Key takeaways:

• • • Violence against judges is escalating 鈥� Targeted shootings, coordinated harassment campaigns, and threats that now routinely follow judges to their homes and families.

    • The rhetoric driving the escalation is coming from the highest levels of government 鈥� The absence of any public denunciation from the Department of Justice is highlighting the source of the problem.

    • Will the violence itself become part of judicial rulings? 鈥� The endgame of judicial intimidation isn’t that judges stop ruling, it’s that the threat of violence becomes a silent presence in the deliberation itself.

NEW YORK 鈥� Those attendees who came to the recent听 to talk about AI, agentic workflows, and the business of legal technology, also were treated to a session that will likely stay with attendees and had nothing to do with AI.

In that session, four federal judges took the stage; but they were not there to talk about pricing models or AI adoption. They were there to talk about staying alive.

Setting the stage

Jason Wareham, CEO of IPSA Intelligent Systems and a former U.S. Marine Corps judge advocate, introduced the session 鈥� a panel of four sitting United States District Court judges 鈥� by speaking of how the rule of law once seemed resolute, yet how that faith in that has been shaken, year after year. He worked hard to frame his observations as nonpartisan, a matter of institutional fragility rather than political allegiance. It was a generous framing, but it was one that would not survive the weight of the ensuing discussion.

The Honorable Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey said that the reason she was there has a name. On July 19, 2020, a disgruntled, extremist attorney who had a case before her court arrived at her home during a birthday celebration. He shot and killed her twenty-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. He shot and critically wounded her husband. She has spent the years since on a mission to protect her judicial colleagues from the same fate.

The new normal

Next, the Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato of the Central District of California described what has changed. Judges鈥� rulings are still based on the Constitution, on precedent, and on the facts; but what’s different is the small voice in the back of a judge’s head. That voice, often coming after a judge issued a decision that they now have to fight against, asks: What will happen after this? It is now expected, Judge Kato explained, that a high-profile order will bring threats. When two colleagues in her district issued prominent decisions, her first thought was for their safety. That is not how it has been historically.

The Honorable Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asked how we got here, pointing to language from the highest levels of government: judges called monsters, a U.S. Department of Justice declaring war on rogue judges, and recently politicians bringing justice鈥檚 families into the conversation.

Judge Salas pushed even further. She acknowledged the instinct to frame the problem as bipartisan, but said the current moment is not apples to apples. It is apples to watermelons. The spike in threats since 2015, she argued, traces directly to rhetoric from political leaders using language never before deployed against the bench.

The federal judiciary is looking to break annual records for threats [against judges], and there is an absence of any public denunciation from the Attorney General or the DOJ.

The evidence is not abstract, nor are the victims, and the panel walked through it. Judge John Roemer of Wisconsin, zip-tied to a chair and assassinated in his home. Associate Judge Andrew Wilkinson of Maryland shot dead in his driveway while his family was inside. Judge Steven Meyer of Indiana and his wife Kimberly, shot through their own front door after attackers first posed as a food delivery, then returned days later claiming to have found the couple’s dog. Judge Meyer has just undergone his fifth surgery since the attack.

All of these incidents happened at the judges’ homes.

Judge Salas then played a voicemail, one of thousands that federal judges receive. It was less than 30 seconds long, but it did not need to be longer. While names had been redacted, what remained was a torrent of threats and obscenities, graphic, sexual and violent, delivered with the confidence of someone who does not expect consequences. Some judges receive hundreds of these after a single ruling, often from people with no case before them at all.

The shadow over the courts

Throughout the session, there was a presence the panelists circled but rarely named directly. A shadow that shaped every observation about escalating threats, every reference to rhetoric from the top down, every mention of language never before used by political leaders, of action or inaction the likes of which would have been unthinkable just several years ago. The specifics were spoken. The name, largely, was not.

It didn’t have to be.

Judge Kato said that what was perhaps the most disheartening aspect of all this is that these threats are getting worse. The people who know better are not doing better. Indeed, she said her children think about these problems every day. What will happen to mom today? Will someone come to the house? These are questions children should not have to carry. They did not sign up for this, and neither did the judges.

In 2026, Judge Salas noted, the federal judiciary is looking to break annual records for threats. She also noted the absence of any public denunciation from the Attorney General or the DOJ. The silence, she said, says a lot.

Not surprisingly, the implications extend beyond the judges themselves. As Judge Salas noted, if judges have to weigh their safety alongside the law, ordinary people don’t stand a chance. If one party is stronger, better funded, or more willing to threaten, then the scales tip.

That is the endgame of judicial intimidation. It鈥檚 not that judges stop ruling, but that the violent and the powerful 鈥� indeed, the people least fit to hold the scales 鈥� can tilt them at will.

