A year or so ago, I became a full-time mediator. While mediation had been a routine component of my 35-plus years as a trial lawyer, conducting mediations as the mediator is a strikingly different role and has taught me some valuable lessons. Many of these lessons I anticipated because of the fine formal (shoutout to Tracy Leissner and Robert Hughes and the University of Houston Law Center’s 40-hour training program) and informal training I did beforehand, as well as the countless mediations in which I participated as an advocate. But some surprised me, and they may surprise other new mediators—as well as attorneys who are new to mediation. Here are six mediation lessons I want to share. A Dispute Can Settle Early On A case—even a dispute that has yet to be filed—really can settle before the parties spend substantial sums in discovery and motion practice. There is a caveat: The parties and their lawyers must put work into the mediation process. I was skeptical at first, but I have seen it happen firsthand. Trying to resolve disputes early on—the process is now often called early dispute resolution or EDR—seems to be gaining popularity. That is no surprise as litigation continues to get more and more expensive. When I have seen it work, I have noticed at least three things were present: The lawyers had convinced their clients (or maybe it was vice versa) to come to mediation with open minds and positive attitudes about how to reach an early resolution. The parties and their lawyers worked diligently during the mediation process to bridge material information gaps. The lawyers (and therefore their clients) had good handles on their claims, defenses and potential damages. Preparation Matters When a lawyer shows up to the mediation having provided her client with a true assessment of the risks of the case, she has served the mediation process and her client well. When a lawyer shows up without having assessed the risks, he has potentially hindered the settlement process. As a young trial lawyer coming out of Baylor Law School’s Practice Court and starting as an associate in the premier trial firm of Strasburger & Price, I was taught to draft a jury charge as soon as you knew enough about your case and then assess the chances of winning the answers that you want. That meant that you were also assessing the chances of winning or losing issues as a matter of law. Did I—and do we trial lawyers—always do that? Of course not. But the more I can tell a lawyer at mediation has done that kind of work, the better I feel about our chances of success on the day of mediation. One Person Can Derail a Mediation Even when the parties are adequately prepared, one “rogue” lawyer or party can derail a mediation. To help avoid this, I have learned to do as much as possible before the mediation, or at least at its very beginning, to unmask that person. It is usually not hard to spot him or her. What is harder is predicting whether that person’s attitude will change during the day. I try to learn more about the person’s motivation for being difficult. Sometimes it is emotion. Sometimes it is an unrealistic view of the case. Sometimes it is a person being overly aggressive for aggression’s sake. The more I learn, the better I can enlist other participants to help me bring the rogue in line. An Opening Session May Be Productive—or Not I have learned to handle whether to have an opening session on a case-by-case basis. By the end of my days as a trial lawyer handling mostly large, complicated commercial disputes, it was customary to skip an opening session. While training to mediate full time, I questioned whether skipping an opening session was always the right thing to do. Sometimes it absolutely is, but sometimes it is not. I have watched opening sessions do their part to advance the parties more quickly to a settlement. I have also skipped opening sessions only to get together later in the day to tackle an issue that we could have taken care of upfront. But I have also had mediations where certain folks should not have been in the same room together. So, I have learned to address whether to have an opening session in my pre-mediation calls, and I have found myself encouraging opening sessions when I notice some reason for participants to eyeball each other at the beginning of the day. Pre-Mediation Calls and Video Teleconferences Matter Pre-mediation telephone calls and/or video teleconference sessions are a valuable part of the mediation process. A year ago, I wondered how many busy lawyers would take the time for such a call. So far, every one of them have chosen to. We have used them to do many things, such as identifying missing information needed for effective negotiations, encouraging a more fulsome risk assessment, discovering the potential rogue, discussing whether an opening session makes sense or just getting to know each other if we did not already. These calls help set the stage for a successful mediation. Following up Can Make the Difference Finally, lawyers appreciate persistent follow-up when a settlement was not reached the day of mediation. (No, I’m not batting 1000%.) By persistent, I mean following up until the lawyers tell me to go away. I have learned that such follow-up may lead the parties to realize that much of the groundwork for a settlement was already laid, and we may be able to achieve after the mediation what we were not able to do the day of mediation. Originally published in The Texas Lawbook—December 2024 and reprinted with permission. 

