Personal Development

Silicon Valley thinks it knows how to fix law. Tech founders pitch me their vision weekly: AI-powered law firms where bots negotiate with bots, where marketing algorithms feed cases directly into language models, where human interaction becomes an inefficient relic of the past. These conversations fascinate me, not because they’re right, but because they reveal the tech world’s profound misunderstanding of what lawyers actually do. This disconnect is striking. These smart, successful people, many of whom have built billion-dollar companies, have never represented a client. Most have never worked in law at all. Yet they speak with absolute certainty about our profession’s inevitable transformation into a purely automated service. They see law as a data processing problem waiting to be solved. They’re wrong. The Problem with Silicon Valley’s Legal Vision The fundamental error in tech’s approach to law stems from a category mistake. They see legal work as information processing: documents in, documents out. Find the precedent, apply the rule, generate the contract. If that were all law involved, then yes, machines would already have replaced us. But walk into any courtroom, mediation, or negotiation room. What you’ll find isn’t a sterile exchange of data points. You’ll find humans. Messy, irrational, emotional humans trying to resolve conflicts that matter deeply to them. The client whose business partnership is dissolving isn’t just losing money; they’re losing a relationship they spent years building. The judge isn’t just applying rules; they’re weighing credibility, reading body language, and making judgment calls about human behavior. The opposing counsel isn’t just arguing law; they’re managing their client’s expectations, emotions, and sometimes unreasonable demands. This human complexity isn’t a bug in the legal system. It’s the central feature. Laws exist to govern human behavior, resolve human conflicts, and protect human interests. The notion that you can remove humans from this equation fundamentally misunderstands what law is. Tech’s vision assumes that legal outcomes follow pure logic. Anyone who has practiced law knows better. I’ve watched judges rule against clearly winning arguments because something about the lawyer’s presentation rubbed them the wrong way. I’ve seen clients reject favorable settlements because they needed to feel heard more than they needed to win. I’ve witnessed mediations succeed not because of brilliant legal arguments but because someone finally acknowledged the emotional hurt underlying the dispute. The most logical outcome rarely prevails in law. This frustrates engineers and entrepreneurs who built their careers on solving problems through logic and efficiency. But law isn’t engineering. It’s a profession built on navigating human complexity, not eliminating it. Technology’s Real Role in Law’s Future None of this means technology won’t transform legal practice. It already is. But the transformation looks nothing like the bot-to-bot negotiations Silicon Valley envisions. Large language models are revolutionizing how lawyers handle information. Document review that once took weeks now takes hours. Contract analysis that required teams of associates can be performed by a single lawyer with the right tools. Legal research that consumed entire afternoons happens in minutes. This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening now in law firms across the country. This efficiency gain creates an interesting paradox. As production work becomes commoditized, the human elements of legal practice become more valuable, not less. When any lawyer can generate a competent brief using AI, what differentiates great lawyers from mediocre ones? Not their ability to cite cases or draft boilerplate language. Instead, it’s their ability to understand what their client actually needs, to read the room during negotiations, to build trust with opposing counsel, and to persuade judges and juries. The firms that will thrive aren’t those that eliminate human interaction but those that double down on it. When technology handles the routine work, lawyers gain something precious: time. Time to actually listen to clients instead of rushing through intake calls. Time to understand the business context behind the legal issue. Time to build relationships that lead to better outcomes. I predict we’ll see successful lawyers spending less time in their offices and more time in their clients’ conference rooms. Or even their kitchens. They’ll use the hours saved by AI not to take on more cases but to go deeper on the ones they have. They’ll invest in understanding their clients’ industries, cultures, and goals in ways that previous generations of lawyers never could afford to do. This shift rewards lawyers who excel at human connection. The rainmakers of tomorrow won’t be those who master ChatGPT prompts but those who master the art of building trust, reading people, and navigating complex human dynamics. Technical competence becomes table stakes; emotional intelligence becomes the differentiator. The Uncomfortable Truth About Legal Innovation Here’s what makes tech entrepreneurs uncomfortable: Some inefficiencies in law exist for good reasons. The deliberate pace of litigation gives hot tempers time to cool. The formality of legal proceedings signals their seriousness. The requirement for human judgment in critical decisions protects against algorithmic bias and preserves accountability. Could we automate small claims court? Probably. Should we? That’s a different question entirely. When people come to court, they often need more than just a decision. They need to be heard. They need to feel that someone in authority took their problem seriously. They need the cathartic experience of telling their story. An algorithm, no matter how sophisticated, cannot provide that human recognition. The legal profession will adopt technology aggressively where it makes sense. And it makes sense in many places. But the