That concern echoed an earlier warning from Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Mehalchick said that judicial intimidation feeds on misunderstanding. When the public no longer grasps why judges must be insulated from pressure or conversely, mistakes independence for partisanship, the threat environment becomes easier to justify, easier to ignore, and harder to reverse.

What is perhaps the most disheartening aspect of all this is that these threats are getting worse, and the people who know better are not doing better.

In his 2024 year-end report, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts identified four threats to judicial independence: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgements. The panel discussed this report as prophecy fulfilled. Public confidence in the judiciary has plummeted since 2021, and the reasons are complex. The judges insisted they are still doing their jobs the right way, but the violence is spreading anyway.

What survives

Judge Salas asked the audience to watch their thoughts. Are they negative and destructive, or positive and uplifting? Can we start loving more? She ended by sending love and light to everyone in the room.

The judges were visibly emotional on the stage.

The words were beautiful. They were also, in the context of everything that had just been described 鈥� the killings, the voicemails, the zip ties, the pizza deliveries masking a threat under a murdered son’s name 鈥� resting in a shadow that no amount of love and light could fully dispel on their own.

The room responded with a standing ovation.

Thousands of people came to Legalweek 2026 to talk about the future of legal technology. For one morning, four judges reminded them that none of it matters if the people charged with administering justice cannot do so safely.

So, while the billable hour may survive and the associate will adapt, the harder question, the one that should keep the legal industry awake at night, is whether the bench will hold.

You can find more of听our coverage of Legalweek events听here

Key insights:

• • • The awareness crisis 鈥� Nearly half of Gen Z workers have never been exposed to local government career opportunities, which means that an entire generation enters adulthood unaware these jobs exist.

    • Values alignment paradox 鈥� Gen-Z individuals trust local governments more than other institutions, and they strongly align with public service values like making a difference and solving community problems.

    • Beyond salary solutions 鈥� Some cities are proving that targeted marketing campaigns can be successful; and connecting public sector work to meaningful impact rather than simply raising wages can attract interest.

San Francisco鈥檚 local government has been stretched to its breaking point. Mayor Daniel Lurie signed his this summer, which would eliminate 1,000 positions permanently, potentially resulting in layoffs for 140 employees. The city still grapples with a vacancy rate among its city workers that hit 13.7% two years ago, with . Residents have experienced delayed emergency responses, understaffed public hospitals, delayed city buses, and other gaps in public services.

State and local governments have sought workforce stability in the five years following the Covid-19 pandemic. Generational retirements, the so-called Great Resignation, a shrinking workforce, low unemployment rates, and heightened work environment expectations have had a dramatic impact over the last five years, leaving many states and public sector organizations trying a myriad of approaches to build and enhance their talent pipeline.

The root cause of our public sector workforce woes may surprise you. A decline in civics education in the classroom means that young people aren鈥檛 as exposed to government institutions as they once were. And many enter the workforce wholly unaware of the problems governments can solve or the career paths open to them within it.

Invisible institutions: Bridging the civics gap

Depending on your age, you may recall civics exposure as a mandatory part of your K-12 education. Civics education has been largely absorbed into the social studies curriculum, and the results are damning. Less than of one-quarter (22%) of 8th-grade students in the United States are working at a . Civics exposure and knowledge have a direct correlation to higher rates of voting and participation in civics activities, but currently, cannot name a single branch of the federal government.

Now, many states are taking matters into their own hands through legislative action, with states like requiring that all 8th graders take a civics test aligned with a year-long course on citizenship and federal and state government.

For adults already out of the K-12 system, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation piloted a geared toward employers in 2025. The Civics @ Work program addresses the unfortunate fact that an estimated 70% of Americans could not pass a basic civic literacy test. When civic awareness is low, young people enter adulthood with a limited sense of how government institutions function and what professionals are needed to keep those institutions running reliably.

Interestingly, members of the Gen-Z generation are quickly becoming the largest demographic in the workforce, but they are overwhelmingly not choosing public sector careers. Gen-Z members currently represent 18% of the US population but as of this past spring. A on civic learning and engagement found that while Gen-Z has higher rates of trust in organizations, they appear to be less likely to see themselves working there. And a McKinsey study on attracting Gen-Z talent into public service notes that this demographic is more likely than other generations to be aligned with public service values.

Rebuilding the pipeline through exposure

The city and county of Denver is no stranger to targeted public sector recruitment campaigns. The city and county have partnered with AOR, a Denver-based branding and marketing firm, in 2016 and in 2025 for public sector recruitment marketing efforts. The , for example, targets individuals in the hospitality, security, nursing, education, and coaching industries to consider a career pivot to public safety.