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure California Capital Insurance Company v. Hoehn (2024) _Cal. 5th_, 2024 WL 4812045: The California Supreme Court overruled the rule in Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114 (Rogers) and its progeny that Code of Civil Procedure section 437.5’s two-year time limit applies to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) motions to vacate a judgment that is void, stating that procedural hurdles that are unnecessary to the fair adjudication of default judgments should not stand in the way of the vindication of a defendant’s due process rights. In the underlying case plaintiff attempted to serve defendant in 2010 and allegedly obtained substituted service on defendant’s girlfriend. In 2011 plaintiff obtained a default judgment of $486,528 against defendant. In 2018 plaintiff assigned the default judgment rights, and in 2020 after the judgment creditor tried to garnish defendant’s wages. Defendant then filed his motion to set aside the default judgment which the trial court denied based upon Rogers, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (November 18, 2024.) North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 4599235: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding disqualification of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal ruled that the nonwaiver provision set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(b)(2) precluded waiver of a party’s right to seek judicial disqualification when the claim would otherwise be barred by the requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) that a claim for disqualification should be at the earliest practicable opportunity. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only in circumstances of judicial self-disqualification, where a judge has determined himself or herself to be disqualified and, absent an explicit waiver of disqualification by the parties, would recuse himself or herself from the proceedings. (§ 170.3(a)(1) & (b)(1).) The nonwaiver provision is inapplicable when a party seeks disqualification by filing a written verified statement of disqualification. (October 28, 2024.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Attorney Fees Ofek Rachel, Ltd., et al. v. Zion (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4849692: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order awarding defendant Chaim Cohen (Cohen) to pay the judgment creditors $185,095.20 for their attorney fees and $8,964.71 in costs. Cohen was not involved in the original lawsuit leading up to the judgment. In a post-judgment debtor’s examination and other discovery, the judgment debtor admitted that his friend Cohen was paying all of the judgment debtor’s expenses, often with American Express credit cards in Cohen’s name. Cohen then became involved in post-judgment enforcement proceedings. The Court of Appeal concluded that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a), a trial court has authority to impose attorney fees against a person who violated a court order compelling discovery issued during the post-judgment enforcement proceedings—even though that person was not a party to the lawsuit giving rise to the judgment being enforced. (C.A. 2nd, November 21, 2024.) Civil Procedure Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4456864: In this important new case dealing with CCP 998 offers, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order holding that because defendant had sent one valid CCP 998 offer that plaintiff rejected, and plaintiff failed to get a more favorable result at trial, plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees were limited and defendant was awarded its post-offer costs. The twist in this case was that defendant made two simultaneous 998 offers that it labeled as “alternative offers.” After plaintiff leased a new 2016 Land Rover LR4 from defendant, he experienced numerous defects and nonconformities that defendant was unable to repair. Plaintiff sued defendant in a lemon law case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) and alleged (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) breach of the duty to return the vehicle from service without defects within 30 days. Defendant sent two simultaneous 998 offers. One was a lump sum offer, offering to pay plaintiff $85,000.00 to return the vehicle with free and clear title. There was no dispute that this was a valid CCP 998 offer. The other offer was a category-based offer with a dispute resolution mechanism where defendant agreed to pay undisputed damages and allowed plaintiff to pick a dispute resolution process to resolve disputed damages. For both alternative offers defendant offered to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs in either (1) a flat amount of $7,500 or (2) an amount to be determined by the court. The Court of Appeal concluded that simultaneous offers to the same party are not effective under CCP 998 because such offers do not allow the trial court to determine whether a judgment is more favorable than the offer. The Court of Appeal also concluded that category-based offer was invalid. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that when an offeree makes two simultaneous offers, one of which is invalid and the other valid, this does not make the independently valid offer ineffective. The trial court properly evaluated the valid 998 offer and concluded that plaintiff was limited to recovering his pre-offer costs and attorney fees and was required to pay defendant’s post-offer costs. (C.A. 2nd, October 10, 2024.) Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Association (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4677484: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trail court’s order entering a dismissal with prejudice against defendant, and awarding defendant $48,229.08 in attorney fees. The trial court entered these orders due to plaintiffs actions in filing a first amended complaint that did not name the original sole defendant (instead naming other defendants), and later seeking to dismiss the original defendant without prejudice, after the trial court had sustained defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend as to two causes of action and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the other cause of action, in plaintiffs’ action alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory relief against defendant. After plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint defendant requested that it be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs could have dismissed defendant without prejudice by filing a dismissal before filing the first amended complaint, or by naming the defendant in the first amended complaint and then dismissing that defendant without prejudice. Plaintiffs failed to exercise either option. Instead, plaintiffs elected to amend their complaint and then, several days later, sought to dismiss, thereby forfeiting the right to voluntary dismissal without prejudice. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 581(f)(2).) The trial court had discretion to dismiss with prejudice or without prejudice, and it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant its attorney fees. (C.A. 4th, November 5, 2024.) Real Property JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4599704: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to overturn respondent’s decision granting a conditional use permit (CUP) for the cultivation of cannabis where a private easement over a neighbor’s land was the only access to the land subject to the CUP. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and reversed its order because under federal law cannabis is illegal in California and everywhere else in the United States. The servient tenant’s objection on this ground was sufficient to defeat the CUP. (C.A. 2nd, October 29, 2024.)

