Knowing how to choose a legal videographer starts with learning exactly what they do and why their specific expertise is so important. Beyond film quality and formatting needs, legal videographers must understand legal proceeding protocols and follow workflows and systems that guarantee file security and compliance. Ultimately, choosing the right videography provider leads to evidence that holds up in court and risk avoidance for your firm. What Does a Legal Videographer Do? Videographers most often capture testimonies and depositions during the discovery phase of litigation. They can also be used at trial or engaged to record locations, machinery, event re-creations, and other useful videos for legal matters. Legal videography can take place in conference rooms, hotels, courtrooms, homes, or any number of locations. Capture Testimonies and Depositions on Video Deposition and testimony videos record nuances that significantly affect the believability and interpretation of an individual’s spoken words. While transcripts are essential to the legal system, they don’t convey the full experience of witness testimony, especially given the varying types of witnesses. Consider the difference between reading printed words vs. watching or hearing: Facial expressions that contradict or reinforce what is being said Fidgeting, tension, or body postures Tone and cadence changes Willingness or failure to make eye contact With a video, a judge, jury, and other viewers can more clearly: Assess truthfulness Absorb the emotion involved Receive the full impact of injuries or harm described Ensure Admissibility Through Professional Standards There are some critical rules to abide by for videos that may be introduced at trial. Video depositions, for example, must follow Rule 30, Depositions by Oral Examination, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This covers: 1 Video manipulation: The “deponent’s and attorneys’ appearance or demeanor must not be distorted through recording techniques,” which means no filters, creative filming techniques, or post-production manipulation to a straightforward video capture. Court reporter opening: A deposition video must begin with all required elements of the court reporter’s opening statement, including their name and business address; the deposition’s location, date, and start time; the deponent’s name and the administration of the oath or affirmation to them; and the identification and role of each person present. Court reporter closing: The videographer should continue uninterrupted filming through the court reporter’s closing, which includes the ending date and time, the custody and availability plans and stipulations of the video file, and any attorney or jurisdictional stipulations related to evidentiary exhibits, etc. Skilled legal videographers will display professionalism through these behaviors: Arrive early with the right equipment for the space Handle all technical details and video equipment Capture all pertinent filming unobtrusively, without affecting the proceedings Offer rapid turnaround and choice of file format Offer Postproduction Services In addition to a “raw” video of legal proceedings, there are several ways that video files may need to be further adapted or used. When you choose a legal videographer, ask whether they (or their agency) can provide post-production services, such as: Video encoding, transcoding, conversion, and archiving Synchronization of separately recorded audio and video Video editing Video clip creation Closed captioning services Synchronized video transcripts Picture in picture (PIP) technology Core Qualifications to Look for in a Legal Videographer Proven experience should be a top priority when securing legal videography. Additionally, there are several educational and professional markers to consider. In particular, look for: Certification There is no required federal, state, or local certification, licensing, or registration for legal videographers. However, certifications from professional associations can assure of competency through a combination of coursework, practical training, exams, and continuing education: 2,3 NCRA Certified Legal Video Specialist (CLVS) AGCV Certified Deposition Video Specialist (CDVS) AGCV Certified Evidentiary Video Specialist (CEVS) AGCV Certified Trial Technology Specialist (CTTS) Industry Experience Look for specific experience in legal videography—not simply the technical skills to handle the equipment. Legal videographers need to be familiar with regulations that govern their jurisdiction(s) and the unique goals and best practices of videos used in legal proceedings. In some states, legal videographers of