core of legal practice will remain stubbornly human because the problems law solves are fundamentally human problems. They involve trust, betrayal, fairness, and justice. These concepts resist algorithmic reduction. The Path Forward The future of law isn’t a choice between humans and machines. It’s about humans using machines to be better humans. Better listeners. Better advisors. Better advocates. The lawyers who understand this will build the practices of the future. Stop worrying about being replaced by AI. Start thinking about how AI can free you to do what only humans can do: connect, empathize, persuade, and judge. The future of law looks a lot like its past. Deeply, irreducibly human. The only difference is that we’ll have better tools to handle the boring parts, leaving more time for the work that actually matters. That’s not a vision that excites venture capitalists looking for 100x returns. But for those of us who chose law because we wanted to help people solve real problems? It’s exactly the future we should be building. The tech bros pitching me their automated legal utopias aren’t just wrong about law. They’re wrong about what clients want, what justice requires, and what makes law a profession rather than merely another service industry. Their mistake is our opportunity. While they’re building tools to replace lawyers, we should be using those same tools to become irreplaceable. The firms that win won’t be the ones that eliminate the human element. They’ll be the ones that use technology to amplify it. The future of law, like its past and present, is human. The sooner Silicon Valley figures that out, the sooner we can have a real conversation about innovation in legal services. 

There is a well-known principle in communication circles, first expressed by cognitive scientist George Lakoff: “When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.” It means that even when we try to deny a specific attack against us, when we use the same terms, we end up giving space and power to that attack. The idea, expressed in Lakoff’s book, Don’t Think of an Elephant, is built on the demonstrated tendency for our unconscious mind to grasp onto an offered association even when that association is being rejected. The classic example is former President Richard Nixon’s statement that, “I am not a crook.” He can deny it, but now we’re still thinking of him in the same category as “crook.” In a more recent example, conservative activist Mike Lindell was being deposed in a defamation lawsuit, and completely lost his cool after the attorney cast aspersions on his “My Pillow” product, shouting, “They’re not lumpy pillows!” That case had nothing to do with pillow quality, but in litigation, there is often an actual need to deny whatever bad thing the other side is projecting against you. Your credibility might depend on rejecting the negative frame the other side is trying to place around you. You want to convey that you’re not “greedy,” “careless,” or “dishonest,” but you also want to do so without sounding defensive and without further activating the same associations you’re trying to negate. In this post, I’ll share some practical ways to do that. Don’t Activate Bad Frames, Reframe Instead The advice from Lakoff is to avoid using the other side’s negative terms: “Avoid repeating the charges! Instead, use your own words and values to reframe the conversation. When journalists protest that they are ‘Not the Enemy,’ they should remember how well ‘I am not a crook’ worked for Nixon.” The better course is replacing the other side’s bad frame with your better frame. Journalists should emphasize that they’re on the side of truth. Nixon could have emphasized that he followed the law (if that were the truth). In creating your messages for discovery and trial, the same principle applies. State it in the positive: Don’t say “it isn’t about greed,” but do say “it is about justice and being made whole.” Don’t say “We weren’t careless,” but do say, “We took every reasonable precaution.” Don’t say, “He wasn’t dishonest,” but do say, “He told the truth.” There are two specific settings where it is important to avoid the negative frame. In Jury Selection Jury selection is different than the other messaging stages of trial because you are trying to find and excuse those jurors who would be less fair to your clients. You can’t afford to fully avoid the negative frames because you are trying to determine who holds onto those frames. Still, it is important to conduct a targeted examination in order to expose the less favorable jurors without giving undue emphasis to these negative frames. A voir dire approach I’ve demonstrated, the Pivot, for example is based on using strategically-phrased hand-raising questions (Who believes…) to identify a minority of jurors with less favorable attitudes and experiences, while reserving your open-ended follow up questions (Why? Tell me more about that…) for those in a majority on the more favorable side of the frame that is helpful to your side. In Testimony During examination in deposition or trial, witnesses can face a strong impulse to deny a negative conclusion or association they’re being handed by counsel for the other side. And sometimes, of course, that impulse to negate is important. To avoid looking evasive, it is necessary to answer directly, but to avoid activating the other side’s framing, it is important to use your own words. For example, counsel for the other party might ask a doctor defendant, “So, you skipped that particular diagnostic test, correct?” Instead of a defensive, “No, I did not ‘skip’ it…” it is better to respond, “No, I followed the protocol, which includes other steps rather than this test. “ More broadly, attention to language and to framing at all pretrial and trial stages, including openings and closings, is important. The task is not just the logical one of deciding what frames to promote and reject, but also the psychological steps in taking care with what is being evoked and reinforced.