Managing your law firm’s reputation is a crucial aspect of operating in today’s digital landscape. In my experience, I’ve come to understand that reputation management isn’t just about responding to online reviews or monitoring social media mentions. It’s about actively shaping how your firm is perceived by potential clients, peers, and even competitors. With so many platforms where people can discuss your firm—Google, social media, legal directories—it can feel overwhelming to keep track of it all. But in this article, I’ll go through several effective strategies and tools that can help. Why Reputation Management Matters for Law Firms Consider these statistics: 77% of consumers read reviews when browsing local businesses. 79% of consumers expect brands to respond within 24 hours on social media. These expectations highlight the importance of reputation management. With so many channels for feedback and reviews, it’s crucial for law firms to actively monitor and manage their online presence. What Is Reputation Management? Reputation management is the science of shaping public perception of a business—in this case, your law firm. It’s about influencing what current and potential clients think of you based on what they see online. Reputation management involves things like responding to feedback, managing your SEO to showcase positive content, and launching PR campaigns to boost visibility. When done right, it builds trust and loyalty, which I believe are key drivers for growth in any law firm. At the same time, I’ve noticed that even negative feedback can be valuable. It often highlights areas for improvement, allowing your firm to better serve its clients. What Is Brand Reputation Management? Brand reputation management focuses on how people perceive your law firm’s image. This goes beyond your firm’s logo or tagline. It’s about maintaining your professional standing on review sites, social media platforms, and search engines. Bra nd reputation management is ongoing. It’s not enough to monitor public perception—you need to act swiftly to address issues and improve your firm’s image when needed. While brand reputation and general reputation management overlap, I see a key difference: brand reputation centers on how your firm’s brand connects with clients, while reputation management includes broader aspects like operational integrity or ethical practices. Strategies for Law Firms to Manage Their Reputation Reputation management is about being proactive rather than reactive. Here are strategies I believe can help your law firm: Audit Your Online Presence: Make it a priority to ensure that all your profiles—website, social media, legal directories—are consistent and up-to-date. Monitor Client Feedback: Whether it’s Google reviews, Avvo ratings, or social media comments, it’s important to keep track of what people are saying. Responding promptly and professionally to feedback is critical. Invest in Thought Leadership: Publishing blogs, articles, or videos showcasing your firm’s expertise is a great way to build trust. Sharing insights through webinars or podcasts also positions your firm as an authority in its practice areas. Leverage Local SEO: Optimizing your website for local search terms can make your firm more visible to potential clients in your area. Focus on Client Experience: Ensuring a seamless and professional client journey—from the initial consultation to case resolution—is a non-negotiable part of reputation management. How to Build a Reputation Management Plan Building a solid reputation management plan takes effort, but I’ve found it’s worth every bit of energy. Here’s how to go about it: Research and Monitor: I’d start by tracking mentions of your firm online using tools like Google Alerts or dedicated reputation management software. This would give you a clear picture of how people perceive your firm. Develop a Response Strategy: Creating a tone guide ensures that responses to reviews and comments are consistent and professional. I’d include templates for handling common scenarios, including crisis situations. Assign Clear Roles: Having a team member or department responsible for reputation management is crucial. They’d handle ongoing monitoring and ensure the strategy stays on track. Engage Regularly: I’d make it a habit to post updates, share client success stories, and interact with followers on social media. Consistent engagement builds trust. Evaluate and Adjust: Finally, I’d continuously assess the effectiveness of the strategy and make adjustments based on feedback and analytics. Tools to Help Manage Your Law Firm’s Reputation I’ve seen how tools can make reputation management much easier. Here are a few that I recommend: Yext Reviews: Helps maintain consistent business information across platforms. ReviewTrackers: Monitors reviews from sites like Google and Facebook, sending real-time alerts. Podium: Centralizes client interactions and review management. BirdEye: Tracks reviews, monitors social media mentions, and gathers competitor insights. Key Takeaways Reputation management is an ongoing effort that requires attention, strategy, and the right tools. A strong reputation doesn’t just happen—it’s built over time through deliberate actions. By auditing your online presence, engaging with your audience, and responding to feedback thoughtfully, you can protect and enhance your law firm’s image. Take the time to craft a reputation management plan that aligns with your goals, and use it as a foundation to build trust and credibility in your market. It’s an investment that will pay off in the long run.