depositions or other official proceedings must be authorized to administer an oath to allow the video into evidence. This means holding credentials such as those obtained by: Court reporters Notary publics Court clerks and deputy clerks Bailiffs Additionally, you may want to look for a legal videographer or agency that offers overlapping skills. A legal videographer who can also act as a trial presentation specialist or court reporter can land you a major efficiency bonus. Familiarity with Courtroom Procedures and Legal Protocols From adapting files for multi-platform use in hybrid trials to opting for best-practice equipment such as cardioid directional microphones, your videographer should understand the practical needs and requirements of the legal industry. These include: Set up to capture all relevant parties by both sound and sight The who, when, and where of courtroom access, scheduling, and connectivity Techniques to remain unobtrusive and avoid distracting the court A basic understanding of hearing, deposition, and trial sequences and protocols Technology and Equipment Considerations Legal videographers need to select optimal equipment and software, anticipating what they’ll rely on in different environments. This includes considering: Lighting, acoustic, and filming setup challenges Technology choices common to law firms and their conference rooms Built-in equipment in courthouses and courtrooms Best practices for capturing low-volume, multi-directional, multi-speaker audio Connectivity and power access workarounds Audio and Video Quality Standards for Legal Use The goal of legal videography isn’t a cinematic masterpiece, but a clear record that captures all sounds and sights as crisply and truly as possible. There may be jurisdictional or administrative requirements around file specs such as format and size, but the requisite qualities of filming under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and Federal Rule of Evidence 902 are 1,3 : No distortion of appearance or demeanor through recording techniques Proof of original, unmanipulated file including intact metadata Inclusion of all elements of the court reporter’s opening and closing statements Backup Systems and File Security Measures A file gone missing or into the wrong hands can lead to delays or liability risks. To that end, your videographer needs to understand and utilize systems and protocols that provide security and backup for your files. This includes: Redundant datacenters 24/7 network and security operations End-to-end encryption You can check on their security protocols by inquiring about independent audits and their adherence to the following: SOC 2 Type 2 security compliance NIST Cybersecurity Framework HIPAA compliance Legal and Ethical Compliance Requirements During a trial, video can serve critical functions and offer a make-or-break impact on case outcomes. Functionally, legal videos can be used: As leverage during settlement negotiations To support pretrial preparation and strategy In lieu of live testimony at court To impeach witnesses during a trial Understanding of Confidentiality and Chain of Custody The content of legal videos can impact lives, marriages, employment, and even pose wider business and political risks. This makes confidentiality essential for all stages of capturing, storing, transferring, and (refraining from) discussing videos. Even for videos destined to be shown at trial and become part of the public record, timing and certainty of that release can alter case outcomes, making confidentiality a must. To be useful as evidence, legal videos also need to have a watertight provenance. The original file must be protected, with intact metadata that displays provenance factors including 3 : Authorship Creation and modification time-stamps Digital signatures Compliance with Local Jurisdictional Rules The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence were mentioned above, but they aren’t used across the board. While most states have adopted them to a large degree, there are variances that may impact how videos are taken and what elements must be included or proven. Your legal videographer should understand the evidentiary guidelines for the specific jurisdiction to avoid having video discarded from your evidence lineup at trial. Final Thoughts: Choosing the Right Legal Videographer with Confidence Selecting the right legal videographer means understanding what questions to ask to ensure you’re not just getting someone with the right technical and creative skills. Find out the details of their experience, legal understanding, and security workflows to produce, protect, and deliver exactly what you need.

