Practice Management

Walk into any large law firm today, and you’re likely to find attorneys from four different generations working alongside each other: Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, and, increasingly, Gen Z. Each group brings its own set of values, priorities, and approaches to the profession, and though these generational differences can sometimes create friction, they also offer an opportunity for growth, collaboration, and reinvention. As an associate, I’ve often felt the subtle tension between tradition and transformation. There’s the senior partner who expects in-office face time and thrives on the structure of long-established routines (most beginning before 7 a.m. and wrapping up at midnight). Then there’s the associate one office over who takes Zoom depositions from her home office, blocks off time on her calendar for therapy, and speaks openly about setting boundaries. These aren’t just different work styles; they’re different worldviews shaped by the eras in which we all came of age. Both can be, and are, versions of success in the modern workplace, and recognizing that success is no longer defined by a singular path is crucial to fostering intergenerational connection in the workplace. To better understand these contrasts, I recently had a conversation with Mark Frilot, a shareholder in the New Orleans office. A veteran construction litigator who joined the Firm in 2001, Mark has witnessed the evolution of Big Law throughout the Southeast, and in New Orleans specifically, over the last two decades. Throughout our discussion, Mark offered a perspective that was as thoughtful as it was candid. “When I was an associate,” he told me, “Most folks didn’t talk about work/life balance. You worked until the job was done, with few questions and no complaints. That was the culture for most law firms because that was what success looked like.” Today, he admits, success looks different. Many younger attorneys, especially Millennials and Gen Z, value flexibility, purpose-driven work, and personal well-being just as much as professional advancement. They’re more likely to ask, “What kind of life do I want to have?” rather than simply, “How fast can I make partner?” Mark doesn’t see this shift as a threat. In fact, he has been one of the most willing to adapt to a more modern approach to legal practice (Mark loves Microsoft Copilot), but he admits it took some adjustment for many others. He noted that many attorneys in his same generation used to think younger associates were disengaged if they didn’t respond to emails at midnight. What must be acknowledged, however, is that commitment requires a certain level of mindfulness. Mark highlighted throughout our conversation that younger attorneys aspire to be excellent lawyers and whole individuals. We both agreed that this is a generational evolution, and it’s a healthy one. As clients embrace this mindset in their own offices, many firms are beginning to change their views on what it means to bring your full self into the workplace, and most clients even expect our teams to be fulfilled in their personal lives in order to accomplish excellence in client service. Still, differences persist—not just in values, but in how we work. More seasoned attorneys often value the organic mentorship that happens in an office setting: such as quick hallway questions and impromptu brainstorms in a colleague’s doorway. For younger attorneys, especially those who entered the profession during or after the pandemic, hybrid and remote work aren’t accommodations—they’re the baseline. This has led to a common debate: Does remote work hinder mentorship and firm culture, or does it empower attorneys to thrive on their own terms? The answer, it turns out, is both. “There is something lost when we’re not physically together,” Mark explains. Law is ultimately a human profession. Relationships matter. But, as a profession, we must also recognize that productivity and physical presence aren’t always the same thing. We’re all learning how to trust each other in new ways, and trust may be the key to navigating these generational divides. Too often, we default to stereotypes (Boomers are rigid, Millennials are entitled, Gen Z is fragile), but those labels ignore a required nuance. Many senior attorneys are actually eager to mentor and adapt, while many younger attorneys are more ambitious and driven than their senior counterparts may admit. When attorneys take the time to understand one another across generations, they often discover more common ground than conflict. At its best, a multi-generational workplace blends wisdom with innovation. Senior lawyers bring institutional knowledge, judgment honed by decades of experience, and a long view of the law’s evolution. Younger attorneys bring technological fluency, fresh perspectives on justice, and a deeper understanding of the world outside the boardroom. At Baker Donelson, the most successful teams are the ones that learn from each other. When we resist the urge to cling to “the way it’s always been” or dismiss the new as naïve, we create a culture that is not only more inclusive, but more resilient. We’re not just building careers; we’re building a profession that reflects the complexity of the world and the clients we serve. That means bridging generations, embracing differences, and recognizing that growth doesn’t always come from looking down the ladder, but sometimes from looking across it. 

Are opening statements in mediation beneficial toward reaching a settlement? There is an ongoing debate by both advocates and neutrals concerning the advantages and disadvantages of including opening statements in mediations. Supporters contend that opening statements, when handled properly, permit each side the unique opportunity, perhaps for the first time, to personally present their stories and to hear relevant facts and law that may help to guide the parties toward the needed resolution. Opponents claim that opening statements can unnecessarily derail the settlement process at the outset, especially if the presentations are negative or overly argumentative. Here’s a closer look at the pros and cons of using opening statements in mediation and how to determine whether an opening statement is appropriate for your case. The Case for Opening Statements One of the strongest advantages of permitting opening statements is the opportunity for the parties, who may have simply been passive observers in the proceedings thus far, to directly participate in the process. Further, a party’s participation in opening statements allows the individuals involved to share their perspectives and feelings about the dispute, which may itself be a significant component in the settlement process. Often parties want “to be heard” or to “have their day in court”. Having the party participate in opening statements helps meet this need and may facilitate opportunities for settlement. If handled correctly, opening statements can create a constructive and positive tone for the rest of the mediation session. If the parties establish a respectful and solution-oriented approach to the opening statements, they may restore the intended civility that should be part of such a process. If the statements are cordial and the parties can meet face to face, it may help diffuse any hostility that existed as a cause of the original dispute, as well as to ease acrimony that may have developed during the preceding litigation. Opening statements may allow the parties to share their positions in a confidential environment and convey the evidence that may help the parties understand their respective risks of litigation. Conducting opening statements may help encourage transparency in the parties’ claims, help to resolve previously misunderstood facts, and clarify each party’s motivations and goals. Such clarity and insight can demonstrate the mutual good faith needed to reach a resolution of the parties’ conflict. Finally, opening statements can help educate the mediator. Listening to opening statements and the recitation of the main factual and legal issues in the dispute can provide needed insight for the mediator who is charged with helping the parties reach a resolution. Equally, opening statements may educate the participants on some of the intangibles of the case, including the quality of the lawyers involved and the effectiveness of the parties as potential witnesses at trial. The Case Against Opening Statements Of course, there is the other side of the coin. If the opening statements are argumentative, rather than conciliatory, they may create further animosity and distance between the parties, taking what would otherwise be an opportunity for discourse and dialogue and replacing it with a situation where scorched earth becomes the goal. Aggressive opening statements can directly derail potentially successful mediations. In certain cases, opening statements can trigger pain or distress by forcing the parties to relive or reexamine the event. This is true in certain emotionally charged or sensitive cases (such as those involving sexual harassment and sexual assault) where the impacted party could be retraumatized by presenting the case again during the opening session. Comments that address blame can lead to entrenchment and unnecessary tension in the mediation which will discourage open dialogue and negotiation. Lastly, sometimes it’s just a matter of time. Opening statements can be time-consuming, which may reduce the remaining time otherwise available for problem-solving and negotiation within the separate caucus sessions. Moreover, sometimes, depending on the status of the case, opening statements are simply unnecessary, especially if the parties have already participated in lengthy discovery or motion practice. In such cases, opening statements may be redundant and even counter-productive to the settlement process. Deciding Whether to Have an Opening Statement The final choice, as to whether to allow opening statements or not, can be found in the ultimate flexibility that is inherent in the alternative dispute resolution process. Before the mediation starts, the mediator can review the type of case involved, as well as the nature and demeanor of the parties and their counsel. Because every case is different, the mediator’s analysis of that case, including the respective expectations of the parties and counsel involved, can be helpful in leading the parties to decide whether the mediation should begin with opening statements or in separate caucuses. Giving opening statements, just because they are a common part of the mediation process, without specific consideration as to the nature of the case and the parties involved, may squander the goodwill and credibility of the negotiation process. If the parties agree to participate in joint opening statements, consider these guidelines: Brevity is important. Mediation can be stressful, and parties have limited attention spans. Shorter presentations may be more effective. Each party should express appreciation to the other party for participating in the mediation, especially if the session is voluntary. Visuals can often add value to a presentation, and PowerPoint slides can highlight key facts and issues. Avoid negative assertions in the presentation. Remember that tone is important and the purpose of the mediation is to find consensus. Often parties stop listening if they are being criticized. As important as this debate might be, there remains no clear answer as to whether opening statements should or should not be used as part of the mediation process. Every case is different, as are the parties, lawyers and mediators involved. The best approach is to consider the matter as a whole and make the decision that the parties mutually agree would be the best for that case. The mediation process is also fluid, so a mediation session that does not start with opening statements may reconsider their use during the mediation itself. Flexibility is the key. *Originally published in the Daily Report and reprinted with permission.