In negotiation, the first number often carries disproportionate weight. While perhaps not always an absolute guarantee of victory, the concept of “anchoring bias” suggests it’s a powerful and frequently underestimated advantage. Anchoring, in essence, describes our well-documented human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making subsequent decisions. The human brain, in its quest for efficiency, often latches onto that initial number and adjusts insufficiently from it. The brain’s adjustment occurs even when the anchor is arbitrary or irrelevant. This initial figure frequently frames the perceived zone of possible agreement, profoundly influencing the counter-offers and concessions that follow. The legal field, a constant arena of negotiation, is no stranger to the potent effects of anchoring. In legal negotiations, a delayed response can be more than embarrassing; it can be a costly missed opportunity. Being proactive in establishing an anchor is key to avoiding that frustration, as the initial offer often acts as a potent psychological anchor, shaping how individuals perceive and process information throughout the negotiation. Consider a common scenario in business litigation: the initial settlement demand or offer. Imagine a plaintiff’s attorney, after thorough case evaluation, believes a fair settlement value is around $500,000. However, understanding anchoring, they might strategically open negotiations with a demand of $950,000. Conversely, a defense attorney, also aiming for a $500,000 resolution, might counter-intuitively open with an offer of $150,000. While these initial figures may seem far from the eventual target, they serve a crucial psychological purpose. The $950,000 demand, even if perceived as high, immediately frames the negotiation in a higher range. The first offer tends to establish a baseline, and all subsequent offers are evaluated in relation to this initial benchmark. Even if the recipient believes the initial offer is unreasonable or “out of line,” it still exerts a gravitational pull on the negotiation. Subsequent discussions, even if they bring the number down significantly, are often subconsciously tethered to this initial anchor. It becomes psychologically more challenging for the opposing side to dramatically pull the number below a certain threshold once that high anchor is set. Similarly, the lowball offer from the defense aims to drag the perceived acceptable range downwards. The negotiation then becomes a process of adjusting from these starting points. Research consistently shows that these adjustments are often insufficient, pulling the final agreed-upon number closer to the initial anchor than it might have been otherwise. This illustrates how a well-placed initial figure can powerfully shape the entire negotiation landscape, often dictating the perceived zone of possible agreement before substantive arguments are even fully exchanged. The party making the first offer often benefits from demonstrating a compelling analysis of the case’s strengths and weaknesses, and their preparedness to articulate the reasoning behind their offer can lend additional credibility to the anchor. Nuances in Crafting Your Anchor: Precision and Range The power of the first offer isn’t just about being first; it’s also about how that number is presented. Studies have shown that precise numerical first offers (e.g., $947,500 instead of $950,000) tend to be more effective anchors than rounder numbers. A precise number can signal that the offeror has carefully considered the value and is less likely to move significantly from their position. However, an overly aggressive first offer can risk derailing the negotiation if it causes the other side to question your credibility or the feasibility of an agreement. A more sophisticated approach involves “range offers”. Research from Columbia University has highlighted “bolstering ranges” as particularly potent. [i] For example, a seller asking $7,000–$7,500 for a car instead of a flat $7,000. This type of offer aggressively stretches the bounds of a single-figure offer while also conveying flexibility and accommodation. Buyers receiving such offers tend to make greater concessions, partly because the range suggests a more ambitious bottom line for the offeror and can appear more polite than a single aggressive figure. This allows the offeror to claim more value while potentially mitigating reputational damage from a very aggressive single-point offer. Generally, ranges of about 5% to 20% of the base figure appear to work best. A well-crafted first offer, therefore, subtly communicates strategic thinking, understanding of the issues, and negotiation style. This isn’t just some abstract theory; I’ve experienced this firsthand in my own career, especially while handling large, multi-million-dollar settlements for large insurance companies. In those high-stakes legal negotiations, you quickly learn how critical anchoring is. If you don’t put that first number on the table, you can bet the other side will. And once their number is out there, it’s like that’s the new center of gravity for the whole discussion. Trying to pull the negotiation significantly away from their initial figure? Even with compelling arguments or strong evidence, overcoming that initial number