As attorneys, we are trained to anticipate risk and protect our clients from uncertainty. Yet many of us fail to apply that same diligence to our own practices. Succession planning is not just a professional courtesy—it’s a legal and ethical necessity. A Cautionary Tale The sudden death of a law firm’s founder or managing partner can trigger a cascade of problems—especially when no succession plan exists. One real-world example involved a 30-attorney firm with multiple offices in the Mid-Atlantic. After the unexpected passing of its managing partner, the firm unraveled within a year. Without a designated successor or leadership structure, attorneys began leaving, clients lost confidence, and operations ground to a halt. Eventually, the remaining lawyers voted to close the firm. Solo practitioners are particularly vulnerable. Many work until they pass away, leaving family members or colleagues to sort out the aftermath. In sole proprietorships, the firm legally ceases to exist upon the owner’s death. Without a plan, client matters may be left unresolved, and the firm’s assets are liquidated to pay debts. Even partnerships and LLCs can face dissolution or legal disputes if succession provisions are missing. Whether through internal leadership development, merger strategies, or buy-sell agreements, law firms must prepare for the unexpected. Succession planning isn’t just about continuity, it’s about protecting clients, staff, and the legacy of the firm. Ethical Duties Require More Than Good Intentions California attorneys are bound by fiduciary duties of competence, communication, loyalty, and confidentiality. These duties don’t end when we retire, become incapacitated, or pass away. If we fail to plan for the transition or closure of our practice, we risk breaching these obligations and exposing our clients to harm. The California Rules of Professional Conduct—particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), 1.15 (Safeguarding Client Property), and 1.17 (Sale of Law Practice)—set clear expectations for attorneys to act with diligence and care in managing their practices, even in transition. California’s Default Rules: Reactive and Risky If an attorney becomes incapacitated or dies without a succession plan, California law provides a framework—but it’s far from ideal. Under Business & Professions Code Sections 6180 and 6190, the Superior Court may assume jurisdiction over the law practice and appoint an attorney to wind it down. This process is designed to protect clients, but it can be slow, disruptive, and costly. The court-appointed attorney may not be familiar with the practice, the clients, or the systems in place. Without prior arrangements, even basic tasks—like accessing trust accounts, retrieving files, or notifying clients—can become complicated. Confidentiality concerns, malpractice risks, and administrative burdens often fall on grieving family members or unprepared colleagues. When There is No Plan If the court steps in, the appointed attorney or representative must: Secure the office, files, and trust accounts Notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel Review calendars for deadlines and court appearances Handle payroll, insurance, leases, and vendor contracts Reconcile trust accounts and finalize billing Safely destroy or return client files Notify the State Bar and other agencies of the closure This process can take months and may result in lost goodwill, client dissatisfaction, and even litigation. Proactive Planning: A Professional Imperative To avoid this scenario, I recommend the following steps: Designate a successor attorney: Choose someone you trust and formalize the arrangement in writing. This person should be prepared to step in immediately if needed. Create an emergency protocol: Include passwords, client lists, trust account details, and instructions for transferring or closing cases. Keep this updated and accessible. Consider selling or transferring your practice: If retirement or declining health is foreseeable, explore options for selling or transitioning your practice while you’re still able to oversee the process. Rule 1.17 governs the ethical sale of a law practice and requires client notification and consent. Communicate with clients and staff: Let them know you have a plan. This builds trust and ensures a smoother transition. Maintain insurance and records: Consider “tail” malpractice coverage and keep detailed records of client communications, billing, and file dispositions. Planning Is an Act of Compassion Succession planning is not just about protecting your business—it’s about protecting your clients, your colleagues, and your legacy. It’s a reflection of your professionalism and your compassion. 