Delegation isn’t just a skill; it’s an art—and let’s face it, one of the hardest to master. As a lawyer and leader, it’s easy to convince yourself that you’re the only one who can do things the “right way.” But the reality is, clinging to every detail isn’t just exhausting—it’s holding you, your team, and your firm back. I know this because I’ve been there. Back in the day, when I started my law firm I leaned into doing more than I ought to have—client work, marketing, networking, admin work, everything. It was a different story when I started my coaching business because I had learned to let go, focus on the things I was good at and that moved the needle for my business, that I truly experienced the power of leveraging my team. Delegation is about creating time and space for what only you can do: lead, strategize, and envision the future. In this post, I’ll break down the four levels of delegation and, more importantly, how you can embrace the pinnacle—Designing—to achieve growth and freedom. Four Common Mindset Barriers to Delegation Let’s start with the mental roadblocks. If you’ve ever hesitated to delegate, chances are one of these is to blame: Fear of Losing Control I see this all the time with my coaching clients—and I’ve struggled with it myself. We worry that if we hand something off, the quality will suffer. But here’s the kicker: trying to control everything creates bottlenecks and limits your firm’s potential. Perfectionism Lawyers often tell me, “No one will do it as well as I do.” That may be true initially, but without delegating, your team will never rise to meet or even surpass your standards. Remember, perfection is the enemy of progress. Fear of Being Less Essential I call this the “busy equals valuable” trap. If your calendar isn’t packed, do you still feel like a leader? Delegation gives you the space to breathe and think strategically, which is where your real value lies. The Time Investment Misperception “It’s faster/easier if I just do it.” Sound familiar? While that might be true in the short term, it’s a myth in the long run. Training someone else to handle repeatable tasks pays dividends over time. The Four Levels of Delegation Let’s walk through the progression of delegation. Understanding where you are—and where you need to go—is the key to transforming how you lead. Level 1: Doing Here, you’re stuck in the weeds, executing tasks yourself. It’s exhausting and unsustainable. When I started Advocatus Coaching, I wasted hours scheduling appointments and managing my inbox. Once I delegated these tasks, my productivity skyrocketed. Level 2: Deciding This is the micromanagement zone—you assign tasks but require constant approvals. It’s a step forward, but not enough to truly free up your time or empower your team. Level 3: Delegating At this level, you delegate both the task and the authority to complete it. Your team begins to take ownership, but there’s still a gap between independence and innovation. Level 4: Designing Now we’re talking. Designing is where you, as a leader, define the vision, align your team’s goals, and trust them to innovate and execute with excellence. What Does Designing Look Like? Imagine you’re a managing partner tasked with expanding your firm’s business litigation practice. Instead of dictating every detail, you outline the high-level goal: become the go-to firm in the region within three years. Then, you empower your team to figure out the best way to achieve that goal. One partner creates a targeted client acquisition strategy. Another revamps internal processes to handle increased caseloads efficiently. By letting go, you’re not just delegating—you’re cultivating leaders within your firm. Mindset Shifts for Designing To lead at this level, you must adopt two critical mindset shifts: From Doer to Visionary: Stop focusing on how tasks get done and start focusing on where you want your firm to go. When I stopped designing every marketing campaign and instead shared my vision for what I wanted my brand to represent, my team produced incredible results—sometimes better than I imagined. From Manager to Leader: You’re no longer there to supervise; you’re there to inspire. Trust your team to take ownership, and watch them grow into the roles you’ve envisioned for them. A Real-World Example of Designing Delegation One of my clients, a managing partner at a mid-sized law firm, was overwhelmed. She was juggling operations, client work, and managing her team—and had no time for strategic thinking. Recognizing the bottleneck, she hired a COO and gave them full ownership of the firm’s operational efficiency. This move freed her to focus on two critical areas: building client relationships and dedicating time to strategic planning. For the first time, she had space to anticipate market trends, align her team’s efforts with long-term goals, and explore growth opportunities. The results were transformative and her ability to step back and think strategically made all the difference. Principles for Success in Designing Delegation Clarity of Vision: Define the “why” and the end goal, then let your team determine the “how.” Example: When delegating client onboarding, outline the ideal experience and allow your team to design the process. Trust and Autonomy: Let go of micromanagement. You hired your team for a reason—let them shine. Example: Entrust your associates to develop new legal strategies for complex cases, stepping in only for final approval. Continuous Feedback: Create a culture of learning. Celebrate successes and use setbacks as opportunities for growth. Example: After a major project, host a debrief to identify lessons learned and refine processes for the future. The Time to Start Is Now Delegation isn’t about giving up control—it’s about building a stronger, more resilient team and creating space for yourself to lead effectively. What’s one task you can delegate at Level 4 today? The sooner you start, the closer you’ll get to transforming your leadership—and your firm’s future.  My clients are the best attorneys in their fields. They’re managing partners and law firm CEOs who are comfortable with being uncomfortable, who think big to keep their firms thriving. They increase revenue, master their time and focus, improve performance, and ultimately enjoy more freedom with less burnout. You can too. Schedule a complimentary 30-minute discovery session with me here, or send me an email.