is an uphill battle. Research shows all subsequent judgments are made by adjusting away from that initial anchor. That first anchor really does set the entire playing field. Fortunately, in those situations, I always made it a point to try and build positive, professional relationships with the opposing counsel. I found that this focus on a good working relationship, combined with a solid understanding of how anchoring works, really helped close deals that felt fair and beneficial to everyone involved. It’s so important to remember that anchoring isn’t about trying to bully or coerce anyone; it’s much more about strategically framing the conversation from the outset. Honestly, when both sides have a sense of these psychological dynamics, you’d be surprised how often you can find collaborative solutions. So, why does anchoring have such a strong pull on us? It comes down to a few interesting ways our brains are wired. First, there’s something called the “insufficient adjustment” phenomenon. This basically means that even if we suspect an initial number might be off, we tend not to adjust our estimates far enough away from it. It’s like that first number has a magnetic pull. Second, that anchor triggers what psychologists call “selective accessibility”. This is a fancy way of saying that once an anchor is set, our brains start actively looking for information that confirms it, while often unintentionally downplaying anything that contradicts it. So, if a high number is thrown out there, we subconsciously search for reasons to justify it. And lastly, especially when we’re facing uncertain or complex situations (which negotiations often are!), an anchor gives us a sense of cognitive ease. Anchors provide a starting point, a mental shortcut that simplifies the tough job of figuring out what something is worth or what a fair outcome looks like.

I had coffee with a managing partner last week who made an observation that stuck with me. He said he could predict which attorneys in his firm would become rainmakers by watching how they treated the receptionist, the mailroom staff, and the cleaning crew. It wasn’t about their legal skills or their pedigree from prestigious law schools. It was about something far more fundamental about their character and long-term potential. The principle of elevating everyone you encounter isn’t just feel-good philosophy wrapped in corporate speak. It’s smart business practice rooted in practical reality. In professional services, particularly in law firms, your reputation precedes you into every room, every negotiation, and every potential client relationship. That reputation gets built through countless small interactions with people at every level of the professional ecosystem. The paralegal you dismiss today might become a general counsel tomorrow. The junior associate you mentor could refer significant business your way in five years. The court clerk you treat with respect will remember your professionalism when you need a favor during a tight filing deadline. I’ve witnessed this dynamic play out repeatedly in my practice. One attorney I know always took time to learn the names of security guards, administrative assistants, and IT support staff at every office building he visited. This wasn’t calculated networking; it was genuine respect for people doing important work. Years later, when he was pursuing a major client housed in one of those buildings, the security guard remembered him and provided insights about the company’s culture and decision-making process that proved invaluable in winning the engagement. Meanwhile, another lawyer I encountered consistently treated support staff as invisible obstacles to his important work. Word travels fast in professional circles, and his reputation for arrogance preceded him, costing him opportunities he never even knew existed. The mathematics of professional relationships makes this approach even more compelling. Every person you encounter knows other people, and those connections form an intricate web of influence that extends far beyond what’s visible on organizational charts. The bookkeeper at your client’s company might be married to a procurement officer at a Fortune 500 company. The court reporter in your deposition could be related to a partner at a competing firm who’s looking for co-counsel on a complex matter. When you consistently elevate others through genuine interest in their perspectives, respectful communication, and acknowledgment of their contributions, you’re making deposits into a relationship bank account that compounds over time. The most successful professionals I represent understand that elevating others isn’t about being nice for their own sake, though kindness certainly matters. It’s about recognizing that every interaction is an opportunity to build your reputation as someone worth working with, someone who sees the value in all people regardless of their position on the corporate ladder. This mindset transforms routine encounters into relationship-building opportunities and turns everyday professional interactions into investments in your long-term success. Your calendar reveals your priorities, but your treatment of others reveals your character. Both matter immensely in building a sustainable practice and a meaningful career.