Employee performance is central to many human resource decisions. When determining compensation changes, incentives, promotions, demotions, reductions-in-force, and while also explaining pay differences, organizations lean on employee performance as the deciding factor. Given its importance, employee performance needs to be carefully documented, managed, and utilized in decision-making. However, recent research suggests many organizations are falling short on performance management. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP) have performed decades of research related to the effectiveness and validity of performance management processes. A summary of the last five years of selected research is below: Most employees feel that their managers need more training in people management skills, communication, team development, time management, performance management, and leadership skills; and that employee performance is greatly impacted by managers being in leadership roles that they are unqualified for as a leader. Too many organizations are relying on traditional systems of subjective ratings that are done just once or twice per year even though there is extensive evidence that a focus on development and performance discussions throughout the year are much more effective in developing the workforce. SIOP surveys over the past three years have shown that employees see little value in performance management processes that are infrequently done; employees are not inspired by processes that are seen as biased or performed as a checkmark. Growing evidence shows that organizations need to adopt more frequent, real-time feedback and coaching with level-setting/calibration and incentives for seeking and completing current- and next-level development. Current people analytics research by SHRM reveals that traditional performance management processes frequently misjudge performance, with ratings often based more on organizational relationships than actual performance. This research also suggests that manager bias in performance leads to a higher turnover of high-performing employees. What can organizations do to improve their performance management process? Some recommendations are below: Split the what and the how. a. Have one process based on organizational objectives that measures employee success in completing job duties and tasks (the What) b. Have a second process based on the processes and manners used by that employee to be successful (professionalism, attention to detail, time management, etc.) at completing the objectives (the How). Incorporate talent management into performance management— For employees who have stated they want to seek promotion, also provide ratings on next-level skills and readiness to assist with succession planning. Performance management should be documented year-round and be between more than just the employee and their manager. Comments and feedback should be gathered from anyone at the organization, as well as clients and customers, to create a clearer picture of employee performance. Performance management should include level-setting/calibration meetings where a neutral facilitator helps managers recognize any potential biases they have (such as recency, halo, similar-to-me, leniency, severity, etc.) and adjust their ratings and documentation to ensure consistency in the application of the rating scale. Performance management processes should be based on the results of job analysis, so employees are being rated only on aspects that are valid for their position instead of subjective feelings or feedback. This is a fundamental part of any merit-based performance management system. To effectively evaluate and improve performance based on the merits of what the employee brings to the work, the organization must first understand what the performance domain looks like in terms of essential duties and competencies needed for success. Ultimately, implementing an effective performance management process is more complex than many organizations recognize. And getting it right is critical to ensure the process is an effective management tool. With the current focus on making merit-based decisions, performance management should be tied to specific job requirements. To advance a skills-based hiring process, the process should also be focused on learning and development, rather than simply completing a requirement. For a performance management process to be successful, it requires organizational commitment from all levels to spend the time necessary to yield actionable information for employees.

Walk the halls of any legal tech conference today and you’ll trip over dozens of AI startups promising to revolutionize law practice. Each booth features the same pitch: “We’re ChatGPT, but for lawyers!” The valuations are astronomical. The demos are slick. The value proposition? That’s where things get murky. The legal tech world has become a gold rush, and most prospectors are selling fool’s gold. Every week brings announcements of new AI tools that are nothing more than thin wrappers around OpenAI, Claude, or Google’s models. These companies take a general-purpose language model, add a legal-sounding name, maybe some prompt engineering, and suddenly they’re worth millions. Or in Harvey AI’s case, $5 billion. Let that sink in. Harvey AI, which essentially provides access to large language models with some legal flavoring, commands a valuation that exceeds the GDP of some small nations. For what? Features that a $20 monthly Claude subscription or Google Workspace already provides? The proliferation is staggering. Legal AI tools are multiplying like rabbits. Contract review AI. Research AI. Brief writing AI. Deposition prep AI. Due diligence AI. Each claiming to be purpose-built for legal work, each demanding premium pricing, each essentially doing what you could accomplish with direct access to the underlying models. This isn’t innovation. It’s arbitrage. These companies position themselves between law firms and the actual AI providers, adding minimal value while extracting maximum fees. They’re middlemen in expensive suits, and law firms are falling for it. The problem runs deeper than overvaluation. Law firms signing multi-year contracts with these vendors are possibly making a critical strategic error. They’re betting on intermediaries in a rapidly evolving market where the underlying technology improves monthly. Today’s cutting-edge legal AI wrapper becomes tomorrow’s obsolete interface. Meanwhile, firms are locked into contracts, paying premium prices for increasingly outdated access to technology they could use directly. Why This House of Cards Will Collapse The legal AI bubble mirrors every tech bubble before it. Massive valuations built on thin value propositions. Investors pouring money into companies whose entire business model depends on other companies’ technology. Law firms, traditionally conservative with technology adoption, suddenly throwing caution to the wind because everyone else is doing it. The fundamental question every firm should ask: What unique value does this legal AI vendor provide that I cannot get from direct access to Claude, GPT-4, or Gemini? Strip away the marketing speak and legal jargon. Look at the actual functionality. In most cases, you’re paying a massive premium for prompt engineering you could do yourself. Consider document review. Multiple legal AI companies offer document review solutions powered by large language models. Their secret sauce? Prompts that tell the AI to focus on legal concepts. Any competent lawyer with an afternoon to spare could create similar prompts. Yet firms pay thousands per month for this “specialized” access. Research platforms fare no better. They ingest legal databases and wrap them with AI interfaces. The AI doesn’t understand law any better than the base model. It’s just been prompted to format responses like legal memoranda. Again, something any associate could configure with basic prompt engineering skills. The Better Path Forward Smart firms should reject the vendor gold rush and build internal AI competency instead. This doesn’t mean avoiding AI. It means being strategic about implementation and skeptical about vendors selling repackaged access to technology you can use directly. Start with direct subscriptions to major AI platforms. Google Workspace with Gemini costs a fraction of specialized legal AI tools. Claude Pro provides powerful language processing for less than most lawyers bill in an hour. Google’s Notebook LM is a favorite of mine. These platforms improve constantly, and you benefit immediately from upgrades without renegotiating vendor contracts. More critically, invest in people, not platforms. Hire or develop internal futurists and explorers. These team members should understand both legal practice and AI capabilities. Their job isn’t to build AI from scratch but to identify opportunities, test solutions, and separate genuine innovation from expensive vaporware. Create an AI evaluation framework. Before signing with any legal AI vendor, your internal team should prototype similar functionality using direct AI access. If they can replicate 80% of the vendor’s offering in a week, you’re looking at overpriced middleware, not essential technology. Establish small pilot programs. Test AI applications on real work with controlled scope. Learn what works, what doesn’t, and what your firm actually needs. This hands-on experience becomes invaluable when vendors pitch their solutions. You’ll spot the fluff immediately. Build prompt libraries and workflows internally. The “secret sauce” of most legal AI tools amounts to well-crafted prompts and integrated workflows. Your team can create these without paying vendor premiums. More