The 2025 city and county-wide campaign launched with AOR, , highlights career paths that many may be unaware exist within local government. Denver saw increased growth in both awareness, click-through rates on Google and LinkedIn, and an increase in job application rates.

Successful methods in this area could potentially find a wide audience, research shows. Mission Square Research Institute鈥檚 on undergraduate attitudes toward careers in public service notes that business, accounting, and finance undergraduate students had the lowest level of awareness around public sector career paths. Exposure to a public sector career path is just the beginning, however, these organizations need to connect to the issues young people care about and demonstrate that a public sector career offers meaningful work and growth opportunities.

Investing in the next generation of public servants

Mission Square鈥檚 findings noted that in 2025, undergraduate Gen-Z students are prioritizing salary, work/life balance, personal satisfaction, and job security. Those students who were surveyed perceive government salaries as negative (when compared to the private sector).

How the public sector paints the picture of a career is crucial to success and presents an opportunity for recruitment. Gen-Z, as a demographic, is highly motivated by public service values, and can relate strongly to messaging around making a difference, solving local problems, and delivering real impact. The Minnesota Citizens League report on points out that employers should consider loosening restrictive job requirements (such as degrees, years of previous experience, etc.) and instead recruit for mindset and soft skills and invest in the talent development of younger employees.

This doesn鈥檛 come without some risk, of course. Job tenure for younger workers averages 2.8 years 鈥� less than one-third of the tenure of Baby Boomers and Gen X in the workforce, according to Mission Square.

Civics education as the first step, not the final one

As San Francisco is reconciling, increasing wages can鈥檛 always be the final solution. Exposure and education around public sector opportunities are a critical first step to building a workforce pipeline. Legislative approaches taken in recent years at the state level 鈥� include for example, requiring student-led civics projects in middle and high schools; and forming a task force to study civics education, engagement, and media literacy 鈥� can certainly help, because civics education alone is likely insufficient.

Students need a formal introduction, in K-12 and beyond, to public sector opportunities, and these introductions should address the stereotypes that government is inefficient, clarify the non-political role of day-to-day operations, and highlight meaningful work, problem-solving, and personal career satisfaction.

For those governments and local organizations that are already struggling with persistent vacancies and a shrinking workforce, investing in the student pipeline is essential.

You can find out more about the challenges around talent and other issues faced by government agencies and their workers here

Key insights:

• • • Security deposit disputes are a significant issue in New York City 鈥� Half a billion dollars is locked in security deposits at any given time, and nearly 5,000 official complaints about illegally withheld deposits have been filed with the New York Attorney General since 2023. However, many cases go unreported due to the complexity and cost of pursuing justice.

    • AI-powered tool Depositron helps NYC tenants claim their security deposits 鈥� By guiding users through a simple process and generating customized, legally sound demand letters, Depositron can give tenants the easy access and means to assert their rights.

    • AI tools Like Depositron can improve scale and access to justice 鈥� Depositron’s modular architecture makes it possible to expand to other jurisdictions with similar legal frameworks, providing a scalable blueprint for addressing other legal challenges.

Security deposit disputes are a significant and persistent housing justice issue in New York City. The NYC Comptroller estimates that at any given time. With the as of April, tenants are routinely required to provide large deposits to secure housing.

Since 2023, have been filed with the New York Attorney General, according to Gothamist, but most likely, this only scratches the surface. Most cases go unreported because the time, cost, and complexity of pursuing justice are too high for most tenants.

Despite reforms like the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which mandates that landlords return deposits within 14 days and provide itemized deductions for any money withheld, enforcement remains weak and affordable pathways for recourse are slow or not available. And unfortunately for tenants, Legal Aid organizations prioritize eviction defense, not deposit recovery; and the NY AG鈥檚 complaint process is slow and opaque.

AI powered tool delivers agency at scale

To address this challenge,听, a long-time tenant advocate with more than 20 years of experience litigating housing justice cases in NYC courts, and听, CEO and founder of LawDroid (and听contributor to the 成人VR视频 Institute blog site), developed听. This free, AI-powered, mobile phone-accessible tool is available around the clock to help NYC tenants听and those in New York state听recover their security deposits quickly, legally, and without the need for a lawyer. Depositron also has plans to launch in Florida and Chicago soon.

鈥淒epositron delivers more than a legal document 鈥� it delivers agency,鈥� says Nori. Indeed, this encapsulates the tool鈥檚 core value because it empowers tenants to take action and reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

鈥淏y making legal self-advocacy accessible, Depositron fills a gap left by traditional legal services, which often cannot take on these cases due to capacity or cost constraint.鈥�

Depositron guides users through an intuitive, plain-language process to collect relevant details about their housing situation, including lease facts, deposit amount, move-out date, and landlord information. Users also can upload photos that document the apartment鈥檚 condition to strengthen their case. The tool then generates a customized, legally sound demand letter that cites New York laws and incorporates the user鈥檚 evidence. This process not only educates tenants about their rights but also gives them a practical, actionable way to assert those rights without facing the intimidation or expense of seeking traditional legal help.