Let me tell you a truth that will make every partner at your firm uncomfortable: if you don’t have a book of business, you don’t have a career. You have a job. And jobs disappear. I’ve watched brilliant lawyers get shown the door during economic downturns, firm mergers, and practice group restructurings. These weren’t bad lawyers. They were excellent technicians who made one fatal mistake: they believed someone else was responsible for their career security. Here’s another uncomfortable truth: the profession has failed catastrophically at teaching lawyers how to generate business. Law schools don’t teach it. Firms give lip service to it. Partners hoard the knowledge like state secrets. The result? A profession full of technical experts who can’t feed themselves. The Business Development Crisis Is Real The numbers tell a devastating story. Walk into any law firm and count how many lawyers actually have portable business. It’s not many. Most attorneys are completely dependent on others for their livelihood, and they don’t even realize how precarious their position is. The lawyers who don’t develop business within their first decade of practice consistently earn less over their careers. The gap only widens with time. But the real cost isn’t just financial. It’s personal. I’ve seen lawyers stuck in toxic work environments because they can’t leave. I’ve watched brilliant minds accept below-market compensation because they have no leverage. I’ve witnessed careers derailed by politics because the lawyer had no independent value proposition. The firms suffer, too. When business development is concentrated among a few senior partners, firms face massive revenue volatility. When those partners retire or leave, the revenue walks out the door with them. Yet firms continue to perpetuate a system that creates this vulnerability. The Mythology That’s Killing Your Career The legal profession has created a mythology around business development that’s actively harmful. We’ve convinced ourselves that rainmakers are born, not made. That you need to be a natural salesperson. That introverts can’t succeed. That business development requires playing golf and attending cocktail parties. All of this is hot garbage. I’ve worked with lawyers who hate networking events. Who’ve never played golf with a client. Who don’t do TikTok dances. Yet they’ve generated tens of millions in business over their career. How? Because they learned that business development is a system, not a personality trait. The most successful business developers I know aren’t the loudest people in the room. They’re the most systematic. They understand that business development is about solving problems, building relationships, and creating value. These are learnable skills. The Introvert Advantage Here’s something that will shock the golf-playing, cocktail-circuit crowd: introverts often make better business developers than extroverts. Why? Because business development isn’t about being the life of the party. It’s about listening, understanding problems, and building trust. Introverted professionals excel at: Deep listening (the foundation of understanding client needs) Building one-on-one relationships (where real business happens) Thoughtful follow-up (the key to converting prospects) Consultative approach (what clients actually want) The extroverted rainmaker who works the room might get attention, but the introvert who has deep conversations with three people often gets the business. The Skills You Actually Need Real business development isn’t about charm. It’s about competence in five areas: Problem identification: You need to understand the challenges your prospects face better than they do. This requires research, curiosity, and the ability to ask probing questions. Value articulation: You must clearly communicate how you solve problems differently and better than alternatives. This is about positioning, not personality. Relationship building: This isn’t about being likeable. It’s about being reliable, insightful, and valuable to be around. Process management: Successful business developers have systems for identifying prospects, nurturing relationships, and converting opportunities. It’s project management, not magic. Persistent follow-up: Most business comes from multiple contacts over time, not from the first meeting. This requires discipline, not charisma. The Control You’re Missing The fundamental issue isn’t that lawyers can’t generate business. It’s that they’ve never been taught how. Law school’s focus on technical skills. Firms promote based on billable hours. The profession rewards everything except the one skill that actually controls your career trajectory. When you have a book of business, you have options. You can choose your clients, your matters, your compensation, and your work environment. You can weather economic storms. You can build wealth instead of just earning a salary. Without a book of business, you’re at the mercy of others’ decisions. Your career is subject to firm politics, economic cycles, and the whims of partners who may or may not have your best interests at heart.