importantly, you’ll own and control these assets, adapting them as needs change. The Reckoning Approaches The legal AI bubble will burst. Not because AI lacks value in legal practice, but because the current vendor ecosystem is unsustainable. When firms realize they’re paying Harvey AI prices for Google Gemini functionality, the correction will be swift and brutal. Firms committed to long-term vendor contracts will find themselves trapped, paying premium prices for increasingly commoditized services. Those who invested in internal capabilities will adapt seamlessly, switching between AI providers as technology evolves. The winners in legal AI won’t be the firms with the biggest vendor contracts. They’ll be the ones who understood early that AI is a tool, not a solution. Who recognized that sustainable advantage comes from how you use technology, not which middleman you pay to access it. Stop signing contracts with AI vendors promising to transform your practice. Start building the internal capacity to transform it yourself. The bubble is real, the burst is coming, and your firm’s future depends on being on the right side when it happens. The legal profession stands at an inflection point. We can chase shiny vendors and astronomical valuations, or we can do what lawyers do best: think critically, evaluate evidence, and make reasoned decisions. The choice seems obvious. The question is whether firms will make it before their competitors do. 

If you’re reading legal briefs late at night because administrative tasks consumed your day, you’re not alone. But you don’t have to accept this as the inevitable cost of managing a small law firm. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers small firms a path to compete with larger practices without the overhead. AI tools automate routine tasks, accelerate document review, and enhance client communication—all while reducing operational costs. In this guide, we’ll show you how AI for small law firms addresses the common challenges legal professionals face, cover specific applications, and highlight the best legal AI tools that can make a real difference in your daily operations. What Is AI For Small Law Firms? AI for small law firms refers to technology that performs tasks traditionally requiring human intelligence, such as reviewing contracts, researching case law, or drafting routine communications. AI-powered solutions for lawyers address the unique challenges small legal practices face: Wearing too many hats. When you’re the lawyer, office manager, and IT department all rolled into one, routine tasks eat up hours you could spend on client work. AI handles lots of these repetitive tasks, freeing you to focus on practicing law. Being constrained by tight budgets. Hiring another associate or paralegal isn’t always feasible for small law firms. AI can help cover staffing gaps without the overhead of salary, benefits, and office space. Dealing with high client expectations. They want rapid responses and comprehensive service without premium pricing. AI helps you deliver faster turnaround times without sacrificing quality or burning out your team. Handling time-consuming legal tasks. Document review, legal research, and contract drafting take time. AI dramatically reduces this time, allowing you to take on more cases or maintain reasonable work hours. The bottom line: AI empowers you to focus on high-value legal work by handling routine tasks efficiently. Instead of drowning in administrative work, you can focus on delivering exceptional client service and building strong relationships. Why AI is a Game-Changer For Small Law Firms Every minute counts for small law firms. You can’t afford to waste time on mundane tasks, and you can’t compete by simply working longer hours. Traditional solutions—hiring more staff or extending work days—aren’t realistic for most small practices. Budget constraints make expansion difficult, while overworking impacts your well-being and quality of client service. AI for small law firms becomes transformative by acting as your tireless legal partner, handling tedious work while you focus on high-value legal tasks. When you integrate technology like AI into your practice, you can: Get organized and work faster. AI automates time-consuming work like client follow-ups and routine document drafting. Instead of spending hours on repetitive tasks, you focus on complex legal analysis and client relationship building. Better utilize your staff’s time. Rather than having your paralegals take on time-consuming document review tasks or, paying to outsource legal work, AI handles these tasks at a fraction of the cost, allowing you and your team to focus more on the tasks that only you can do. Compete like the big firms. AI provides capabilities that previously required substantial budgets and large teams. You can deliver faster turnaround times, more strategic guidance, and faster legal research and case analysis, and provide the responsiveness that wins cases and retains clients. What makes AI especially powerful is its effortless integration. It doesn’t require overhauling your entire practice—but it does take a bit of learning. Fortunately, today’s legal AI tools are designed to be intuitive, so you can start seeing benefits without needing to master complex systems. AI tools work behind the scenes to handle existing work faster and more efficiently. 7 Practical Ways AI Can Help Your Small Law Firm You don’t need to overhaul your entire practice to benefit from AI. Start with these seven applications that tackle daily tasks currently consuming your time and resources. Legal research. AI-powered research tools analyze case law, statutes, and regulations in minutes rather than hours. You can ask questions like “find recent cases about employment discrimination in remote work situations” and receive comprehensive results with key findings summaries. Why it matters: Research that previously consumed large portions of your day now takes minutes. You’ll discover relevant precedents you might have missed and gain the insights needed to build stronger legal arguments. Drafting and contracts. AI tools handle initial drafts while you focus on strategy and client needs. These platforms generate contracts, pleadings, and correspondence based on your specifications and past work. They also learn your writing style and incorporate your firm’s preferred language. Why it matters: Dramatically reduce initial drafting time, maintain consistency across all documents, and minimize errors through intelligent template generation that remembers your preferences and standards. Client intake and CRM. AI qualifies leads, schedules appointments, and gathers case information through automated systems operating 24/7, ensuring you never miss potential clients. Smart intake forms adapt questions based on responses and flag high-priority cases for immediate attention. Why it matters: Capture leads during off-hours, respond faster than competitors, and collect necessary information right away while providing immediate engagement to potential clients. Document review. AI tools (such as Clio Duo) enable you to process large document sets without additional staff. It identifies key information in contracts, discovery documents, and case files, flagging important clauses, finding inconsistencies, and extracting relevant data for analysis. Why it matters: Complete discovery document review in a fraction of the time, improve accuracy in finding relevant information, and handle larger cases without proportionally increasing costs. Billing and time tracking. AI automatically tracks time spent on different activities, suggests appropriate billing codes, and identifies potential billing opportunities you might miss when you’re focused on the work itself. Why it matters: Capture more billable time accurately, reduce administrative overhead, and provide clients with detailed bills that demonstrate the value delivered. Compliance and risk. Stay current with regulatory changes without dedicating hours to monitoring updates. AI tools track regulatory developments, identify compliance requirements for clients, and flag potential risks in matters or firm operations. Why it matters: Prevent compliance violations that could harm clients or your practice, maintain current knowledge of changing laws, and identify potential issues before they become costly problems. Marketing and SEO. Build your practice while you focus on practicing law. AI optimizes your firm’s online presence, creates content demonstrating expertise, and identifies potential clients through targeted marketing campaigns. Why it matters: Improve search rankings so potential clients find you first, generate qualified leads consistently, and maintain professional marketing efforts without additional overhead costs. Best AI Tools For Small Law Firms In 2025 Choosing the right AI tools shouldn’t add to your stress when you’re already stretched thin. These AI tools for small law firms deliver real value—with many practices finding that they pay for themselves through time savings and improved efficiency. Clio Duo What it does: Clio Duo is your dynamic AI-powered partner, built into Clio’s legal practice management software. It automates everyday tasks like: quickly accessing information on clients, and cases, bill generation, speeding up document reviews with summarization, and streamlines client replies without the need to type out every message—all while you focus on practicing law. Why small firms love it: You eliminate the complexity of learning multiple systems, paying for separate subscriptions, or switching between platforms throughout your day—Clio Duo lives inside Clio Manage, making it easy to access and use your case information