Not surprisingly, AI is at the core of Depositron鈥檚 effectiveness. Unlike generic form generators, Depositron takes a hybrid approach, combining advanced large language models and structured prompts, together with conditional logic, to answer basic legal questions and capture the unique facts of each dispute and then translate them into a persuasive, legally grounded narrative.

This customized approach simulates the client interview and legal writing process and makes it possible to help thousands of tenants efficiently. Early testing with law students, tenant advocates, and pro se renters demonstrated success. In fact, users reported that Depositron made them feel more confident, informed, and in control because many recovered their deposits faster than they would have through conventional means.

鈥淏y making legal self-advocacy accessible, Depositron fills a gap left by traditional legal services, which often cannot take on these cases due to capacity or cost constraints,鈥� Nori explains. This is a crucial differentiator for Depositron because legal aid organizations and private attorneys are rarely able to assist with disputes over relatively small sums of money.

Poised for expansion in policy and geography

By enabling tenants to send professional, well-researched demand letters at scale, the platform changes the risk calculation for landlords. As more tenants assert their rights with credible legal documents, landlords are incentivized to comply with the law rather than risk penalties or further legal action.

The tool also contributes to systemic change by collecting anonymized data on violation patterns, which can be shared with advocates and enforcement agencies. This data-driven approach enables targeted interventions and supports broader policy efforts to improve housing justice.

By enabling tenants to send professional, well-researched demand letters at scale, the platform changes the risk calculation for landlords.

In addition, Depositron鈥檚 modular architecture is designed for expansion to other jurisdictions with similar legal frameworks, such as California, Illinois, and Massachusetts. The technology also can be partnered with local legal aid organizations to accelerate adoption and impact in new markets. Nori and Martin say they have already heard from advocates in Michigan, Maryland, Washington, Tennessee, California, and Washington DC about building platforms in those markets.

Further, the path taken in Depositron鈥檚 development can offer lessons for the development of future access-to-justice tools. For example, user empowerment and autonomy are essential, and intuitive design is as important as legal accuracy, Nori and Martin discovered. More specifically, targeted solutions for discrete problems can drive meaningful changes, and AI can serve as both the engine and the interface for delivering legal services at scale.

Depositron demonstrates that technology can bridge longstanding gaps in legal access by making protections both real and actionable for everyone, not just those who can afford traditional representation. By transforming a process that traditionally had taken longer than a year to one that can be resolved in a matter of weeks, Depositron restores agency and financial stability to tenants and provides a scalable blueprint for addressing other access-to-justice challenges in the digital age.

You can find out more about how justice tech solutions and tools are working to improve citizens鈥� access to justice here

Key findings:

• • • Skepticism and barriers to tech adoption plague courts 鈥� Despite the potential efficiencies offered by GenAI and other innovative technologies, many court professionals and agencies remain skeptical or pessimistic about their adoption.

    • Budget, bureaucracy & culture also impede progress 鈥� Courts face significant financial constraints, bureaucratic approval processes, and a cultural reluctance to change, which collectively slow the adoption of new technologies.

    • Workforce shortages undermine access to justice 鈥� Severe shortages of court reporters, judges, and prosecutors also are causing backlogs and undermining access to justice, particularly for low-income and self-represented litigants.

Courts and government legal agencies at the federal, state, and local levels continue to face budget constraints and challenges in attracting and retaining talent, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2025 Government Legal Department Report, which also found that court staff and legal professionals strongly desire to spend less time on administrative tasks and more time researching increasingly complex issues and practicing law.

The implementation of generative AI (GenAI) and other innovative technology tools could help these professionals find more efficiencies within their short-staffed teams 鈥� yet there are many hurdles to implantation, the report found. Despite the opportunity technology could hold, 36% of court and legal professionals surveyed describe their agency’s attitude toward GenAI as pessimistic or apocalyptic. More than half of these respondents say their organizations have no plans to use GenAI technology in the future; and more than 40% say their organizations lack a plan on how to manage, adopt, and implement innovative GenAI-driven technology.

Further, there are many factors that could be contributing to this skepticism and technological resistance, the report found.

Status of tech implementation in courts & agencies

The report showed that while about 40% of respondents say their agencies saw technology investment increase over the last two years, more than two-thirds describe their public sector technology as inferior to private sector technology and systems. And in the agencies in which tech systems are in place or planned for adoption, they are most likely for use in document management, matter management, and public records Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

In fact, more than half of the respondents surveyed say their agencies have no plans to install third-party software tools that incorporate GenAI, professional packages that incorporate GenAI, or open-source AI tools.