Recently, I witnessed a Level 17 meet his doom. I have attended many sentencing hearings. For context, the federal justice system uses a unique numbering system called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine the punishment due in relation to the extent of the crime. This system was implemented to bring fairness to individuals facing confinement. It starts with a base number, you add or subtract numbers based on conduct, and just like that, you have the sentence. Most client’s initial words are “I am sorry.” They are not sorry for what they did necessarily, but sorry for getting caught certainly. However, as time goes on, grief, financial demise, and stress bring most of them to their breaking point. In this case, the defendant’s words were different. When it comes to the business of sentencing, it can be much like golf. The ultimate objective is to reach the lowest score, which equates to the lowest possible level of sentencing. As I sat there in my best suit, I knew I was ultimately there for moral support for the attorney. I anticipated the arguments that day would follow the same flow as many I had seen before. Yes, he was a good man at his core, he had health issues and a business full of strife. Yet, the entire feeling of this sentencing hearing was anything other than what I had experienced in past cases. The case had been one of many in the court system that suffered delays due to the pandemic, but like all cases, it was time for this one to end. Did he commit the crime he was accused of? Yes, and he admitted so. What exactly was his crime? Simply put, he failed to pay his proper amount of taxes due, which came to a total that was just shy of $1,500,000. My norm in cases like this is that I am called to testify. That was not the case in this scenario. When it comes to financial crimes, more often than not, a forensic accountant is involved in order to unearth how vast the financial mismanagement and theft are. In tax cases, they call it uncovering the “tax loss”. After all, who is better than a forensic accountant to discover and calculate the amount of the tax loss? However, on a rare occasion, I am asked to attend the proceedings merely for moral support and to pat the attorney on the back. My role is to congratulate them on their well-thought-out argument, and their eloquence of delivery, which may reduce the sentence from 36 months to 34 and so on. I have seen all the playbooks. I have witnessed a wide range of reactions to sentences that are handed down. Rarely do I feel for the client, while almost always I feel sorry for the judge. Judges tend to hear the same old story when it comes to these white-collar crime cases, day after day, year over year, until they retire. At the end of the day, they do their best to administer justice. While this white-collar crime case was very much the same as I am sure the judge had heard far too many times in his career, what was different was the marked eloquence of the judge. At one point, I thought I was listening to Kevin Costner narrate Dancing with Wolves. The judge was clear and concise with his words, “Billy, you are a great man. You came to this country with $500 in your pocket. Over 40 years, you became a citizen, amassed $50 million dollars, gave extensively to charity, raised 4 outstanding children, and employed many. I have no doubt you will never do this again. Billy, why did you do it?” Billy looked up at the judge and said, “Sir, I don’t know.” The judge followed by saying, “Billy, many walk into this courtroom with far less. Having done much less. They will work their entire life paying for what they did and serve lengthy sentences. For me to grant you less than 15 months is not fair to those who have stood here before. I acknowledge you’re a good man, charitable, a loving husband, father and grandfather, a good boss, however, your sentence is Level 17, 15 months.” As he stood there taking in his sentence, he could only look back at his family. Most people become aware of their reality and impending future doom once they have arrived at sentencing day so a sentence is not a surprise, it is expected. As he turned to them, he realized they were sobbing profusely. Were they crying because Dad was going to jail? Sure. However, I think they were crying because they were disappointed in Dad. For Billy, that was the true cost and his true punishment. He still has money and most certainly will survive in jail, but what I don’t know is whether or not he will ever be able to erase the disappointment he now knows he caused his children and his family. While he may be released from his sentence after 15 months, he will likely carry a life sentence of regret. At that moment, Billy realized greed won, and it was now ensuring he would pay the ultimate price.