I almost didn’t show up. After a long international road trip, van trouble, and a disrupted routine, the temptation was real: skip the live presentation. Or mail it in. Just this once. But I didn’t. I showed up—because I made a promise. Not for the audience because, to be honest, depending on the platform, I sometimes don’t know if there are 1,000 people watching, or 0. The promise I made was to myself. I would show up and talk about something impactful, something that could change one person’s way of thinking and, just maybe, their life. I would show up and play full out. Since January 2023, I’ve shown up every month for a live presentation, whether people attend live or catch the replay. (As of today, that’s 29 live presentations.) This isn’t marketing. This isn’t lead generation. This is a commitment I made to myself: I will deliver one live presentation per month because it aligns with who I am, the work I do, and the promise I’ve made—to myself—for myself. And that’s what this post is about: the promises lawyers keep, and the one type of promise we too often break. Lawyers Are Excellent at Keeping Promises—to Everyone Else Let’s be clear: the lawyers I coach, those Accomplished Seekers, are some of the most disciplined professionals on the planet. They keep their promises. They wouldn’t be extraordinarily successful if they didn’t. To clients? Absolutely. You don’t miss deadlines. You show up in court. You meet your obligations. You do what you say you’ll do with the goal of serving the client and creating an evangelist for your firm. To partners? You don’t leave your colleagues hanging. They count on you and you count on them. Simple. To your team? You set expectations and follow through. You do what you say you’ll do and expect them to do the same. To judges and courts? You comply with the rules of the game—even when it’s chaos behind the scenes. To family? You try. There are seasons when you’re more available than others—like the 44-day federal white-collar trial I thrived in—but you do your best to follow through when you say “I’ll be there.” But there’s one person lawyers consistently betray—themselves. The Most Important Promises Are the Ones You Make—and Keep—for Yourself “I’m going to start eating better.” “I’m going to get to the gym three days a week.” “I’m going to stop checking email after 6 PM.” “I’m going to block time to think strategically about my firm.” You know these promises. You’ve made them. And chances are, you’ve broken a few. Maybe more than a few. Here’s why it matters: every time you make and break a promise to yourself, you erode trust—not with others, but with you. You move further away from the person you believe yourself to be. Instead, you move closer to what your internal voice continuously tells you you are, that someone who doesn’t deserve success and won’t do the work to create it. And that internal breach creates a dissonance that leaks into your energy, your mindset, and your leadership. It’s Not Time Management, It’s Energy Leadership Lawyers love to blame time: “I don’t have time to work out.” “I don’t have time to meditate.” “I don’t have time to think strategically.” Time, my friends, is not the problem. Time is indifferent. It’s agnostic. It doesn’t give a sh*t about your goals, your schedule, or your aspirations. Time doesn’t need managing. What needs mastering—what needs leading—is your energy. When I talk about Energy Leadership®, I’m referring to the seven levels of attitudinal energy that shape how we experience the world, how we lead, and how we perform. They range from the lowest level—victimhood—to the highest—pure creation and choice. Here’s how this applies to promise-keeping: Level 1 You skip your workout because “life is too hard right now.” Level 2 You resent even needing to think about it: “Why do I always have to push so hard?” Level 3 You rationalize: “It’s fine, I’ll get to it later.” Level 4 You think of your team, your clients, your family—everyone but you. Level 5 You begin to realize that keeping promises to yourself is a win-win. You benefit, and so does everyone around you. Level 6–7 You start showing up as the strategic CEO of your life and career, choosing how and when you bring energy to each domain. The problem isn’t your calendar. The problem is how you’re relating to the commitments you make to yourself. Self-Leadership Is the Key to Influence You can’t preach a culture of well-being, sustainability, or high performance if you don’t live it. Your words won’t matter—your actions will. If you say, “We honor deep work,” but you never protect your own focus time… If you say, “We take real vacations,” but you’re answering emails poolside in Maui or in the Sacred Valley of Peru… If you say, “I’m working on being more intentional,” but you never slow down long enough to reflect… Your people notice. As any parent will tell you: people hear what you say and they watch what you do. They believe what you do. If there’s a disconnect between what you say the culture is and you don’t “walk the talk,” your influence suffers. The paradox is this: when you start keeping promises to yourself, you not only build internal integrity—you elevate your external influence. The Benefits of Keeping the Promise (To You) When you consistently keep promises to yourself, four things happen: Your Confidence Grows You start to trust yourself more deeply. You stop relying on motivation and start building identity. “I’m the kind of person who keeps my promises”—even when no one’s watching. Your Integrity Realigns The disconnect between how you see yourself and how you behave dissolves. You begin acting in alignment with your values and vision. Your Influence Expands Your team, clients, and even your family start to follow your lead—not because of what you say, but because of how you live. Your Freedom Increases When you show up for yourself, you create space—for thinking, for health, for creativity, for growth. You step off the hamster wheel and into your role as a true CEO. So, What’s YOUR First Promise? What’s the one promise you’ll make today—for yourself? It doesn’t need to be grand. A salad. A 20-minute walk. A 15-minute strategic thinking block. The promise isn’t about scale—it’s about significance. It’s about sending a signal to yourself that you matter. That your leadership begins with you. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step because until you take that step, the journey cannot start. It only continues if you keep stepping. And you only keep stepping if you keep the promises you make to yourself for yourself. Final Thought Am I the type of person who keeps their promises? Yes? Good. Am I the type of person who keeps my promises to myself—for myself? That’s the question. Because when you start keeping those promises—when you lead yourself first, everything else follows.