A potential contributing factor to the hesitancy to digitize and implement cloud-based technology is the threat of cyber-attacks. For example, , experienced a ransomware attack in May that affected its sheriff鈥檚 office, circuit clerk, and county courthouse. Fortunately, their planning and resilience efforts allowed for continuity even as the departments were forced offline.

Another example is the Kansas Judicial Branch and the it experienced in October 2023, which forced all but one county鈥檚 court systems offline and exposed the personal data of more than 150,000 individuals. The crippled e-court systems for more than three months, and addressing the backlog of paper filings from that period took seven months to work through following the initial attack.

Cultural resistance & financial barriers to tech change

In addition to this hesitancy, the legal sector as a whole has had to reconcile the impact of AI technology. Any task that can be partially or fully automated through AI technology still holds value, even if the time of completion is minuscule. And for lawyers who may represent litigants in court, finding this value proposition can be daunting.

Legal professionals can automate drafting, document review, and significantly reduce their administrative time, which is a benefit to their departments. However, the upfront costs associated with technology for those same departments can be a big hurdle to overcome.

Even if the desire for technological implementation is in place within a court system, budget and cost and the bureaucratic approval process are the biggest barriers to adoption. Public sector procurement is historically structured around long-term contracts, and a preference is given for the lowest cost choice, which can limit flexibility.

Gone are the days of a one-time lump-sum investment in innovative technology. Indeed, the entire Gov/Tech industry is rapidly shifting in the direction of cloud-based solutions and SaaS (software as a service) models 鈥� with cloud vendors seeing a 10% increase in SaaS subscription models. However, government agencies 鈥� which are traditionally high-value, slow-moving, but secure customers 鈥� are effectively discouraged from transitioning or experimenting with newer tools by their contract terms.

There are many factors that could be contributing to this skepticism and technological resistance, the report found.

Yet, some are finding a way. Orange County Superior Court, California, is an outlier in its levels of data fluency, strategic innovation adoption, and measured success in driving operational efficiency.

, former Chief Financial and Administrative Officer for the Superior Court, says the court鈥檚 strategy was to first invest in its people (via training programs and building data fluency through a data academy); followed by process (building a data culture and identifying the court鈥檚 core problems); with technology implementation last. By focusing on low-risk, high-impact problems first, buy-in was built over time, Dang explains.

This aligns with the National Association of Court Management’s 鈥� it begins with the capacity (and data analytics) to measure performance, and from there, moves to the ability to define problems through the data, and finally, to seek solutions.

Effective organizations should ask themselves: 鈥淲hat problem am I solving?鈥� rather than 鈥淗ow can we best use AI?鈥� Indeed, AI should be used to solve real problems that are currently hindering court performance, rather than using it just because the technology is new and available.

As the Government Legal Department Report showed, the path to AI adoption in courts and government legal agencies is blocked by structural, cultural, and statutory resistance. However, by starting with a clear identification of the problems these organizations face, and creating room for ethical and strategic innovation, GenAI could become a more pragmatic solution for courts and government legal agencies rather than a hypothetical one.

You can download a copy of the 2025 Government Legal Department Report here

Key insights:

• • • Coordinated investigations boost detection 鈥� The recent operation formed a fusion center in which data was shared and compared, enabling earlier and more effective identification of fraudulent patterns.

    • Advanced analytics uncover complex schemes听鈥� Fraudsters allegedly used hundreds of shell companies to mask illicit activities, complicating detection, but analytics platforms leveraging third-party data help identify anomalies.

    • Multi-entity collaboration is essential 鈥� Broader cooperation and data sharing across entities increase the likelihood of timely detection and enforcement actions.

State and federal prosecutors recently charged more than 320 people for $14.6 billion in false claims in what is described as the largest coordinated takedown of healthcare fraud schemes in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The key word here is coordinated. Traditionally, Medicare, Medicaid, private insurers, and other organizations have tended to investigate fraud in isolation. Each agency or carrier worked its own pipeline 鈥� reviewing claims, generating leads, and pursuing cases on its own.

Fraudsters, meanwhile, are more equal opportunity exploiters, often spreading their tentacles across numerous targets. This not only increases their total potential illicit gains, but it also reduces their detectable footprint within any single target. In schemes that sprawl across multiple targeted entities, even if the fraudulent activity is discovered, each target only sees a slice of the total picture.

This recent operation completely flipped that script. The organizations that were targeted for fraud formed a fusion center that shared and compared data. While each individual organization carries its own unique vulnerabilities, the more data that’s shared between more parties, the more likely that patterns can be identified or that perpetrators will hit a trip wire somewhere along the way in one of the targeted organizations and be detected.