Mark Cuban doesn’t mince words. When I asked him for advice for my law students at UConn Law School, his response was brutally simple: “Become intimate with all the LLMs. Learn what they can and can’t do. Same with agentic AI.” He’s right. And most lawyers are completely unprepared for what’s coming. The legal profession spent the last century perfecting human processes. We created elaborate systems for document review, legal research, contract drafting, and case management. We built pyramids of associates doing manual work that partners would review. We charged by the hour for tasks that should take minutes. Now Cuban points to the obvious truth: all those processes are dead weight. The firms that survive will be the ones that eliminate them entirely through automation. The Process Problem Is Killing Legal Practice Law firms are process factories. Junior associates spend 2,000 hours a year on document review. Partners waste days editing briefs that could be generated in seconds. Paralegals manage filing systems that should be automated. Clients pay $500 an hour for work that adds no real value. Cuban nails it: “So much of law is spent on processes.” These processes exist because we’ve always done them, not because they need to exist. They’re the legal equivalent of using horses when cars are available. Every hour spent on process is an hour stolen from actual legal thinking and strategy. The dirty secret is that most legal work isn’t legal work at all. It’s information processing, pattern matching, and document generation. These are exactly the tasks that LLMs excel at. A properly configured AI can review contracts faster than any human, spot issues more consistently, and generate first drafts that need minimal editing. Yet most firms still have associates doing this work manually, billing clients’ premium rates for commodity tasks. This isn’t just inefficient. It’s malpractice. When better tools exist and lawyers refuse to use them, they’re failing their duty to serve clients effectively. The profession’s resistance to automation isn’t principled; it’s protectionist. We’re protecting outdated business models at the expense of access to justice. Law Firms Are Having the Wrong Debate Here’s what kills me: Right now, law firm management committees are sitting in conference rooms debating whether to allow ChatGPT or which legal AI vendor to select. They’re comparing Cocounsel to Harvey to Lexis+ AI. They’re drafting policies about acceptable use. They’re forming committees to study the issue. They’re completely missing the plot. This isn’t a procurement decision. It’s not about picking the right product or crafting the perfect policy. It’s about fundamentally rewiring how lawyers think and work. While firms debate which walled garden to buy into, their competitors are teaching lawyers to be AI-native practitioners who can work with any tool that emerges. The vendors selling “legal-specific AI” are laughing all the way to the bank. They’re charging firms tens of thousands per month for what amounts to GPT-5 with a legal wrapper. These firms think they’re buying safety and specialization. What they’re actually buying is limitation and dependency. Meanwhile, lawyers who know how to work directly with Claude or GPT-5 are running circles around them, switching between models based on the task, combining tools for complex workflows. The real competitive advantage isn’t having the “right” AI tool. It’s having lawyers who understand AI deeply enough to use any tool effectively. The New Core Competency: AI Fluency Cuban’s advice cuts through the noise: become intimate with LLMs. Not familiar. Not competent. Intimate. This means understanding their capabilities at a granular level. Knowing when Claude outperforms GPT-5 for legal analysis. Understanding how to chain prompts for complex reasoning. Recognizing when an AI hallucinates versus when it surfaces genuine insights. Most lawyers treat AI like a search engine. They ask basic questions, get basic answers, and declare the technology overhyped. They’re using Formula One race cars to drive to the grocery store. The lawyers who will dominate the next decade are those who understand these tools deeply enough to push them to their limits. This isn’t about learning to code. It’s about learning to think in ways machines can execute. It means breaking complex legal problems into discrete, solvable components. It means understanding how to validate AI output and when to trust automated systems. It means knowing which tasks to delegate to machines and which require human judgment. The skill hierarchy in law is inverting. Technical excellence used to mean mastering case law and procedure. Now it means orchestrating AI systems to handle routine work while you focus on strategy and client relationships. The lawyers who can make machines do their bidding will outcompete those who can’t by orders of magnitude. It’s About Learning, Not Buying The firms getting this right aren’t shopping for solutions. They’re building learning cultures. They’re running prompt engineering workshops. They’re creating internal labs where lawyers experiment with different models. They’re rewarding lawyers who find new ways to automate routine tasks. One partner I know gave her entire team Claude and ChatGPT accounts and told them to break things. No policies, no restrictions, just pure experimentation. Within a month, they’d automated 40% of their document review process. Within three months, they were generating first drafts of briefs that needed minimal editing. They didn’t buy a legal AI product. They learned how to