For the past five years, it's been my privilege and pleasure to serve as editor-in-chief of the Litigation Daily.

I want to thank you, dear readers, for your help and encouragement, for returning my calls, for sharing your wins and (somewhat less enthusiastically) your losses, for allowing me into your world. 

I mentioned yesterday that my colleague Ross Todd will be taking the helm of Lit Daily on July 6. Here's a quick message from him:

"Hello Lit Daily readers! I'm Ross Todd and starting Monday I'll be the lead columnist in this space. By way of introduction, I've been at ALM since 2006. I spent more than eight-and-a-half years covering the business of law for The American Lawyer at the beginning of my career and for nearly six years now I've been reporting on litigation in the San Francisco Bay Area for The Recorder, ALM's California affiliate. 

You might recognize my byline from appearances in Jenna's "What I'm Reading" section below. (Thanks for the plugs, Jenna!) Or my name could be vaguely familiar from some earlier stints I spent subbing for some of her Lit Daily predecessors. All that is to say, I know I have big shoes to fill. I was around at The American Lawyer when Andrew Longstreth and Alison Frankel dreamed up this crazy idea for a daily, national litigation newsletter and I've been a reader just like you of late, watching and marveling at what Jenna has accomplished in this space. I look forward to keeping this conversation going. "

Ross is going to be amazing, with just the right combination of smarts, experience and good judgment to lead Lit Daily into the future. He's also a really nice guy. Reach him at [email protected].

For the past five years, Lit Daily has been my baby. My editor for much of this time, Vanessa Blum, estimates that I've written about 1,150 columns. Some days, it was a slog, in an "Ack-what-in-the-world-am-I-going-to-write-about" kind of way. But more often, it was a joy.

Many of the stories nearest to my heart involved absurd or silly fights, in part because I'm easily amused, but also because I believe lawyers should get pushback for clogging up the courts with meritless claims.

Take this column about the man who sued his ex-girlfriend for breaking up with him—and got a Big Law partner to file the $225,000 claim.  (The woman "agreed that she would stay in a relationship with plaintiff without disappearing, going silent, or otherwise breaking off the relationship… Unfortunately, defendant regularly failed to perform under her agreement." So I guess giving her a bad performance review wasn't enough to make her love him? Go figure.)

Or there's the lawsuit alleging that Krispy Kreme "glazed raspberry filled" donuts don't contain real raspberries. Which might be a legit complaint, except the plaintiffs claimed  they were owed damages because "raspberries help fight against cancer, heart and circulatory disease." OR MAYBE JUST DON'T EAT DONUTS.

Then there were the 23 beer drinkers who sued to block Anheuser-Busch InBev's $107 billion acquisition of SABMiller, arguing that the merger could cause prices for beer to increase and quality to deteriorate. Except we're talking about the makers of Budweiser and Miller. In a blind taste test, could anyone even tell their flagship beers apart?

I'm also inordinately fond of this piece, "Pot, Hookers, Debts: What Can Kill a Security Clearance for Would-Be DOJ Lawyers," taking a look at an obscure administrative court that hears security clearance disputes. 

One gem of a case involved a 51-year-old man who said he was searching through Craig's List for a boat and decided on a whim to look at the personals section. Next thing you know, he impulse-purchased sex from an undercover cop. Which led me to write one of my all-time favorite sentences: "I hate it when I'm looking for a kayak and get a hooker instead."

A close second was this case involving a $1 million libel lawsuit by a pet sitting company against a couple who gave them a negative Yelp review for overfeeding their betta fish. 

But how did the couple know about the overfeeding? They "had a 'fish cam' to check up on their betta fish remotely," I wrote. "Which is not something I've heard of anyone doing ever. (Betta fish, by the way, cost like $5 at Petco. My daughter went through three of them. They do not love you back.)… [The case] became a free speech cause célèbre, forcing me to side whole-heartedly with people who have a fish cam."

I also have a soft spot for celebrity litigation—and so apparently do you, Lit Daily readers. I know you all are Very Serious Litigators handling Very Serious Matters. But the most popular Lit Daily story in the last five years, as measured by the percent of readers who opened the morning newsletter? (Yes, we track that)

"Amal Clooney: Beautiful? Yes. Famous? Yes. But Is She a Good Lawyer?"

My conclusion: "In some ways, it's the wrong question to ask. Simply being Amal Clooney—wife of the actor George Clooney—makes her an effective advocate in international human rights cases." But also yeah, she does seem to be a competent litigator, because that's how perfect she is.

But the columns that meant most to me weren't about celebrities or billion-dollar fights or law firm gossip. They were the pieces recognizing pro bono work. 

Several even made the top-20 list of my most-read Lit Daily pieces, including "Winston & Strawn, Boldly Going Where No Pro Bono Case Has Gone Before" and "O'Melveny Associate Gets Convictions Against Border Activists for Leaving Water in the Desert Reversed" and "'THANK YOU! THANK YOU!' Inmate Serving Life on Drug Charge Released Because of These Pro Bono Lawyers."

I'm gratified that these and other columns on pro bono have been so well-read. Such work is a part of what makes the law a truly noble profession–and why I've been so proud to play a small role in recognizing the generous, wonderful work that you all do.