all in one place. The AI handles routine tasks while you manage everything from one dashboard. Clio Duo’s AI capabilities offer a user-friendly interface that requires minimal training. And since it’s designed specifically for the legal industry, it provides features that address unique legal needs. Investment: Clio Duo’s AI capabilities are built into Clio Manage and available as an optional add-on to your Clio Manage account. CoCounsel by Thomson Reuters What it does: CoCounsel is an AI legal assistant handling research, document review, and contract analysis with integration into existing legal research workflows. Why small firms love it: CoCounsel reduces research time and integrates seamlessly with Westlaw, if you’re already using it. The analysis quality is reliable enough to build legal arguments upon, with citations and reasoning users can trust. Investment: CoCounsel Core starts at $225/user/month, with custom pricing available based on usage and firm size. LawGeex What it does: LawGeex provides automated contract review and analysis that identifies risks, missing clauses, and suggests improvements without human intervention. Why small firms love it: LawGeex reviews contracts in minutes, catches issues you might overlook, and helps provide strong client service through comprehensive analysis that clients value. Investment: Basic plan starts at $39/month, with custom enterprise pricing typically ranging from $500 to $2,000 per month depending on contract volume and features needed. Lawmatics What it does: Lawmatics offers client intake and CRM with AI that qualifies leads and manages the entire client acquisition process automatically. Why small firms love it: Lawmatics makes sure you never miss potential clients again. The system operates 24/7 to capture leads and gather information, even when you’re in court or focused on other clients. Investment: Starting around $69/month with various plan options available. Lexis+ AI What it does: Lexis+ AI is a comprehensive legal research platform with integrated AI assistant that drafts, summarizes, and analyzes legal documents while connecting to extensive legal databases. Why small firms choose it: Lexis+ AI combines powerful research capabilities with document drafting in one platform. The AI assistant helps with everything from case research to generating first drafts of motions and briefs, backed by LexisNexis’s trusted legal content. Investment: Lexis+ plans range from $80 to $135 per month per user, with AI features available as add-ons. Custom pricing is available for specific firm needs and multi-year contracts. Spellbook What it does: Spellbook is an AI-powered contract drafting and review tool that works directly inside Microsoft Word, generating clauses and redlining contracts without switching platforms. Why small firms choose it: Spellbook seamlessly integrates with Word, which means no workflow disruption, while its AI learns your firm’s drafting style and preferences. Investment: Custom pricing based on team size, with reports suggesting approximately $180/month per user. Addressing Concerns: Ethics, Costs, and Risks While small firms are often seen as technology leaders, they’re actually falling behind their larger counterparts when it comes to AI adoption. The 2025 Legal Trends for Solo and Small Law Firms report found that only 4% of small law firms have adopted AI widely or universally. However, momentum is building—over 80% of legal professionals expect AI usage to increase in the next year. The key to introducing AI into your firm is separating legitimate concerns from unfounded fears. Let’s examine the main ones. “What about client confidentiality?” Confidentiality is the most common concern, and it’s absolutely the right question to ask. Legal-specific AI tools use enterprise-grade security, often exceeding what most small firms have in place. Tools like Clio Duo are specifically designed for legal professionals, with audit log functionality that tracks all AI activity and ensures your data isn’t used to train external AI models. Many state bars—such as California, Florida, New York—have released ethics opinions in 2024–2025 requiring attorneys to supervise AI outputs and disclose AI use in client work under certain circumstances. This is part of a broader move to ensure lawyers meet their ethical obligations under rules governing competence, confidentiality, and the supervision of nonlawyer assistants. When choosing an AI tool for your small law firm, you need to do your homework. Review vendor security policies, take the time to understand where your data is stored, and ensure any tool meets your state bar’s confidentiality requirements. But don’t let security concerns stop you from tools that actually improve your data security. “Is it reliable?” This concern drives much of the hesitation around AI adoption. The American Bar Association’s 2024 Legal Technology Survey Report found that the greatest barrier to entry is the belief that AI is not completely accurate. Three-quarters of surveyed attorneys cited concerns about AI-generated hallucinations—instances where AI produces plausible-sounding but incorrect information—as their primary reason for avoiding the technology. The key isn’t expecting perfection from AI, but rather implementing it responsibly. Successful firms pair AI with human oversight, applying guardrails and verification processes to ensure accuracy. “Can we actually afford this?” Small firm budgets demand that every expense justify itself quickly. Most AI tools cost significantly less than hiring extra support. You’re typically looking at $50-$200 per month per user for tools saving hours of work daily. Compare this to $3,000-$5,000 monthly for a paralegal, plus benefits, training, and office space. “Will AI replace lawyers?” The short answer: no. AI can’t provide legal judgment, counsel clients through difficult decisions, or advocate in court. It also can’t build relationships, negotiate complex deals, or comfort clients facing legal challenges. These fundamentally human aspects of legal practice remain irreplaceable. What it does do is handle the routine work that takes time away from practicing law. That includes work like document review, initial research, and first drafts—tasks that are necessary but don’t require legal judgment. Eager to learn more about when to use (and not use) AI in your small law firm? Watch our recent webinar recording. How To Get Started With AI In Your Law Firm When it comes to AI for small law firms, you don’t need to transform your entire practice overnight. The best approach is to start small, and then expand from there. Here’s your roadmap for implementing AI for small law firms without disrupting what’s already working. Identify your biggest time drain. Take a careful look at your typical week and identify where you spend time on work that doesn’t require legal judgment. The goal is to find tasks that consume your hours but don’t demand your expertise. Start by tracking one week of your time, noting when you’re doing work that could be handled by someone else. Common culprits include staying late to finish document drafts, spending entire afternoons on legal research, or losing potential clients because you can’t respond to inquiries quickly enough. Choose the right tool. Not all AI tools are created equal, and generic business solutions won’t meet your needs as a legal professional. Focus on solutions built specifically for law firms, as these understand confidentiality requirements, integrate with legal workflows, and provide features relevant to your practice. Before committing to any tool, invest time in research. Read reviews from other small firms rather than relying on vendor testimonials, since solo practitioners and small teams have different needs than large corporate legal departments. Take advantage of free trials or webinars to see whether the tool actually works for your specific practice area and workflow. Pay attention to vendor support quality during your evaluation. Even the best AI tool is useless without reliable support. Start with one solution. This might be the most important step, and it’s where many firms go wrong. Implement one tool completely before adding another. Your team needs time to adapt, and it’s wise to see real results before expanding your AI toolkit. Choose your timing carefully. Avoid starting during your busiest periods like trial season or tax deadlines. Instead, pick a relatively calm period where you can dedicate attention to learning without compromising client service. Getting buy-in from your team is crucial, especially if you have support staff who will be using the tool daily. Explain not just what you’re implementing, but why it will make their work easier and more interesting. Set realistic expectations about the learning curve—most people need a few weeks to feel comfortable with new workflows, and that’s perfectly normal. Invest in training. The difference between AI tools that transform your practice and AI tools that frustrate your team usually comes down to training. Most vendors offer onboarding sessions, video tutorials, and ongoing support, but you need to take advantage of these resources. Schedule dedicated learning time rather than trying to squeeze training between client work. This means blocking out time on your calendar just like you would for continuing education. A great starting point is Clio’s legal AI course—a free, self-paced program designed specifically for legal professionals to build confidence in using AI effectively and ethically. Invite everyone who will use the tool, including support staff, since they often discover practical applications that lawyers miss. Practice with real examples from your practice