her clerks, according to an order made public last month and covered by Reuters. The action stems from a December complaint filed by the Legal Accountability Project, which advocates on behalf of clerks. Merriam in 2023 had pledged to improve workplace conditions after a complaint of an ‘overly harsh’ management style.” Read more here .
#7 “Model Rules Changes Aim to Help Avoid Ableism When Representing Clients With Disabilities.” From the ABA Journal: “[T]here’s been a push in recent years to shift to a more nuanced understanding of mental ability and strengthen clients’ rights to make decisions for themselves as much as possible, legal experts say. Language changes for ABA Model Rule 1.14, which provides guidance for representing clients who have challenges making reasoned decisions, was approved by the House of Delegates during the midyear meeting in February. The revision modernized the language and gives more specific guidance. The changes shift the focus toward helping lawyers find ways to work with their clients in the decision-making process and away from inadvertently encouraging more restrictive moves, such as formal proceedings for guardianship or conservatorship, says Robert Dinerstein , a former chair of the ABA Commission on Disability Rights and professor emeritus at American University Washington College of Law.” Read more here .
#8 “Thousands of Immigrants Got Scammed By an Attorney Exploiting Humanitarian Visas, Lawsuits Say.” From The Washington Post: “An attorney in Washington state promised ‘miracles’ to tens of thousands of immigrants seeking legal status in the United States. Instead, Alexandra Lozano created fake stories of domestic abuse and human trafficking to apply for humanitarian visas without her clients’ knowledge, according to several lawsuits and a legal ethics investigation. They say she preyed on immigrants’ desperation to drain their bank accounts while leaving them at risk of deportation.” Read more here (gift link).
#9 “Why Ethical Listening Is a New Lawyer’s Secret Superpower.” From Prager Metis: “You may, as a young lawyer, spend a lot of time worrying about the Model Rules—competence, diligence, confidentiality, the usual greatest hits. But one risk area often escapes notice because it feels . . . soft. Squishy. More like something you’d see in a wellness webinar than in an ethics CLE. That secret risk? Not listening. Poor listening is responsible for a surprising percentage of accidental ethics issues.” Read more here .
#10 “University of Kentucky’s Board of Trustees Changes Rules After Controversial Law Dean Pick.” From the ABA Journal: “After the University of Kentucky’s appointment of a Kentucky federal judge as the dean of its J. David Rosenberg College of Law, the university’s board of trustees voted Tuesday to change a policy that restores its authority to appoint deans. It follows the concerns of faculty and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear , a Democrat, about the qualifications of U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove of the Eastern District of Kentucky , who will retire from the bench later this month to become the law school’s dean.” Read more here .
Recommended Reading
Need a beach read? Revisit the LER Annual Summer Legal Ethics Reading List . And summarized below are a few law review articles hot off the press that recently caught my eye.
“Good Intentions, Mixed Messages: Considering Mental Health in Attorney Discipline” by Sarah Schendel ( Suffolk ). From the abstract:
The legal profession urges struggling lawyers to seek help—but what happens when those same lawyers become the subject of discipline? As mental health challenges among lawyers become more widely acknowledged and understood, the disciplinary systems that govern the profession remain uneven and opaque in their treatment of mental health as a mitigating factor. This Article presents the first comprehensive review of over a decade of disciplinary decisions and admonitions in Massachusetts, focusing on how mental health is considered during sanctioning and whether current standards meaningfully reflect the profession’s stated commitments to fairness, public protection, and attorney well-being. The analysis reveals that mental health mitigation is marked by deep ambiguity and inconsistent application. … These inconsistent and unclear standards also pose challenges for disciplinary bodies. … The Article concludes by exploring possible reforms aimed at building a more just and coherent system—one that clarifies evidentiary expectations, recognizes the realities of chronic and episodic conditions, and better integrates the expertise of medical and mental health professionals. If the profession genuinely seeks to promote lawyer well-being, its regulatory structures must reflect that commitment—not just in rhetoric, but in rules. At a time when the profession urges lawyers to seek help, our regulatory systems must be evaluated to ensure they do not punish those who do. Download from SSRN here.
The legal profession urges struggling lawyers to seek help—but what happens when those same lawyers become the subject of discipline? As mental health challenges among lawyers become more widely acknowledged and understood, the disciplinary systems that govern the profession remain uneven and opaque in their treatment of mental health as a mitigating factor. This Article presents the first comprehensive review of over a decade of disciplinary decisions and admonitions in Massachusetts, focusing on how mental health is considered during sanctioning and whether current standards meaningfully reflect the profession’s stated commitments to fairness, public protection, and attorney well-being. The analysis reveals that mental health mitigation is marked by deep ambiguity and inconsistent application. … These inconsistent and unclear standards also pose challenges for disciplinary bodies. … The Article concludes by exploring possible reforms aimed at building a more just and coherent system—one that clarifies evidentiary expectations, recognizes the realities of chronic and episodic conditions, and better integrates the expertise of medical and mental health professionals. If the profession genuinely seeks to promote lawyer well-being, its regulatory structures must reflect that commitment—not just in rhetoric, but in rules. At a time when the profession urges lawyers to seek help, our regulatory systems must be evaluated to ensure they do not punish those who do.