The legal field has evolved over the years—there is really no way to dispute that. This evolution has changed the field across the board—for in-house professionals, private practice attorneys and for staff. This momentum has also caused many teams to grow—putting legal professionals, both attorneys and staff alike, in a leadership position managing other team members. While this evolution is certainly a positive one in the field, many legal professionals find themselves in a leadership position with no formal leadership training or support for leadership-specific needs. Why does this matter? That is a loaded question. Teams Have Greater Success with Strong Leadership According to Harvard Business Review, leadership development improves organizational performance by 25 percent and according to McKinsey, 65 percent of high-performing companies prioritize leadership development. So, in other words, a strong and high-performing team is directly correlated to strong leadership. And strong attorneys and staff translate to a strong business or firm. But the thing is, most professionals were not born with those skills. They are promoted to a leadership position based on how well they perform in their current role—with no guidance on how to manage other team members once they are elevated to that position. This is something that requires training and support—just like the day-to-day tasks they perform in their roles. Employees Leave Managers—Not Firms We have all heard this before. And, in my experience working with a variety of firms of all different sizes—this is absolutely true. I have seen it happen time and time again. According to LinkedIn, companies with leadership development programs report a 29 percent higher employee retention. The cost of losing an employee or attorney is nearly impossible to calculate—but it is safe to assume that it is not low when you consider the hiring and onboarding process of replacing them. Good leadership can be the linchpin in keeping your employees happy and therefore wanting to stay with your business or firm. Happy Employees are Contagious—But So Are Unhappy Ones The Harvard Business Review reported that leadership development reduces team conflicts by 20 percent. A leader that knows how to not only manage effectively, but connect with their team members and provide support, will produce happy team members—which can be contagious! But, on the flip side, bad leadership can negatively influence team members. Imagine a team member frustrated by unclear expectations and little direction—without proper leadership, that discontent can ripple through the team and affect overall morale. An unhappy team member can be more contagious than a happy one. What Now? So, now that you know how important leadership development is for your business or firm, what can you do about it? What does strong leadership look like and how do you achieve it? Strong leaders can: Think strategically, Communicate effectively, Lead with emotional intelligence and empathy, and Engage in cross-functional collaboration, especially with other attorneys, practice groups, and business or firm leadership. These traits are not innate in most people—these are skills that require training. Invest in leadership programs for your leaders and managers. The benefit will far outweigh the cost. Investing in this type of development will build internal credibility with firm leadership, create a culture of accountability and innovation, and enable better team retention and development. Whether it is one-on-one executive coaching, management training sessions or leadership cohorts, you can find what makes the most sense for your business or firm. The future depends on the leaders you develop today. Start by evaluating your current support systems—then act. Your team, and your organization, will thank you.