think with machines. This is what Cuban means by becoming “intimate” with LLMs. It’s not about mastering a single tool. It’s about developing an intuition for how these systems think, what they can do, and how to push them beyond their obvious applications. It’s about learning the meta-skill of AI collaboration. The firms still debating policies are already obsolete. While they worry about risk and compliance, their clients are using ChatGPT themselves and wondering why they’re paying lawyers to do work that machines can handle. The market won’t wait for the legal profession to get comfortable with AI. It will simply route around firms that refuse to adapt. Building the Future Means Destroying the Present Cuban’s most provocative point is his call to “invent new approaches.” He’s not talking about incremental improvement. He’s talking about burning down existing models and building something fundamentally different. Consider legal research. The traditional approach involves hours in databases, reading cases, synthesizing holdings. The AI approach? Feed a well-crafted prompt to Claude or GPT-5, get a comprehensive analysis in seconds, then spend your time validating and refining. The entire research process collapses from days to hours. Or take contract drafting. Instead of starting from templates and manually customizing clauses, AI-fluent lawyers generate entire agreements from natural language specifications. They iterate through versions in real-time during negotiations. What took weeks now takes hours. These aren’t efficiency gains. They’re paradigm shifts. And they’re happening whether the legal establishment likes it or not. The firms clinging to traditional processes will be decimated by competitors who embrace automation. The choice isn’t whether to adopt AI but whether to lead or follow. The Path Forward Is Clear Cuban’s advice is a roadmap, but most firms are treating it like a shopping list. Stop looking for the perfect AI product. Start building AI-native lawyers. First, master the tools. Not a tool. The tools. Spend serious time with Claude, GPT-5, Gemini, and emerging platforms. Learn their strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. Understand how to prompt effectively, validate outputs, and chain operations for complex tasks. Make this part of professional development, not a side project. Second, create learning environments. Give lawyers time and space to experiment. Reward failure and breakthrough equally. Share discoveries across teams. Build internal knowledge bases of effective prompts and workflows. Make AI fluency as important as legal knowledge in performance reviews. Third, identify processes to eliminate. Every manual task in your practice is a target for automation. Document review, legal research, contract analysis, brief writing, client communications. Map these processes, then systematically replace them with AI workflows. Fourth, invent new service models. When routine work takes minutes instead of hours, billing structures must change. Value-based pricing, subscription models, and outcome-based fees will replace the billable hour. Firms that figure this out first will capture massive market share. The legal profession stands at an inflection point. Cuban sees it clearly: the future belongs to those who can command machines to do their bidding. The rest will be left behind, clinging to processes that no longer need to exist, charging for work that machines do better. The lawyers who get it: They’re not learning to be traditional lawyers. They’re learning to be legal engineers, process eliminators, and AI orchestrators. They’re not asking which legal AI product to use. They’re learning to use them all, to think with machines, to see possibilities where others see threats. They’re following Cuban’s advice to the letter. The question for practicing lawyers is simple: Will you join them, or will you be replaced by them? Cuban has shown you the path. Stop shopping for solutions and start learning. The only thing left is to walk it. 

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every activity under the heaven.” Many cases can benefit from early mediation. Parties often reject the notion of early mediation because they believe they need more information to resolve the dispute. In some cases, more information is necessary. In other cases, however, parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and are willing to exchange in connection with the mediation—and meaningfully value the case without further litigation. Benefits of Early Mediation It can set the tone. Early mediation can help set a productive tone for the litigation. Early in my career, a senior attorney instructed me never to bring up settlement with the other side, believing it would be taken as a sign of weakness. When I later became responsible for cases, I began to raise settlement options early, expressing this premise: “We are on two parallel tracks, one to settle the case, one to try it.” And I proposed not letting one interfere with the other. It lets you learn about the case. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants, busy litigation counsel tend to advance their preparation of a case for the next deadline. In some firms, lead counsel may rely upon others initially to analyze and prepare a case. In these instances, early mediation can be a catalyst to prompt a more comprehensive and candid consideration of a party’s claims or defenses. Exchanged briefs may clarify or provide additional information about the other side’s position. And early mediation offers an opportunity to learn about the opposing party and their counsel. It gives you a chance to settle the case. The benefits of an early resolution can be significant. Of course, ongoing litigation efforts cease and resources are preserved. Removing the stress (or at least the distraction) of a case allows parties to move on and turn their attention to other matters. An early mediation provides a forum for parties with intensely personal connections to a dispute to “have their day in court” sooner rather than later. For a defendant, risk becomes certain. And for a plaintiff, funds become available immediately. It provides information. Without settlement, one primary value of early mediation is information—about both the other side’s case and yours. Early mediation is an opportunity to develop your narrative and analyze how it will play out with a competing narrative. It requires a focus on damages and clarity about the range of potential recovery or risk. It may prompt you to revisit your expectations about case outcome (and thus case value)—whether because of new information or perhaps a mediator’s reaction to your case. When you properly prepare, early mediation should prompt parties and their counsel to consider litigation objectives—both in terms of what a litigant wants from the case and the associated costs (whether personal or financial). For a party funding their own legal expenses, a litigation budget delivered in advance of mediation will allow the party and their counsel to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of further litigation. Finally, early mediation—when approached with transparency, with reciprocity and in good faith—can create a path forward to revisit settlement as the litigation progresses. Downsides of Early Mediation It can be frustrating. A mediation that does not result in settlement often results in frustration or annoyance, usually directed at the other side: “This was just a waste of time and money.” “They just wanted free discovery.” “They didn’t come here in good faith.” Some frustration when early mediation leaves the parties far apart is certainly understandable. But a disappointing outcome does not negate the value of early mediation, especially when counsel work together to ensure the process is designed to be productive. It can be counterproductive. An early mediation can be proposed to send a message. It may be a defendant who wants to make sure the plaintiff personally understands the strength of the defense—not just plaintiff’s counsel. It may be a plaintiff who wants the defendant and their insurer to know the demand exceeds the deductible or self-insured retention. Or it may be a party that wants to show their resolve, perhaps refusing to negotiate or moving very little, and letting the other side know they intend to try the case in order to obtain a better settlement. In my experience, these tactics rarely have the intended effect; they instead just prolong the process of getting parties back to the table to focus on a reasonable settlement value. What Kinds of Cases Might Be Suited To Early Mediation? Those involving ongoing relationships. Early mediation can be crucial where preserving business or family relationships is a priority, despite the dispute. It can also be helpful to preserve a business operation or other asset that provides resources to parties, despite their conflict. Those involving pre-filing mediation requirements. Some contracts, such as real property leases or purchases, often include a pre-filing mediation requirement. Failing to fulfill a mediation requirement before heading to court can strip a party of the right to recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail. In other instances, breaching this contractual obligation can result in a motion to dismiss or stay pending mediation. Those for which early case valuation is possible. Early mediation is a good option in any case where the parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and can obtain by right or in connection with the mediation. For instance, For early mediation in an intellectual property case, the defendant typically discloses revenue and units sold for accused products, together with financial statements covering the relevant period. For early mediation in a class or representative wage and hour case, the parties usually work from a common dataset covering the relevant period of time, including the number of current and former employees involved, the total number of workweeks (in a class action) or total number of wage statements (in a PAGA case) and where relevant company policies, samples of time records or wage statements, and time clock data. Could early mediation be effective for your case? Consider the following questions: What do you know about the potential recovery or risk in the case? What more would you like to know about the case to more confidently or accurately assess its value? Is the information available by right (e.g., Cal. Labor Code, 1198.5; Cal. Corp. Code, § 1601) or in a voluntary pre-mediation exchange between the parties? If not, what sources of information exist besides formal discovery or expert opinions? What range of uncertainty exists without that information? Can you meaningfully assess the case’s value by analyzing that range of uncertainty instead of waiting for certainty? Do you know enough about the case to explain your position, with at least some degree of detail, in an exchanged brief? Balanced against the cost of litigation, both personal and financial, clients and their lawyers should make sure they are not overlooking an opportunity to mediate early.