rather than generic scenarios. If you’re implementing a document drafting tool, use your actual templates and client matters for training. This makes the learning more relevant and helps you identify potential issues before they affect client work. Measure what matters. Track specific improvements to justify the investment and guide future decisions. The key is measuring concrete changes rather than general impressions. Focus on metrics that directly impact your bottom line. That might be time savings on specific tasks like research or drafting, increases in billable hours captured through better time tracking, improvements in client response times, and reductions in errors or missed deadlines. For example, if you implement an AI research tool, track how long research takes before and after implementation. If you add automated client intake, measure how many more leads you capture and convert. These concrete measurements help you understand ROI and make informed decisions about expanding AI use in your practice. The Final Word On AI For Small Law Firms AI offers small law firms a powerful opportunity to compete more effectively while reducing costs and improving client service. The efficiency gains and competitive advantages make AI adoption increasingly necessary for firms wanting to thrive in today’s market. The firms implementing AI now will build stronger practices and serve clients better. Those who wait risk falling behind competitors who are already using AI to their advantage.

At Society 54, we believe strategy shouldn’t be confined to a binder or pulled out for review only once a year. It should be actionable, dynamic, and directly tied to real-time insights into your firm’s operations. In today’s legal landscape, the most successful firms understand how to utilize quantifiable data not only to track performance but also to drive meaningful, organization-wide change. Strategy Backed by Real Data Strategic planning often begins with financial metrics, including profitability per attorney, realization rates, and revenue growth. These are essential, but they’re only part of the picture. A forward-thinking plan also looks inward at operational data, examining how internal teams collaborate, how long key processes take, and the allocation of resources. By expanding the scope of what gets measured, firms gain visibility into the fundamental drivers of performance and culture. And when done right, that clarity enables leaders to develop strategies grounded in facts rather than assumptions. Case Study: Rethinking Attorney Onboarding One client came to us with a challenge familiar to many firms: their attorney onboarding process was inconsistent and overly complex. So, they began measuring everything—the number of internal touchpoints, time to productivity, and where new hires encountered difficulties. By analyzing this data, the firm realized that multiple departments were duplicating efforts. They responded by developing a centralized onboarding framework that included a timeline, an ownership map, and a series of checklists and automation tools. The result? The onboarding process transitioned from disjointed to seamless, resulting in increased attorney satisfaction. Practice group leaders also noticed that new hires contributed more quickly to the group. More importantly, the success of this initiative encouraged other departments to examine their processes, creating a ripple effect across the organization. Case Study: Measuring the True Cost of a Signature Event In another instance, a client’s Marketing and Business Development (“MBD”) team tracked hours spent on a marquee client event that had become a firm tradition. The data told a clear story: the event consumed hundreds of hours from high-level team members, pulling them away from other strategic initiatives. By quantifying this time investment, the firm could make informed decisions. They outsourced specific logistics, streamlined workflows, and shifted internal focus to content and relationship-building. Not only did the team feel more energized and focused, but the event improved, and so did the return on investment. The Bigger Picture: Driving Culture Shift with Metrics These case studies aren’t just about process improvement; they’re about transformation. When firms begin to measure internal operations with the same rigor they apply to client billing, they unlock strategic opportunities across the organization. Tracking internal data helps uncover blind spots. It creates shared language and accountability across departments. It enables firm leadership to align people, processes, and priorities in a manner that supports long-term success. Build Your Culture to Embrace Curiosity and Continued Improvement Using data to drive change isn’t about micromanagement; it’s about curiosity and a desire to learn and grow. When leaders and teams genuinely become interested in how work is done and how it could be improved, innovation follows. That’s how you build a strategy that’s not only measurable but truly transformative. Ultimately, strategic planning becomes more than just a checklist. It becomes a tool for building alignment, enhancing culture, and driving the firm forward. The insights are already there; you need to start measuring what matters. The firms that thrive aren’t just tracking metrics; they’re acting on them. If your strategic plan isn’t evolving in line with your data, you’re preserving the status quo, not making progress. Start with what matters, dig into how your firm operates, and use those insights to fuel real momentum. When strategy becomes part of the everyday, it stops being theoretical and starts driving transformation. What to Track (Beyond Financial Metrics) This list scratches the surface of the items that can be tracked to help strengthen performance and culture. Consider picking one or two as a starting point and building from there. Internal collaboration metrics: Frequency of cross-functional meetings and outcomes of shared projects Process timelines: Time required to complete standard internal workflows (e.g., proposal development, lateral onboarding) Attorney engagement: Participation rates in firm initiatives such as mentorship, affinity programs, and BD training Workload allocation: Distribution of work across attorneys and staff, highlighting bottlenecks or duplication Client feedback loop: How often and how thoroughly client feedback is collected, shared, and acted upon Training hours completed: Continuing education and development tracked at individual and group levels Event/initiative ROI (time-based): Time spent versus value gained on non-billable initiatives Adoption rates: Use of internal tools and resources, including CRM, knowledge systems, and project management software

The gap between AI’s promise and its practical implementation in legal organizations is substantial. After 25 years designing and deploying technology solutions in legal environments, I’ve observed a consistent pattern: the organizations that successfully bridge this gap focus less on cutting-edge algorithms and more on strategic implementation methodologies. Technology is necessary but insufficient. Execution is where the real differentiation happens. The Implementation Gap Legal organizations often approach AI implementation with a technology-first mindset, focusing primarily on selecting advanced algorithms and platforms. This approach consistently under-delivers for three reasons: Technology without strategy lacks direction. Without clear business objectives and implementation methodology, even the most sophisticated AI becomes a solution in search of a problem. Tools without adoption create no value. Legal AI solutions that aren’t effectively integrated into workflows and embraced by users generate cost without corresponding benefit. Capabilities without governance create risk. Advanced AI deployed without appropriate oversight can create ethical, privacy, and professional responsibility challenges that outweigh benefits. The organizations that successfully harness AI’s potential have shifted their focus from technology selection to implementation methodology. Their approaches share common elements that create a blueprint for effective execution. The Five Pillars of Effective Implementation Through extensive work with legal organizations implementing AI solutions, I’ve identified five core elements that consistently differentiate successful initiatives. Problem-Centric Approach The most successful implementations begin with clear problem definitions rather than technology capabilities. This requires: Specific problem articulation— defining exactly what needs to be solved in concrete terms Quantifiable success metrics— establishing how outcomes will be measured Prioritization frameworks— determining which problems should be addressed first For example, rather than starting with “We need AI for contract review,” effective organizations might define the problem as: “Our current contract review process takes an average of 12 days, creating bottlenecks for the sales team and delaying revenue recognition. We need to reduce review time by 50% while maintaining or improving risk identification.” This clarity creates focus, enables precise solution selection, and establishes measurable success criteria. Architectural Thinking Successful organizations approach AI not as isolated tools but as components in a broader architecture. This requires: Process mapping— understanding how work currently flows through the organization Integration planning— determining how AI tools will connect with existing systems Data flow design— planning how information will move between systems and people Consider a legal department implementing a contract analysis tool. Instead