The goal of such coordination is to spot fraud as early as possible, before it has a chance to permeate more deeply into each affected organization. Even with coordination, the challenge remains to detect sophisticated fraud before it balloons into multi-billion-dollar losses. The $14.6 billion figure likely reflects activity that went undiscovered for years.

Early detection is key

In many of these types of fraud schemes, there are massive numbers of dots to connect and threads to follow. In this recent takedown, fraudsters had allegedly set up hundreds of shell companies to mask their illicit transactions, which intentionally made it difficult to trace the fraud back through the shadow businesses to the individual perpetrators.

Advanced analytics platforms that leverage third-party data can help spot these suspicious patterns. And the more entities and more data that these platforms have to work with, the greater their ability to spot anomalies through analysis, such as:

• • • Risk scoring 鈥� Assigning fraud-specific risk ratings based on abnormal billing patterns, outlier service volumes and geographic spikes
    • Entity resolution 鈥� Linking providers, clinicians, and business owners to spot potential shell companies
    • Ownership mapping 鈥� Uncovering hidden relationships among entities registered in different states or countries

Yet, even with advanced analytics and other data sources, detecting fraud and piecing together the multitude of disparate leads that could potentially point back to the perpetrators is a daunting task. Further, the government agencies and private insurers involved both make extensive use of contractors, which, on the one hand, can add another layer of complexity, but at the same time, these contractor networks can also provide additional resources and data for spotting fraudulent patterns.

As the recent takedown demonstrates, it鈥檚 difficult for any single entity to handle this by themselves. For example, the alleged fraudsters in the recent takedown reportedly used entities spread across multiple countries. So, the wider the net is cast, the more likely it is to get better, faster results that can lead to enforcement actions.

Coordinating learnings to assist prevention

While it鈥檚 vital to analyze cases after they鈥檙e successfully concluded to better identify and correct weaknesses and vulnerabilities and to prevent fraud from recurring, it鈥檚 equally important for agencies and organizations to find out what went right and share best practices.

While one organization may fall victim to a fraud scheme, another organization may find that they managed to partially or completely deter the same scheme. By comparing notes along with data, organizations can see which policies, procedures, or technology solutions specifically either enabled or deterred the fraud.

Then, policies and procedures can be reshaped based on what other agencies or carriers are learning in real time as they deal with fraudsters. When organizations share datasets, a suspicious provider or transaction that is flagged by one organization can immediately trigger alerts across the coordinated agencies and carriers. Even if organizations have dissimilar systems or datasets, they can share best practices and adopt similar data taxonomies to make sharing of data easier.

Even if an organization isn鈥檛 part of a multi-agency task force, the principle holds: The more you break down silos 鈥� between departments, between payers, and between public and private sectors 鈥� the faster organizations will be able to spot patterns that might otherwise get missed, enabling earlier detection and faster action.

The extent and breadth of the recent takedown 鈥� from bogus wound-care supplies to illegal pill mills, fraudulent catheter claims, and more totaling billions of dollars 鈥� underscores how fraudsters will seek to exploit every vulnerability and loophole they can find. At the same time, the successfully coordinated crackdown demonstrates how collaboration, data sharing, and the right technologies can help organizations and agencies turn the tide.

You can find out more about the ongoing fight against medical fraud here

Key points:

• • • Efficiency & cost savings 鈥擠OGE aims to enhance the efficiency of federal government operations and achieve cost savings by identifying and addressing instances of waste, fraud, and abuse.

    • Modernization & technology 鈥� DOGE employs advanced technologies and software solutions to improve the operations of federal government agencies, which it says will help in auditing benefits and streamlining processes.

    • Impact on government agencies 鈥� DOGE’s initiatives may lead to the restructuring of various federal agencies, including potential adjustments to their operational scope and staffing levels.听

The relationship between citizens and their government, both on a federal and state, level involves a basic transaction that underpins modern democratic governance: taxes for services. Citizens contribute a portion of their income, and in return, the government provides essential services, such as infrastructure like roads, access to public safety agencies (for example, police, fire, and emergency medical services), and social safety nets.

Yet today, the evolving relationship between citizens and their government has sparked innovative approaches to efficiency and accountability in public administration. The activities of the Trump administration鈥檚 Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), both at federal and state levels, represents a bold experiment in restructuring how government delivers services while managing taxpayer resources.

As the government’s responsibilities extend beyond fundamental functions, its need for revenue likewise increases. The expansion of services necessitates higher taxes to support them, resulting in a complex balance between public provision and private contribution that characterizes our social contract. In the United States, the government employs various departments and a bureaucratic system to deliver essential services to all US citizens.