“Stacking the Deck” by Tracey E. George (Vanderbilt), Andrew Yoon (Toronto), and Mitu Gulati (Virginia). From the abstract:
A federal judicial clerkship is a government-funded Golden Ticket that opens doors otherwise closed to most. This ticket grants entry to a one-year apprenticeship-an exclusive glimpse behind the judiciary’s gates that functions as a mentorship-rich fourth year of law school. Historically, a second passage through those gates was exceedingly rare, typically reserved for those en route to the Supreme Court. That norm has fractured. Increasingly, graduates make repeated passes through the gates, taking two, three, or even four clerkships in succession-a practice now known as “stacking.” Each additional passage comes at a cost: it reduces the number of clerkship opportunities available to others and delays the clerk’s entry into the legal profession. Drawing on roughly 130 interviews with judges, we examine both the rise of stacking and the forces driving it. Our central argument is that stacking is not an irrational pathology but a rational market response to a structural information failure-and that well-intentioned reform efforts have, perversely, made the problem worse. Judges agree that certain forms of stacking are troubling. Yet few see ready solutions. The problem, as they describe it, is not a lack of awareness but a structure of incentives that makes restraint individually irrational, even if the collective outcome is seen as suboptimal. This Essay diagnoses those structural failures and evaluates the most promising paths forward. Download from SSRN here.
A federal judicial clerkship is a government-funded Golden Ticket that opens doors otherwise closed to most. This ticket grants entry to a one-year apprenticeship-an exclusive glimpse behind the judiciary’s gates that functions as a mentorship-rich fourth year of law school. Historically, a second passage through those gates was exceedingly rare, typically reserved for those en route to the Supreme Court. That norm has fractured. Increasingly, graduates make repeated passes through the gates, taking two, three, or even four clerkships in succession-a practice now known as “stacking.” Each additional passage comes at a cost: it reduces the number of clerkship opportunities available to others and delays the clerk’s entry into the legal profession. Drawing on roughly 130 interviews with judges, we examine both the rise of stacking and the forces driving it. Our central argument is that stacking is not an irrational pathology but a rational market response to a structural information failure-and that well-intentioned reform efforts have, perversely, made the problem worse. Judges agree that certain forms of stacking are troubling. Yet few see ready solutions. The problem, as they describe it, is not a lack of awareness but a structure of incentives that makes restraint individually irrational, even if the collective outcome is seen as suboptimal. This Essay diagnoses those structural failures and evaluates the most promising paths forward.
“A Trusteeship Theory of Pro Bono: Versions and Perversions” by David Luban (Georgetown). From the abstract:
This chapter develops a trusteeship justification of pro bono, arguing that lawyers, as trustees of a public legal system created through democratic self-authorship, have a moral obligation to help address the persistent justice gap affecting persons of limited means. It evaluates multiple forms of pro bono—including voluntary, mandatory, low bono, and state-compelled service—evaluating how well each aligns with the trusteeship model. The chapter contrasts the trusteeship theory with, and criticizes, two alternative justifications for pro bono: presumed lawyer consent rooted in professional tradition and a quid pro quo based on state-authorized privileges. It concludes by distinguishing legitimate pro bono from coercive political uses, focusing on the “pro bono” offered to U.S. President Trump in the face of threatened sanctions. The latter undermines the rule of law and constitutes a perversion, not a version, of legitimate pro bono. Download from SSRN here.
This chapter develops a trusteeship justification of pro bono, arguing that lawyers, as trustees of a public legal system created through democratic self-authorship, have a moral obligation to help address the persistent justice gap affecting persons of limited means. It evaluates multiple forms of pro bono—including voluntary, mandatory, low bono, and state-compelled service—evaluating how well each aligns with the trusteeship model. The chapter contrasts the trusteeship theory with, and criticizes, two alternative justifications for pro bono: presumed lawyer consent rooted in professional tradition and a quid pro quo based on state-authorized privileges. It concludes by distinguishing legitimate pro bono from coercive political uses, focusing on the “pro bono” offered to U.S. President Trump in the face of threatened sanctions. The latter undermines the rule of law and constitutes a perversion, not a version, of legitimate pro bono.
Legal Ethics Trivia 里
From the Texas Center for Legal Ethics, here’s the question of the month: “How much do you know about legal ethics and appearance lawyers?” Test yourself at this website where you can read a short hypothetical, select an answer, and see your results. So far, 83% of takers have gotten it right. Will you?
Get Hired
Did you miss the 500+ job postings from previous weeks? Find them all here .