of viewing it as a standalone application, they map its connections to document management systems, knowledge repositories, and workflow tools. This architectural approach ensures that the AI solution enhances rather than disrupts existing processes. This isn’t just systems integration. It’s about creating a coherent ecosystem where technology and human work complement each other. Progressive Data Strategy Data is the foundation of effective AI, but many legal organizations struggle with data quality and accessibility. Successful implementers adopt a progressive approach. Start with available data— use what exists while building toward the ideal Prioritize high-value improvements— focus first on data quality issues with the greatest impact Build data governance incrementally— create sustainable processes that improve quality over time For instance, a litigation practice might begin AI implementation using well-structured data from recent cases, while simultaneously developing processes to improve the organization of historical information. This enables immediate progress while building toward more comprehensive capabilities. Perfect data isn’t a prerequisite for starting. Progressive improvement is the key to sustainable success. Deliberate Change Management Even the best-designed AI solutions fail without effective change management. Successful implementers focus on: Stakeholder mapping— identifying who will be affected and how Resistance analysis— understanding potential barriers to adoption Value demonstration— showing clear benefits to users Capability building— developing the skills needed for effective use Consider a firm implementing an AI-powered legal research platform. They might identify partners who fear loss of control, associates concerned about skills development, and knowledge managers worried about quality control. By addressing these specific concerns and demonstrating how the platform enhances rather than threatens each stakeholder’s role, they dramatically increase adoption. Technology implementation is ultimately human transformation. Governance by Design Rather than treating governance as an afterthought, successful organizations build it into the implementation process from the beginning. Ethical frameworks— establish principles for responsible AI use Quality control mechanisms— create processes to verify AI outputs Responsibility models— clarify who is accountable for different aspects of AI systems Monitor protocols— implement ongoing oversight of AI performance For example, a corporate legal department implementing an AI contract analysis tool might establish clear protocols for when attorney review is required, how anomalous results are handled, and who bears responsibility for decisions based on AI recommendations. This governance framework ensures the technology is used appropriately and responsibly. Governance isn’t a constraint on innovation. It’s what makes innovation sustainable. Implementation in Action: Three Success Patterns Organizations that excel at AI implementation typically follow one of three primary patterns, each suited to different contexts: The Targeted Pilot Approach This pattern focuses on proving value quickly through narrow, well-defined implementations before scaling. Start small— select a specific use case with clear boundaries Prove value— demonstrate measurable benefits Expand methodically— apply lessons learned to additional use cases A global law firm used this approach when implementing AI-powered due diligence. They began with a single transaction type in one practice group, refined their approach based on results, and then expanded to additional practice areas. This incremental approach built confidence, developed expertise, and created advocates within the firm. This pattern works particularly well in organizations with high skepticism or risk aversion. The Platform Strategy This approach focuses on building foundational capabilities that can support multiple applications. Create core infrastructure— establish data, integration, and governance foundations Enable experimentation— provide tools and frameworks for multiple initiatives Centralize expertise— build a shared resource of technical and implementation knowledge A large corporate legal department implemented this strategy by first focusing on document standardization, knowledge management infrastructure, and data governance frameworks. Once this foundation was established, they supported practice-specific AI initiatives across multiple legal functions with dramatically higher success rates than similar organizations. This pattern is most effective in larger organizations with diverse use cases and significant resources. The Transformational Approach This pattern uses AI implementation as a catalyst for broader organizational change. Reimagine processes— use implementation as an opportunity to redesign workflows Evolve roles— redefine responsibilities in light of new capabilities Shift metrics— create new measures of success aligned with technology capabilities A mid-sized law firm used AI implementation to completely reimagine their litigation support function, redefining attorney, paralegal, and support staff roles while implementing new collaboration and service delivery models. The technology implementation served as the catalyst for a more fundamental transformation. This pattern is most appropriate when existing processes are significantly underperforming or when external pressures necessitate radical change. Common Implementation Pitfalls Even with sound methodology, certain pitfalls consistently undermine AI implementation in legal organizations. The perfection trap. Many organizations delay implementation while seeking perfect solutions or ideal data. This approach sacrifices immediate benefits while perfect solutions remain elusive. The more effective approach focuses on progressive improvement: start with good enough solutions that deliver value today, while building toward better solutions tomorrow. The isolated innovation model. Some organizations create innovation teams or labs disconnected from day-to-day operations. While these groups may develop impressive prototypes, their solutions often fail to translate into production because they lack practical context. Successful organizations instead create integrated innovation models where technology experts work alongside legal practitioners in real operational contexts. The technology tunnel vision. Organizations sometimes become fixated on technological sophistication at the expense of practical usability. This results in impressive capabilities that go unused because they don’t fit into actual work patterns. The best implementations prioritize integration into daily workflow over technical sophistication, recognizing that adoption is the true measure of success. The governance afterthought. Many organizations treat governance as something to be addressed after implementation, only to discover critical ethical, privacy, or responsibility issues that could have been anticipated. Effective implementations incorporate governance considerations from the beginning, ensuring that solutions are both powerful and responsible. Building Implementation Capability For organizations looking to improve their AI implementation capabilities, three investments consistently deliver returns: Develop Implementation Methodologies Create standardized approaches to AI implementation that incorporate the five pillars discussed above. These methodologies should be: Flexible enough to accommodate different use cases Structured enough to ensure consistency Practical enough to be used by non-specialists The organizations with the highest success rates have clear, documented implementation methodologies that guide projects from conception through execution. Build Cross-Functional Implementation Teams Create teams that combine legal, technical, and operational perspectives. These teams should include: Legal subject matter experts who understand the substantive work Technical specialists who understand AI capabilities and limitations Process designers who can reimagine workflows Change facilitators who can drive adoption The most successful organizations maintain standing implementation teams rather than assembling them ad hoc for each project. Create Implementation Knowledge Management Establish systems to capture and share implementation lessons. These should include: Case studies documenting both successes and failures Reusable components like requirements templates and evaluation frameworks Knowledge-sharing mechanisms like communities of practice Organizations that systematically learn from their implementation experiences dramatically improve their success rates over time. The Future of Legal AI Implementation As AI technology continues to advance, implementation capability will become an increasingly important differentiator. The organizations that excel won’t necessarily be those with the most advanced technology, but those that most effectively translate technological potential into practical value. This isn’t just about operational efficiency. It’s about competitive advantage. Organizations that can consistently implement AI solutions faster and more effectively than their peers will deliver better client service, reduce costs, and attract top talent. For legal professionals, developing implementation skills represents a significant career opportunity. The ability to bridge technical and legal domains, to translate between stakeholder needs and technological capabilities, is becoming increasingly valuable. The future belongs not just to those who understand the technology, but to those who can implement it effectively. That’s where possibility becomes reality.