It is common advice for witnesses in the courtroom or representatives at counsel table: keep a poker face. That advice—avoid scowls, grimaces, and other head-shaking reactions while you’re being observed by a jury—has some obvious common sense behind it. But the advice can also be taken to an extreme. Maintaining the court’s decorum and avoiding negative perceptions are important goals, but such discretion shouldn’t be the enemy of communication. A baseline level of reasonable human reaction and expression can be a good thing. This is supported in the research as well. A recent article in Scientific American reports on a study (Kavanagh, Whitehouse & Waller, 2024) showing that facial expressiveness is associated with greater likability. The team reported on their study that showed that “moving your face in some way, whether you’re smiling, raising an eyebrow or wrinkling your nose, may help people warm to you more.” Studying partners in conversational settings, they assessed each person’s nonverbal expressivity and discovered that greater facial expression led to participants being seen as more likable and agreeable. The team reasons that non-verbal communication is favored based on its evolutionary advantages in building community and common understanding. Someone who is perceived as being easier to read is going to be seen as more trustworthy and likable for that reason. This suggests a few considerations for those appearing in court. Avoid an Artificially Flat Affect On one end of the spectrum, some in the courtroom will try to turn their non-verbal reactions off. As much as that might seem like the safe route, it is probably impossible. You can’t communicate “nothing,” and instead the passive face is likely to be interpreted as “bored” or “angry.” We expect to see some level of non-verbal engagement. The researchers report on prior studies showing that humans are probably more facially expressive than any other species and note that on average, people in typical social interactions will produce 101 facial movements every minute. You can’t bring that to zero even when you’re in the hushed environment of a courtroom. Avoid Anything that Could be Seen as Performative On the other end of the spectrum, the last thing you want is for jurors to feel like you are putting on a show. The idea that you are telegraphing your reactions to them nonverbally can be seen as distracting, insulting, or insincere. When it comes to whether the question or the testimony coming from the witness box is ridiculous, whether opposing counsel is being obnoxious, or whether a ruling from the bench is unfair, jurors will form their own conclusions. They don’t want to see a witness or party representative in the courtroom performing that reaction for them. Let Your Natural Reactions Guide You Whether you’re at counsel table or in a witness box, they key is to be natural. Stay engaged, think about the content of what you are hearing, and react normally. Knowing that the courtroom is a very constrained place—I sometimes call it a “civil cathedral,” with its hushed and formal environment—you won’t want to react the same way you would if you were in a bar, or if you were in the legal team’s war room. You want to be restrained, serious, and respectful. But that doesn’t mean being blank. You can still be human. You should try and avoid reacting to every statement by the other side, and the best emotion to convey is just that you are attentive and engaged.

Many lawyers underestimate the impact that mental illness can have on an individual or family. It can be difficult to admit that you have a mental health problem in your life. Secondly, it can be just as difficult in getting the people you know to understand your situation without making any kinds of judgments. As a result, here are six reasons why you should make your mental health an important priority in your life. 1. Your Situation Will Improve if You Get Help Your anxieties and fears can be challenging to manage and more than likely you will need some help. Just as you talk to your doctor about your regular health, you should not be hesitant in seeking help for your mental health. If left untreated, your anxieties and fears may not go away. 2. Drugs and Alcohol Are Not the Answer Drugs and alcohol can make your problems more complicated. Many people have said that drugs and alcohol will only add more problems to your situation. Be smart and learn how to cope with your mental health issues by talking to a qualified professional. There are many health professionals in your area that can give you some ideas on where you can go for assistance. 3. You Will Save Time and Money Eventually, you will have to confront your fears and mental health issues. Save yourself the time and heartache and confront your problems now rather than later. You will save months of struggling by getting help right away. The sooner you get assistance the faster you will start getting some relief. 4. You Are Not Alone Everyone deals with fear, stress, and anxiety in one’s life whether your friends and others care to admit it. In addition, do not be embarrassed that you are getting help. We all learn new things from others on a daily basis and learning how to manage your anxieties is no different. In addition, your goal is to get your life back on track and not to get everyone’s approval. If people start asking you questions, just say you’re dealing with stress. Most people can relate to dealing with stress and anxiety! 5. Do Not Make the Mistake of Doing Nothing There are many people who struggled with anxiety and other mental health related issues, and they tried to ignore their problems. As a result, some of these people struggled on a daily basis and eventually things became more difficult. It can be scary asking for assistance, but the key is to take things one day at a time. 6. You Have a Variety of Options There are many mental health support groups, organizations, and counselors in your area that can help get your life back on track. Talk to your doctor to get more details on where you can go for some assistance. Help is available but you must be willing to make the choice of getting better. Remember that every problem has a solution. You just have to make the effort to find the answers.