But I would be remiss if I did not observe the irony of another missed opportunity to invest in our profession’s future when two of the motions originally noticed for hearing seek massive fees and costs. To be clear, GSI asks for $6,810,686.69 in attorney’s fees, $1,828,553.07 in non-taxable costs and $337,300.86 in taxable costs, while UMI asks for $6,694,562 in attorney’s fees, $648,166 in expenses and $302,579.70 in taxable costs. That a few more dollars could not be spent is disappointing to me. My disappointment, however, is unlikely to compare to the disappointment of the associates, who were deprived yet again of an opportunity to argue in court.
— Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, responding to the decision of DLA Piper and Ruyak Cherian to waive oral argument rather than allow associates to argue a handful of post-trial motions. Nothing stings like, “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.”
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
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.
(Check out the whole order on the next page.)