I have read the article and I think what it says is that every time a law is changed, it's a bonanza for lawyers. That's a fact of life. No matter when you change the law, it's a bonanza for lawyers. When the law was changed in 2012, it was a bonanza for lawyers, too.
I think what that article was getting at is that there will be some new litigation. There has been litigation about the Fisheries Act for over 150 years. It's not excessive by any means. It clarifies the law and the intent. If the HADD provision hadn't been taken out in 2012, we would have had another six years of court interpretations of what that means. But it was taken out and now it's back. The courts will actually be able to pretty easily go back to the previous decades of precedent in case law to interpret those provisions, so I think it was a bit of an overstatement.
The law firm represents corporate clients, which is great. We get tons of questions from community groups and scientists who are out in the field doing research, who really welcome what this law stands for.