From a political perspective, there are individuals who prioritize higher taxes in exchange for improved social services, while others advocate for reduced taxes regardless of the consequences. This raises the critical issue of finding a balance between these two positions. And for some, the solution lies paradoxically in expanding governmental oversight with the objective of limiting its own scope. The US is facing such an impasse at the changing of the guard from the Biden administration to the second Trump administration.

It may be useful to examine how this latest efficiency focus, on both a federal and state level, is playing out as DOGE continues to have a heavy impact on how government services are paid for and allocated.

Federal DOGE

At the federal level, DOGE, although not an official government department, was established under the on January 20, by President Trump. It was created with the objective of enhancing efficiency within the federal government through the implementation of advanced technologies and modernization of operations. Its primary responsibilities encompass improving governmental processes and evaluating the possibilities for restructuring or consolidating federal agencies.

The establishment and implementation of DOGE involves differing opinions as there are individuals responsible for both the fiscal adjustments and the tax changes. Not surprisingly, there have been both positive and negative political reactions to DOGE鈥檚 actions; and depending on the political perspective, the scales can tip in either direction.

There are several key aspects of what DOGE is trying to accomplish as well as the impact it鈥檚 already having, including:

Focus on efficiency & cost savings 鈥� DOGE’s primary stated objective is to enhance the efficiency of federal government operations and achieve cost savings. This goal is pursued by identifying and addressing instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, thereby leading to a more effective utilization of taxpayer resources. This can be accomplished by reviewing each agency and its personnel with an emphasis on what is necessary to operate optimally at the lowest possible cost, resulting ideally in a reduction of tax dollar expenditures.

Modernization & technology 鈥� DOGE employs technology and software solutions to improve the operations of federal government agencies and increase overall efficiency. These technologies serve dual purposes: auditing the benefits delivered and streamlining the processes that administer these benefits.

Potential impact on agencies 鈥� DOGE has been involved in initiatives that may lead to the restructuring of various federal agencies, including potential adjustments to their operational scope or staffing levels.

Data privacy concerns 鈥� Discussions have arisen regarding data privacy, specifically concerning DOGE’s access to and use of sensitive government information, especially around its interactions with agencies such as the Social Security Administration.

Several changes proposed by DOGE were implemented promptly. However, many of these changes require legislative approval and are still progressing through the necessary channels. At the end of May, Elon Musk concluded his tenure as the leader of DOGE. This transition created an opportunity for a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of his leadership, which should take into account both the reduction in the number of federal employees and the overall budgetary implications. It is important to note that this assessment pertains solely to the federal implementation of DOGE.

State DOGE

In addition to the federal DOGE, individual states have also tried their hand at creating more efficient government process by utilizing a DOGE-like model. The implementation and evolution of this type of DOGE activity are ongoing and vary by state. Indeed, the concept of DOGE at the state level has rapidly evolved, with changes occurring on nearly a daily basis, making it challenging to keep up with the latest developments. States such as Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, and South Carolina听have all either implemented or are in the process of establishing a DOGE-like system.

These states have kicked off their DOGE efforts through various establishment processes, such as by executive orders from the governor’s office or by legislative initiatives that are working their way through the state legislatures or executive branches in several states. Meanwhile, other states have created online portals, established by the state legislature, for residents to report fraud, waste, and abuse.

One critical consideration for any DOGE created by a state is an understanding of its ultimate purpose. This is particularly relevant given that all US states, except for Vermont, are mandated to balance their budgets annually. Such an effort at balancing the budget would seem to render DOGE or a similar entity somewhat unnecessary. Consequently, this complicates the justification for its implementation.

Where will DOGE take us?

Within the upcoming months and years, the final decision regarding the necessity of DOGE will come into focus. Based on budgetary considerations, an evaluation will ascertain whether DOGE is essential or redundant. And if deemed necessary, governments then will have to decide whether DOGE should be implemented as a federal or state program.

In the evolving landscape of government efficiency initiatives like DOGE, we witness the tangible manifestation of the fundamental citizen-state relationship being renegotiated. The tension between providing adequate services and maintaining reasonable tax burdens continues to shape political discourse across federal and state levels. As these experimental approaches to government efficiency unfold, their success will ultimately be measured not just by cost savings, but by how well they preserve the social contract while adapting to modern challenges.

Indeed, the coming months will reveal whether DOGE represents a sustainable innovation in governance or merely another chapter in the ongoing struggle to balance public needs with fiscal responsibility 鈥� a question that lies at the heart of American democracy itself.

You can find out more about the challenges government agencies face here

To explore this topic further, the 成人VR视频 Institute has published the 2025 Government Legal Department Report, which gathered the responses of 150 legal professionals from various government law departments and agencies at the federal, state, and municipal levels. Respondents included public defenders, prosecutors, attorneys general, district attorneys, and city attorneys, all of whom had been in their position for at least one year. The survey was conducted in March.

