7 Predictions For The Legal World In 2026

SCOTUS retirements, $10 million in profits per partner, Trump v. Biglaw, Kirkland v. Wachtell—whatever it ends up being, the year ahead won’t be boring.

(Image generated with ChatGPT by OpenAI.)

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.

A version of this article originally appeared on Bloomberg Law, part of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc. (800-372-1033), and is reproduced here with permission.

---

Happy new year. I hope your 2026 is off to an excellent start.

Of the more than 20 years I’ve been writing about law and the legal profession, 2025 was one of the busiest. My two main beats are Biglaw and the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, and both were extremely active last year—thanks in large part to actions taken by Donald Trump and his administration, many of which generated litigation.

What does the new year have in store for lawyers and the legal world? Here are my predictions.

1. The Trump administration’s targeting of large law firms is (probably) over.

When Trump started issuing executive orders against law firms last March, I was shocked. As a journalist covering the business of law, I’m obsessed with Biglaw. But I never imagined that law firms would make it onto the radar of the president, to the point where they would become his targets.

After nine firms reached swift settlements to avoid getting hit with executive orders, I expected the administration to start targeting—and cutting deals with—much of the Am Law 100. But that hasn’t happened; instead, Trump has turned his attention to other things. My guess is he’s gotten what he wanted: he’s successfully intimidated Biglaw into not taking on his administration in court.

2. Trump will lose the law firm executive-order cases in the D.C. Circuit.

Four firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale—challenged the executive orders against them in court. All four firms prevailed, with judges from across the ideological spectrum—two Democratic appointees, two Republican appointees—holding the orders unconstitutional.

The administration appealed its defeats to the D.C. Circuit, where I predict it will lose yet again. Democratic appointees outnumber Republican ones on the court, 7–⁠4—but beyond that, even a Republican-appointed judge would have a hard time coming up with a convincing rationale for upholding the orders.

Judge Richard Leon (D.D.C.), a George W. Bush appointee, is a conservative jurist. But as he wrote when invalidating the order against WilmerHale, “to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!” (Exclamation point in the original.)

3. The Supreme Court will decline to take any of the executive-order cases.

If the Trump administration loses in the D.C. Circuit and appeals to the Supreme Court, I’m guessing the justices won’t take any of these cases. There won’t be a circuit split, the outcome is squarely controlled by existing constitutional law, a majority of the justices will agree with the lower courts, and there’s no reason to antagonize Trump unnecessarily (especially if he’s done issuing such orders, making this issue irrelevant as a practical matter).

4. The Court will start ruling against the Trump administration more—on its merits docket.

On the Supreme Court’s emergency docket—or “interim docket,” to use Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s preferred term—the Trump administration has won almost all of its cases. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson complained in a dissent last August, it appears that on the interim docket, “this Administration always wins.”

A key feature to keep in mind about the interim docket, however, is that the Trump administration gets to pick the cases in which it seeks interim relief. Unsurprisingly, it picks cases where it views its chances of prevailing as strong, so a high win rate should be expected. (Note that the administration didn’t seek interim relief in any of the Biglaw executive-order cases.)

But now, one year into Trump’s second term, cases against the administration are coming (or coming back) to the Court as merits cases—and in a number of them, the administration could lose. Possible defeats for Trump could come in cases involving tariffs, birthright citizenship, and his attempt to remove Lisa Cook as a governor of the Federal Reserve Board. (As a technical matter, Trump v. Cook is before the Court on the government’s application for interim relief—but the justices have the benefit of full briefing and are hearing oral argument, as they would for a merits case.)

5. No justices will retire in 2026.

Ever since Trump won the 2024 election, conservatives have been predicting (or hoping) that Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Samuel Alito will step down, allowing Trump to appoint an equally conservative but much younger successor. But both justices remain healthy, active, and deeply engaged with their work.

Justice Thomas, a staunch conservative and originalist, waited more than three decades for a Court that thinks as he does—and now he has it, to a significant extent. At the peak of his influence, why would he want to leave?

And at ages 77 (for Justice Thomas) and 75 (for Justice Alito), they’re still shy of the ages that justices have retired at in recent years. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy served until they were 83 and 82, respectively; Justices Thomas and Alito could serve until the end of Trump’s term and still be shy of these ages. And here’s a bonus prize for Justice Thomas: if he sticks around until the middle of 2028 or so, he will replace Justice William O. Douglas as the longest-serving SCOTUS justice (which the conservative Justice Thomas might enjoy, considering that Justice Douglas was one of the most liberal justices in history).

6. Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton will be the first firms to break the $10 million mark in profits per equity partner.

Turning to Biglaw, I’m expecting to see mixed results when The American Lawyer releases its 2025 financial reports for law firms. But last year was record-setting for M&A, especially deals involving public companies—and I’m expecting it will be record-setting for top M&A firms.

In 2024, the top two firms in profits per equity partner, Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton, enjoyed PPEP of $9.253 and $9.036 million, respectively. In 2025, Kirkland and Wachtell were #2 and #3 in the M&A league tables, guiding deals worth $743 billion and $621 billion, respectively—significantly higher than their 2024 totals of $427 billion and $228 billion. Given their dramatically higher deal flow in 2025, it would actually be surprising if Kirkland and Wachtell failed to surpass the $10 million mark in PPEP. (The #1 firm in the 2025 league tables was Latham & Watkins—but historically it hasn’t been as profitable as Kirkland or Wachtell, with PPEP of $7.135 million in 2024.)

The firm with the third-highest profits per equity partner in 2024, Quinn Emanuel, recently revealed that it broke the $9 million mark in 2025, after growing its PPEP by four percent. And Quinn Emanuel is a litigation shop; I’m guessing that Kirkland and Wachtell, as M&A-focused firms, posted even bigger PPEP increases last year.

7. Wachtell will reclaim its #1 spot in PPEP from Kirkland.

Wachtell has been the #1 firm in profits per partner for 22 out of the past 25 years. In the 2025 rankings, based on 2024 financial performance, Kirkland edged out Wachtell. But in the 2026 rankings, based on 2025 financial performance, I expect Wachtell to retake its crown.

Yes, Kirkland advised on deals with a higher aggregate value than Wachtell did. But remember that profits per equity partner is a fraction—and Kirkland, with more than 500 equity partners, has a much larger denominator than Wachtell, with fewer than 100 equity partners.

Kirkland also went on a litigation hiring spree in 2025, adding more than 140 lateral hires to its litigation group. That could—and probably will, given Kirkland’s track record—end up being a winning business strategy over the long term.

But bringing in lateral partners, who often have to be lured away from their current firms with large guarantees, can be expensive in the short term. So I wouldn’t be surprised if all this hiring exerts a dilutive effect on Kirkland’s PPEP for 2025, allowing Wachtell to pull ahead.

These are just some of my calls for 2026; what are yours? I’m making this a Notice and Comment post, i.e., opening up the comments section to everyone (not just paid subscribers). So please post your predictions, and maybe I’ll highlight the best ones when I look back on my own, one year from now.

I’m guessing that 2026 will be another jam-packed year for legal news. So that’s my final prediction for the year ahead: it won’t be boring.

---

Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.