Associate Attorney – Litigation & Legal Ethics, Liff, Walsh & Simmons — Annapolis, MD. From the posting: “As a full-time Attorney at Liff, Walsh & Simmons, you will play a pivotal role in providing high-quality legal counsel on a wide range of matters as well as supporting various aspects of legal research, document preparation, and case management. The ideal candidate should have a strong desire to build a book of business and be eager to learn and grow. … Examples of Transactions We Work On: Represent attorneys in disciplinary proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and advise clients on a broad array of legal ethics issues.” Salary range is $100,000 – $140,000. Learn more and apply here .
Associate General Counsel, Employment Law & Ethics, National Geographic — Washington DC. From the posting: “Act as the lead for the Legal & Business Affairs Department on ethical allegation matters, including with respect to ethical issues relating to NGS Explorers. Will be a collaborative, strategic and solutions-oriented advisor to numerous business clients regarding how these subjects influence NGS’s business strategy. … Responsible for development, adjustment, training, compliance and enforcement of NGS Code of Ethics. Educate managers and staff on Code of Ethics and other training programs. Review, respond and resolve ethical concerns raised by Society employees and third parties.” Salary range is $209,000.00 – $220,000.00. Learn more and apply here .
Remote Conflicts Attorney – Ethics, Risk & Due Diligence, Nixon Peabody LLP — Chicago. From the posting: “Responsible for identifying and resolving potential legal conflicts. This role includes ensuring compliance with firm policies and procedures while reporting to the Associate General Counsel.” Learn more and apply here .
Research Engineer, Rule of Law, Anthropic— San Francisco. From the posting: “Increasingly powerful AI systems will challenge societal functions at all levels. Anthropic has done pioneering work examining the economic impacts of AI; the Rule of Law Team takes an analogous approach to a different question: how will AI impact our constitutional democratic institutions? We ask how AI might put pressure on democracy and the rule of law, and we seek out ways of protecting democratic freedoms, both in the short and long term, and through strategies aimed at technology as well as policy. As a Research Engineer on the Rule of Law team, you’ll conduct technical and sociotechnical research at the intersection of AI and democratic institutions. Your work will span safety evaluations, model improvement, institutional analysis, and the development of novel applications of AI to support civic life and efficient and accountable government. The work will directly contribute to our research publications, policy work, safety systems, and products.” Salary range $320,000 – $485,000. Learn more and apply here .
Senior Ethics Counsel & Designated Agency Ethics Official, National Labor Relations Board — Washington, DC. From the posting: “You will provide legal counsel on federal ethics laws and oversee the agency’s ethics program, ensuring compliance and conducting training. The ideal candidate will be a licensed attorney with a Juris Doctor, substantial experience in government ethics, and strong leadership skills..” Learn more and apply here .
Upcoming Ethics Events & Other Announcements ️
July 16, 1PM Eastern. Legal Ethics in the World of Artificial Intelligence, Wilson Elser. From the announcement: “This presentation will examine how attorney regulation has evolved over time and the steps being considered regarding policing attorney use of AI. It will touch on relevant model rules and ethical opinions concerning technology, as well as the rules being adopted by the courts regarding AI use.” Learn more and register here .
July 30-August 1. Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Annual Meeting, Chicago. Learn more here . I’ll be there – please say hello!
September 8. The Law School of the Future, University of Westminster Law School, London. From the call for papers: The Centre for Legal Education and the Legal Profession, Westminster Law School, University of Westminster, is delighted to announce its second annual free one-day hybrid symposium. At a time of significant change and challenge across higher education and the legal sector, this symposium provides an important opportunity for legal educators, academics, legal professionals, and sector stakeholders to come together as a community to reflect on and help shape the future of legal education and the development of the next generation of lawyers. Reflecting this year’s themes, the symposium will explore key issues shaping contemporary legal education, including curriculum development and innovation; the opportunities and challenges presented by legal technology, AI, and digital transformation; student engagement; assessment and feedback; employability; widening participation; wellbeing; and the development of the ‘human lawyer’ — focusing on the interpersonal, ethical, reflective, and professional skills that remain central to legal practice in a changing world.” Deadline for submitting a proposal is July 27. Learn more here .
October 15-16. Complex Litigation Ethics Conference, UC Law San Francisco. The conference is the fourth annual event addressing Complex Litigation Ethics. It will bring together luminaries in the field—judges, scholars, lawyers, and others—to discuss a cutting-edge topic that is of critical importance to our justice system. Learn more here .
December 9-11. International Legal Ethics Conference, National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law. Learn more here . I’ll be there – please say hello!
Keep in Touch
Do you have colleagues who care about legal ethics? Please share the Roundup with them. I’d love to see our community continue to grow!
News tips? Announcements? Events? A job to post? Reading recommendations? Email [email protected] – but be sure to subscribe first, otherwise the email won’t be delivered.
Renee Knake Jefferson holds the endowed Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics and is a Professor of Law at the University of Houston. Check out more of her writing at the Legal Ethics Roundup . Find her on X (formerly Twitter) at @reneeknake or Bluesky at legalethics.bsky.social .
Topics:
More from Above the Law
From the Above the Law Network