The legal profession is standing at the edge of a radical transformation. Technology, shifting client expectations, new business models, and the accelerating pace of change are exposing a critical question: Will your law firm exist in five years? At Best Era, LLC, we consult with clients around the world and begin by asking them where they want to be in five years. If you aren’t thinking about five years from now, you should pause, and spend some time doing so. This isn’t just a rhetorical question. It’s one that demands sober, strategic reflection. The truth is that many firms won’t survive, not because they weren’t competent or profitable, but because they failed to adapt. If you’re leading a law firm, here are seven key questions that will determine whether you’ll still be in business half a decade from now. 1. Why Does Your Firm Exist? If you can’t answer this question clearly and persuasively, you’re already in trouble. Too many firms define their existence by inertia: We’ve always been here. Or circumstance: We signed a 10-year lease. Or comfort: We’re still making money. These are not reasons—they’re symptoms of complacency. A firm that wants to thrive must have: Well-defined values that serve as a compass in turbulent times. A clearly defined niche, because “we do everything” no longer works in a world of specialization and rapid information access. A value proposition that evolves, rooted in solving real problems in unique ways. If you don’t know why your firm exists beyond paying salaries and overhead, your future is up for grabs. The firms that will survive are mission-driven, nimble, and clear on their why. 2. Why Would Anyone Work for You? If your answer is “money,” you’re in serious danger. The legal workforce is shifting. Lawyers, especially younger ones, are increasingly driven by meaning, impact, lifestyle, and growth. Yes, they want to be paid fairly—but they also want: Purpose-driven work. Opportunities to innovate and lead. Work-life integration, not just work-life balance. Transparency and autonomy. In the age of remote work, digital tools, and widespread entrepreneurship, it’s never been easier for a talented lawyer to go solo. If your culture is built solely around compensation, you’ll find yourself in a constant cycle of turnover and talent drain. Firms that win in the next five years will create environments people want to be part of—because of how it feels, what it stands for, and what it enables. 3. Are You Hiring for the Skillsets of the Future? The skills that made a great lawyer in 2010 are not the same ones that will define success in 2030. Traditional legal education emphasized: Deep legal research. Meticulous writing. Adversarial thinking. Those skills still matter, but they’re no longer sufficient. Today, forward-thinking firms are hiring for: Project management expertise— because legal matters increasingly resemble complex operations. AI fluency— understanding how to prompt, audit, and collaborate with artificial intelligence tools. Client experience design— because value is judged not just by outcomes, but by process and communication. If your hiring is rooted in resumes and class ranks alone, you’re missing the moment. Firms of the future need people who can build, adapt, and lead in uncertainty. 4. How Strong Are Your Community Relationships? Law is a trust-based profession. And trust is built through proximity, consistency, and value. Firms that operate in a vacuum, rarely engaging with their community, industry, or niche—are out of touch and at risk. Ask yourself: Are we showing up where our clients and peers are? Are we listening to what they care about? Are we giving back in meaningful ways? Whether it’s through thought leadership, nonprofit partnerships, pro bono efforts, or local presence, community is your moat. Weak relationships mean weak referrals, poor retention, and diminished brand strength. 5. Is Your Business Model Built for a Post-Billable-Hour World? The “death of the billable hour” has been written about for decades. But today, it’s finally on life support. Why? Because AI, automation, and process optimization are collapsing the time it takes to deliver legal work. Tasks that used to take three days now take 30 minutes. If you’re billing by the hour, you’re incentivized to be slower, not smarter. Clients are noticing. The future belongs to firms that: Offer value-based pricing. Bundle services with subscriptions or flat fees. Use data and transparency to build trust, not mystery. If your margins depend on dragging out routine work, your model is in jeopardy. Start rethinking value, not as time spent, but as problems solved. 6. Are You Ready for a Leveled Playing Field? The tools of BigLaw are no longer exclusive. A solo practitioner armed with Westlaw AI, a decent case management system, and a smart strategy can now: Draft contracts at scale. File complex litigation. Deliver 24/7 client updates. This is a tectonic shift. Technology is democratizing legal services. You don’t need a floor of associates and paralegals to compete anymore—you need leverage and precision. This means: Rethinking your firm’s cost structure. Redesigning workflows for maximum automation. Competing on strategy and insight, not brute force. Legacy is no longer a moat. Agility is. 7. Can You Justify Working at Your Firm? Let’s say you’re a talented associate or even a partner. You’re watching AI eat time, remote work untethering geography, and legal entrepreneurs thriving with minimal overhead. Why stay? That’s the question your current and future lawyers are asking. If you want to retain and attract top talent, you’ll need answers like: “Because we offer growth and mentorship you can’t get elsewhere.” “Because our platform helps you scale your impact.” “Because we make it easy to do your best work without burning out.” Gone are the days when security and tradition were enough. Today’s legal professionals want alignment, innovation, and freedom. And if they don’t get it from you, they’ll go build it themselves. Conclusion: Five Years Is Closer Than You Think This isn’t alarmism—it’s realism. Law firms that thrive in the next five years will not be the biggest or the most prestigious. They will be: Mission-aligned. Tech-enabled. Client-centered. Talent-smart. If you’re not actively evolving in those directions, the clock is ticking. Start with the hard questions. Build from first principles. And above all, don’t assume you’re safe just because you’re profitable today. The winds have shifted. Make sure your sails are set.