The results of the annual survey suggest that many of the chronic issues that have plagued government legal departments in the past continue to challenge the dedication and resourcefulness of government attorneys today. Nevertheless, 90% of the survey鈥檚 respondents said they felt their efforts over the past year have been successful, and 80% of agency representatives report being confident they have the tools and technology they need to do their jobs effectively.

Top challenges: Talent and budgets

Despite this high level of confidence in their work, government legal professionals at all levels report that they continue to struggle with staffing and budget issues. Attorneys also remain frustrated that the technological resources available to them are inferior to those in the private sector and even in other parts of the public sector.

Yet, when asked to name the biggest challenges facing their agency or department, three out of the top four responses were related to talent. Indeed, attracting and retaining top talent remains the most pressing challenge for government legal departments, followed by the difficulties of recruiting new talent and the loss of institutional knowledge due to retiring staff.

On the technology side, the bright spot in the report is that 42% of respondents said their government law agencies and departments saw an increase in tech investment over the past two years. Somewhat less encouraging is the fact that most government agencies are still working with outdated systems and are trying 鈥� but only partially succeeding 鈥� to upgrade their tech portfolio. In fact, the average agency wish list includes technology solutions to address matter and case management systems, document management and automation, legal research, evidence management, scheduling, discovery, contract compliance, and analytics and reporting.

As always, lean budgets and rising costs are the biggest barriers cited by respondents to the adoption of any new technology; and more than half of respondents also cited organizations鈥� highly bureaucratic approval processes as an additional obstacle.

Still, the report indicates that many agencies will loosen their purse strings and invest in new tech if the price, need, budget, and cost-effectiveness of the purchase are all aligned. Otherwise, approval for additional tech purchases remains frustratingly difficult to obtain.

Feeling the squeeze

In general, the report paints a picture of government legal departments that are valiantly trying to get their work done in an environment in which resources are scarce, workloads are increasing, and the volume, complexity, and variety of cases with which attorneys must deal are all on the rise.

Not surprisingly, these and other factors are contributing to a stressful work environment in which many attorneys say they are feeling squeezed from all sides.听For example, more than half (51%) of survey respondents said they don鈥檛 have the time they need to adequately research novel or complex cases, and three-quarters (75%) expect their workload to increase over the next two years. Further exacerbating these issues is the fact that a majority said they do not expect to receive any additional resources over the next two years, and more than a third (37%) said they actually expect a decrease in the resources available to them.

The report also features an in-depth look at how government agencies are attempting to address their top challenges, including staffing issues and the ensuing gap in skills and resources.

To meet the talent challenge, many government agencies are being more flexible than their private-sector counterparts about offering hybrid work schedules.

As past surveys have confirmed, moving the needle on the talent issue is difficult primarily because of the pay disparity between the private and public sectors. However, more than a third (35%) of agencies said they had succeeded in adding attorney staff over the past two years.听Still, more than half (57%) of respondents said they expect their staffing levels to stay the same over the next two years. Many also expressed concern about potential cuts in the future. And as a practical matter, maintaining current staffing levels basically means a continuation of the under-resourced, over-worked status quo.

To meet the talent challenge, many government agencies are being more flexible than their private-sector counterparts about offering hybrid work schedules. Federal agencies with more generous budgets also outsource more work than agencies and departments at the state or municipal levels. Indeed, 42% of respondents overall said their agencies use outside counsel at least once a year, and one in five said they rely on outside counsel every week.

Access to justice

The report also asked respondents to reflect on whether they think access to justice has increased or decreased over the past couple of years.

More than half (54%) of respondents said access to justice has been stable for the past two years, but the rest disagreed on whether access has increased or decreased. Those who thought access has increased cited support services and internet tools that have enabled more remote court attendance and legal research. Those in the decreased camp pointed to budget constraints, human rights violations, a growing disrespect for the law, and chronically over-worked attorneys who are unable to give cases the time and attention they deserve.

Government legal professionals also appear to be increasingly skeptical about the prospects for justice in the future. Last year, only 22% of federal and state attorneys thought access to justice would decline over the next two years, whereas 60% said they think that now.

An uncertain transition

The 2025 Government Legal Department Report comes at an uncertain time of transition for government attorneys, which is made more uncertain because a new administration means priorities are likely to change.

While this year鈥檚 report offers a snapshot of the challenges government legal professionals are currently facing and the strategies they are using to meet those challenges, it also makes clear that legal work at government agencies will not get more efficient or effective unless agencies are willing to invest more in new technology and talent, two areas that have gone under-resourced for a very long time.

You can download a full copy of the 2025 Government Legal Department Report here