Monitoring and analyzing what people with big followings post on LinkedIn can elevate your LinkedIn game. Receiving notifications when certain people post on LinkedIn has changed the way I create content on the platform for the better, and can likely help you do the same.(You can activate this feature by clicking the yellow bell on the upper right-hand corner of someone’s profile.) Those “certain people” I’m referring to are regular people with relatively large LinkedIn followings. They’re not celebrities, business leaders, or other A-listers. I’m talking about people with generally between 7,500 and 20,000 followers. I want to see what they’re posting, when they post, how often they post, and how their posts do so that I can improve the quality of my posts and their reach. Remember, LinkedIn’s algorithm doesn’t serve every one of your posts to every one of your connections or followers. So, to see every post someone publishes, you’ll need to click the yellow bell on their profile so you’ll know when they’ve posted something. Here are the four ways that tracking these people’s posts has helped me improve my LinkedIn content game—and could help you improve yours. The Opportunity To Reverse Engineer By seeing what these people say each time they post, I can try to reverse-engineer their content. For their posts that received a fair amount of engagement, I can try to uncover what they did that seemed to win people over and got them to like, comment on, or share the post. On the other hand, for their posts that underperformed, I can try to identify what went wrong. Why didn’t these posts connect with their audience? Are there changes they could have made to a post that might have improved its performance? Substantive Inspiration Reviewing these individuals’ posts gives me inspiration for my posts from a substantive perspective. If there are topics that tend to perform well in their posts that I feel comfortable discussing, I can work those topics into my posts. By getting notified whenever they post, I can see the full range of topics they cover in their posts. Do they often talk about themselves, such as discussing successes, failures, their family life, etc.? Do they frequently discuss best practices related to their work? Do they often talk about current events, pop culture, or other similarly timely topics? Structural Inspiration Aside from substance, reviewing these people’s posts gives me inspiration for my posts from a structural perspective. Do they often write text-only posts? Do they ever post videos? Are they posting carousels? When they post photos, do they post cringe glamour selfies? Are they posting photos of their kids? I’d also consider the “when” and the frequency of their posts to fall into this category. Do they tend to post at the same time every day? What time is that? How frequently do they post? Do they post more than once a day? Though I don’t do this personally, you could keep detailed statistics regarding the post types and times of the people whose posts you’re tracking and deduce, or use AI to help you deduce, patterns in their post type, time, and frequency. The Knowledge That Not Every Post Is Going To Be A Winner Perhaps most importantly, reviewing these individuals’ posts lets me see that not every post they produce is a home run. Their large following does not guarantee a ton of likes, comments, and shares on each of their posts. Yes, even people with large followings publish duds. It’s also a good reminder that you only tend to see people’s best posts because of LinkedIn’s algorithm. The algorithm tends to serve up posts that receive a fair amount of interactions soon after they were published. Thus, we rarely see posts that fall flat. But when you or I choose to be notified about someone’s posts, we get to see those duds. We see that everyone, including people with large followings, struggles to consistently produce top-notch and/or viral LinkedIn content. This makes me feel better—and may also make you feel better. These people are only humans. They don’t have a cheat code for LinkedIn success. Yet, they’ve grown their social media followings, and you and I can too. Review Posts, Improve Your LinkedIn Game The one wrinkle here is that you’ll need to set aside time to analyze the posts you’re tracking. That’s a good reason to limit the number of people you choose to receive notifications about. This way, you can keep the number of posts you need to review to a manageable number. I’ve been reviewing posts daily, but a weekly review could also work, provided you have some time on a weekend to devote to reviewing these posts. When you analyze these posts, actually analyze them. Take notes. Reverse engineer them. See what lessons you can learn from them. And, see if you can draw inspiration from the substance and structure of the posts. You could experiment with running the posts through AI and seeing if it can find patterns or themes. However, you’ll need to devote time to actually reading and reflecting on these posts. If you breeze through them when working your way through notifications and don’t think more about them, you’re not going to get value from this exercise. But if you thoughtfully analyze these posts and learn something from them, there’s a good chance those lessons will help you produce better content on LinkedIn. At the very least, you’ll walk away feeling better that even people with large LinkedIn followings do not always hit every post out of the park.