Employers are often faced with complaints of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other kinds of misconduct. While no two investigations are identical, specific strategies exist to help conduct effective workplace investigations, which in turn helps build trust within the organization, lends a listening ear to aggrieved and accused employees and protects the organization from liability. This alert highlights strategies for ensuring that your workplace investigations promote organizational integrity, establish fair treatment, and foster a positive work environment. Identify the Scope Defining the scope of a workplace investigation is fundamental to its success and efficiency. A well-defined scope acts as a roadmap, preventing investigators from pursuing irrelevant leads while ensuring all pertinent issues are thoroughly examined. Without clear boundaries, investigations risk becoming unfocused fishing expeditions that waste resources, delay resolution, and potentially create additional liability. Investigators must identify the specific allegations and the relevant time period(s), parties involved, and evidence. They should also establish which policies are at issue and may have been violated. This framework helps maintain objectivity and ensures investigations remain focused on substantiating or disproving specific claims rather than expanding into tangential matters. Create Your Investigation Plan The moment a complaint is reported, the clock starts ticking. It is imperative to promptly investigate and to not unreasonably delay an investigation or to appear unresponsive to the allegations made. A timely investigation is critical to resolving and addressing any issues and to asserting possible defenses should the matter lead to litigation. While an effective investigation isn’t necessarily completed overnight, companies should consider timelines of one week, two weeks, or sometimes a month depending on the nature of the claims, the number of documents to review, and the number of interviewees involved. The investigator should come into each witness interview armed with an outline of questions to help guide the discussion. While the outline need not be followed rigidly, the outline can help the investigator stay organized, ensure key topics are covered, and help maintain a structured flow, ultimately leading to a more focused and successful interview. Additionally, the investigator should consider what the relevant documents are and ensure that all documents pertinent to the claims have been reviewed. For instance, does the investigator have access to relevant emails, text messages, complaints to human resources, disciplinary documents, and personnel files? Though it is not uncommon for new documents to be discovered during an interview, the investigator should enter the interview with a grasp of what the file entails. Last, when establishing a plan, choose a location where the interviewee will feel comfortable speaking frankly and truthfully. The environment of the interview can play a significant role in shaping the outcome of the interview. If the interviewee feels embarrassed, threatened, or spotlighted, the interviewee may not speak with full candor. To the extent possible, interviews should take place in a private room free from distractions or visibility to the interviewee’s colleagues. Off-site conference rooms or even remote interviews during which the interviewee is at home are encouraged. In some cases, it may be necessary to choose different locations for the various interviewees depending on the circumstances. In other words, a high-level manager with a secluded office may be interviewed in a different setting than an intern assigned to a cubicle alongside other colleagues. The investigator should also consider whether the individuals being interviewed are hourly employees who need to be compensated for the time spent participating in the investigation. Decide Whether Immediate Action is Necessary Businesses may be confronted with the issue of whether it is necessary to take immediate action after a complaint is reported. Depending on the nature of the complaint, taking immediate steps to protect the complainant may be critical. This may take the form of paid temporary leave, schedule adjustments, or physically separating the workspaces of the complainant and accused to prevent any further misconduct. Employers must be aware, however, that such decisions should not go so far as to burden or inconvenience the complainant and their ability to perform their job duties during the investigation. For example, placing the complainant on an unpaid suspension or transferring their work location without their consent can be perceived as retaliatory and is not recommended. Similarly, an employer must consider whether to remove the accused from the workplace pending investigation, temporarily reassign the accused to an alternative work assignment, and/or whether to compensate the accused if they are suspended pending investigation. Each investigation is unique and may warrant different circumstances during the pendency of an investigation. Communicate the “No Retaliation” Rule One of the most pressing considerations is ensuring that a workplace investigation does not result in retaliation. Every interviewee should be told at the outset that retaliation will not be tolerated against those who complain or those who participate in investigations. It must be made clear that acts of retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Workplace investigations can place employees on the defensive, because they often feel like they are being accused of wrongdoing, even if they are not. This can lead to a sense of personal attack, fear of repercussions, and a desire to protect themselves by minimizing their involvement. Thus, communicating a “no retaliation” rule is critical in protecting the company and encouraging participation in the process. Employees should be instructed not to retaliate against anyone and should similarly be put on notice to report any retaliation they may face as a result of their own participation. Additionally, the investigator must explain that information provided during the interview may be shared with others only if absolutely necessary. Interviewees should understand that complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed and may be virtually impossible to maintain in the event that a lawsuit arises. Should litigation be pursued, the interviewee should know that relevant parties will require copies of all statements and case-related documents. At the same time, the investigator can reassure the subject that they intend to uphold confidentiality as much as possible and that they plan to gather all available facts before reaching any conclusions. Choosing the Right Investigator One of the most avoidable hiccups is choosing the wrong investigator. The choice of investigator directly impacts the investigation’s credibility, effectiveness, and legal defensibility. Employers should pay heed to choosing an investigator with awareness and sensitivity. Differences in background, understanding, and experiences might affect communication styles, power dynamics, and interpretation of events. Remain Impartial Impartiality is key. The investigator should focus on maintaining a neutral and impartial tone throughout the course of the interview so as to not discredit impartiality or cause the interviewee to question their motives. While it may be tempting to gain the interviewee’s trust by acting like you are on their side, any flaws in the process can be used to challenge the credibility of the investigation’s findings, leading to potential legal liability for the employer. Reaching a Determination and Communicating to All Parties After conducting the initial interviews and any necessary follow-up interviews, there should be a formal conclusion to the investigation memorialized in writing. The final written report should reach an ultimate conclusion as to the facts and whether policies were violated, but should not opine on issues of law or use legal terms. The report should also highlight a section that provides a clear statement of the findings of the investigation on each key issue, including any issues that were not resolved. The final report should also include a list of the parties involved, employer policies or guidelines relevant to the investigation, and the parties responsible for making the final determination. The report should assess the credibility of witnesses. Did the interviewee display a clear sense of personal interest in the results of the investigation? Is the interviewee’s job on the line and would they have any reason to be untruthful? Does the interviewee have an obvious animus towards the complainant or accused? The investigator should be assessing the interviewee’s subjective credibility in ensuring whether their answers are truthful and accurate. The investigator may be tasked with issuing a recommendation on the employment decision, at which point a member of the business, in consultation with legal counsel, will assess, finalize, or reject that recommendation. If tasked with issuing the business a recommendation, the investigator should clearly identify the basis for their recommendation in an impartial manner, using the facts and information obtained during the course of the investigation. Last, effective communication is paramount when closing an investigation. An organization may want to consider the following approaches: providing appropriate notifications to involved parties while maintaining confidentiality, communicating outcomes to relevant stakeholders without disclosing sensitive details, ensuring transparency about the process and commitment to organizational standards, and offering support resources for employees affected by the investigation. Closing the Investigation Closing a workplace investigation is a delicate and crucial process that requires careful attention to detail, legal compliance, and organizational integrity. The manner in which an investigation is concluded can significantly impact employee trust, organizational culture, and potential future legal implications. Based on the investigation’s findings, the organization will want to develop a clear and actionable plan for resolution. This may include: Disciplinary actions for substantiated misconduct; Targeted training or educational interventions; Policy revisions or organizational practice improvements; Mediation or conflict resolution strategies for interpersonal issues. An investigation’s closure is not the end of the process, but a new beginning. Organizations should work to implement a follow-up plan to monitor the effectiveness of corrective actions, conduct periodic check-ins with the involved parties, track any recommended organizational changes, and assess the long-term impact of the investigation’s outcomes. By approaching the closure of a workplace investigation with thoroughness, empathy, and strategic insight, organizations can transform a potentially challenging situation into an opportunity for positive change and continuous improvement.